|
FYI: You can still make hellbats without the upgrade, you just can't transform in and out of them until you get the upgrade. |
On February 27 2013 22:46 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
I think "blocking some units with stuff" is more a TACTIC ("implementation of a specific mission") and not a STRATEGY (long term goal). The strategy would be to "defend until I have the superawesome army and then win" or "to win with air attacks" while the tactic is the unit-wise implementation on the battlefield. Just read the wiki entrys to check their definitions ... maybe you agree with me. Sadly Strategy plays a far less important role than tactics do in SC2 ... at least in my opinion. This is the case because there are too many units involved in each battle and the economics of the game make reproducing your units almost more important than being able to use them well. If the game was about strategy it would involve a lot of units which have seen many battles and defensive positions which are hard to crack, but that isnt the case.
Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct, a strategy game is only as entertaining as the tactics available. Personally I define tactics as the mechanical implementation of strategy.
Strategy → Operational objective → Tactic → Task. (source)
I use tactics to help bridge the understanding that units are designed a certain way to perform a certain task, their level of skill and ability thus affects the strategic considerations. Had I used strategy to define SC2 and similarity with Chess, I am quite sure it would have been way over their head (the whiners).
As for that, read Sun Tzu's Art of War, he defines War beyond war, including times of peace and the balance of power between states. This includes a kingdom's economy, resources and bureaucracy/politics in addition to its war machinery and personnel. I am opposite, I consider SC2 a far richer strategy game BECAUSE it factors economics and supply lines (moving units from hive/factory/prism to frontlines).
|
In this tactic/strategy talk => BW was more tactic based than SC2 while SC2 is more strategy based than BW
In SC2 if you bring marauders to a stalker fight--you're pretty much going to win the fight while the stalker player will have to find new uses for the stalkers outside of direct engagements.
In BW, due to unit glitching, control limitations, etc... If you brought stalkers to a marauder fight you could still win through better micro.
That's not to say that BW has no strat and SC2 has no tactics. It's just a different interface. BW was more strategically forgiving, SC2 is mor tactically forgiving.
|
On February 27 2013 23:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In this tactic/strategy talk => BW was more tactic based than SC2 while SC2 is more strategy based than BW
In SC2 if you bring marauders to a stalker fight--you're pretty much going to win the fight while the stalker player will have to find new uses for the stalkers outside of direct engagements.
In BW, due to unit glitching, control limitations, etc... If you brought stalkers to a marauder fight you could still win through better micro.
That's not to say that BW has no strat and SC2 has no tactics. It's just a different interface. BW was more strategically forgiving, SC2 is mor tactically forgiving.
Sometimes I wish stalkers felt the need to avoid the bridge and take the scenic route past the siege tanks in order to shoot the marauder.
|
On February 28 2013 00:03 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 23:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In this tactic/strategy talk => BW was more tactic based than SC2 while SC2 is more strategy based than BW
In SC2 if you bring marauders to a stalker fight--you're pretty much going to win the fight while the stalker player will have to find new uses for the stalkers outside of direct engagements.
In BW, due to unit glitching, control limitations, etc... If you brought stalkers to a marauder fight you could still win through better micro.
That's not to say that BW has no strat and SC2 has no tactics. It's just a different interface. BW was more strategically forgiving, SC2 is mor tactically forgiving. Sometimes I wish stalkers felt the need to avoid the bridge and take the scenic route past the siege tanks in order to shoot the marauder.
That's actually what I mean by tactically forgiving 
If you ran hellions into stalkers your hellions just die, but since goons kind of collide with each other and move crazy, vultures would have openings to move in, drop mines/pop shots and run off. Marines randomly walked away from the group and would get sniped by a pack of mutalisks, siege tanks would randomly decide to focus all their fire on one zealot leaving the rest of the army untouched, etc....
The AI in BW would act dumb and players would feel gosu exploiting it. Its just a different system with different priorities.
|
United Kingdom12021 Posts
On February 28 2013 00:03 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 23:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
In this tactic/strategy talk => BW was more tactic based than SC2 while SC2 is more strategy based than BW
In SC2 if you bring marauders to a stalker fight--you're pretty much going to win the fight while the stalker player will have to find new uses for the stalkers outside of direct engagements.
In BW, due to unit glitching, control limitations, etc... If you brought stalkers to a marauder fight you could still win through better micro.
That's not to say that BW has no strat and SC2 has no tactics. It's just a different interface. BW was more strategically forgiving, SC2 is mor tactically forgiving. Sometimes I wish stalkers felt the need to avoid the bridge and take the scenic route past the siege tanks in order to shoot the marauder.
I always remember loving TvP on Match Point because Dragoons could just not deal with the small ramps outside the naturals. It was great to siege down there and just watch the carnage. It wasn't even from you attacking, it was just the poor innocent dragoons trying to get down a ramp.
|
On February 27 2013 23:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 22:46 Rabiator wrote:On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
I think "blocking some units with stuff" is more a TACTIC ("implementation of a specific mission") and not a STRATEGY (long term goal). The strategy would be to "defend until I have the superawesome army and then win" or "to win with air attacks" while the tactic is the unit-wise implementation on the battlefield. Just read the wiki entrys to check their definitions ... maybe you agree with me. Sadly Strategy plays a far less important role than tactics do in SC2 ... at least in my opinion. This is the case because there are too many units involved in each battle and the economics of the game make reproducing your units almost more important than being able to use them well. If the game was about strategy it would involve a lot of units which have seen many battles and defensive positions which are hard to crack, but that isnt the case. Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct, a strategy game is only as entertaining as the tactics available. Personally I define tactics as the mechanical implementation of strategy. Strategy → Operational objective → Tactic → Task. (source)
I agree with your definition, but here is the twist: Since Starcraft is *supposed to be* a STRATEGY game it should be far less about tactics and mechanics (and economics) than it is atm. For a huge part SC2 is about the gathering of resources and building a huge reproduction capability to finally overwhelm your opponent with - more or less - endlessly replaced units.
Either this or the category of "Strategy game" is wrong. You only think / adjust your strategy few times while permanently thinking about unit engagements and unit production, so its easily more about economics and tactics than it is about strategy. Personally I have thought for quite some time that SC2 is more about real-time-action than it is about real-time-strategy and we simply need to accept that fact. No biggie.
----
Since you had to "fight the UI and movement" in Brood War and the game didnt have any turbo boosts for production and economy it was still a strategy game in my opinion. You simply had far fewer units all the time and cared more about the individual ones. Thus choosing the right strategy (i.e. the way in which to overcome the enemy) was more important than simply overwhelming the enemy by sheer numbers. Sure overwhelming numbers could happen, but due to the mechanics you could still come back from most disadvantaged positions.
|
On February 27 2013 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top. Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed. Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe.
That they both share the same form of attack cannot be compared? You can try to find differences where there are none if you which I guess. HF.
|
On February 28 2013 02:25 nyshak wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top. Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed. Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe. That they both share the same form of attack cannot be compared? You can try to find differences where there are none if you which I guess. HF.
Beefy short range unit with high hits per attack. Has high hitpoints but very immobile with higher tier tech helping. Sounds like a roach to me.
Oh wait? Unless you're talking about the animation.... which has nothing to do with design.
|
On February 28 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 02:25 nyshak wrote:On February 27 2013 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top. Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed. Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe. That they both share the same form of attack cannot be compared? You can try to find differences where there are none if you which I guess. HF. Beefy short range unit with high hits per attack. Has high hitpoints but very immobile with higher tier tech helping. Sounds like a roach to me. Oh wait? Unless you're talking about the animation.... which has nothing to do with design.
The roach does not have an AOE attack.
|
On March 01 2013 04:58 nyshak wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 28 2013 02:25 nyshak wrote:On February 27 2013 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top. Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed. Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe. That they both share the same form of attack cannot be compared? You can try to find differences where there are none if you which I guess. HF. Beefy short range unit with high hits per attack. Has high hitpoints but very immobile with higher tier tech helping. Sounds like a roach to me. Oh wait? Unless you're talking about the animation.... which has nothing to do with design. The roach does not have an AOE attack.
Firebats don't have a sturdy body => highly relevant for a melee unit
Hellbats don't have stim => highly relevant since its both a DPS and Speed boost
A medivac + roaches will act much more similar to medivac + hellbats compared to Medivac + Firebats.
Stop only looking at graphics when you want to talk about design.
|
On March 01 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 04:58 nyshak wrote:On February 28 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 28 2013 02:25 nyshak wrote:On February 27 2013 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top. Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed. Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe. That they both share the same form of attack cannot be compared? You can try to find differences where there are none if you which I guess. HF. Beefy short range unit with high hits per attack. Has high hitpoints but very immobile with higher tier tech helping. Sounds like a roach to me. Oh wait? Unless you're talking about the animation.... which has nothing to do with design. The roach does not have an AOE attack. Firebats don't have a sturdy body => highly relevant for a melee unit Hellbats don't have stim => highly relevant since its both a DPS and Speed boost A medivac + roaches will act much more similar to medivac + hellbats compared to Medivac + Firebats. Stop only looking at graphics when you want to talk about design.
AOE is not about graphics. Single Target Damage, AOE, DoT etc. are at the core of unit design. Stimpack is an upgrade - not the core of the design of the units that can use it. The lurker / swarm host is about a unit that can only be fought with detection and not engaged (efficiently) without it, but yes the graphics differ. You're right on that one. It's beside the point though.
|
On March 01 2013 06:38 nyshak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 01 2013 04:58 nyshak wrote:On February 28 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 28 2013 02:25 nyshak wrote:On February 27 2013 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top. Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed. Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe. That they both share the same form of attack cannot be compared? You can try to find differences where there are none if you which I guess. HF. Beefy short range unit with high hits per attack. Has high hitpoints but very immobile with higher tier tech helping. Sounds like a roach to me. Oh wait? Unless you're talking about the animation.... which has nothing to do with design. The roach does not have an AOE attack. Firebats don't have a sturdy body => highly relevant for a melee unit Hellbats don't have stim => highly relevant since its both a DPS and Speed boost A medivac + roaches will act much more similar to medivac + hellbats compared to Medivac + Firebats. Stop only looking at graphics when you want to talk about design. AOE is not about graphics. Single Target Damage, AOE, DoT etc. are at the core of unit design. Stimpack is an upgrade - not the core of the design of the units that can use it. The lurker / swarm host is about a unit that can only be fought with detection and not engaged (efficiently) without it, but yes the graphics differ. You're right on that one. It's beside the point though.
Here's what you don't seem to understand.
Hellbats have similar DPS and similar health to a roach. For less speed, no burrow movement, and 50% range nerf, it gets AoE. However, in the end, they do about the same thing.
Firebat AoE only was relevant against Zerglings and *maybe* zealots--but usually it wasn't really relevant there either. So trying to say Firebats and Hellbats are similar because Firebats are an AoE source is very very childish.
Lurkers burrow and need scans. Just like baneling landmines, infestor harass, burrow move roaches, etc...
What made the lurker strong was its dynamic when mixed with Hydralisks/Overlords (to snipe observers) or Defiler/Zergling (to defend against pushes) Without those dynamics, a lurker is just a blueflame hellion with cloak.
The Swarm Host is long range seige unit that (much like the siege tank) is useless in small numbers (the opposite of the Lurker). It's more akin to a siege tank that trades aoe for double the range + burrow.
If you're willing to say SH = Lurker because they burrow, then Infestor = Lurker because they burrow.
|
On February 28 2013 02:07 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 23:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On February 27 2013 22:46 Rabiator wrote:On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
I think "blocking some units with stuff" is more a TACTIC ("implementation of a specific mission") and not a STRATEGY (long term goal). The strategy would be to "defend until I have the superawesome army and then win" or "to win with air attacks" while the tactic is the unit-wise implementation on the battlefield. Just read the wiki entrys to check their definitions ... maybe you agree with me. Sadly Strategy plays a far less important role than tactics do in SC2 ... at least in my opinion. This is the case because there are too many units involved in each battle and the economics of the game make reproducing your units almost more important than being able to use them well. If the game was about strategy it would involve a lot of units which have seen many battles and defensive positions which are hard to crack, but that isnt the case. Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct, a strategy game is only as entertaining as the tactics available. Personally I define tactics as the mechanical implementation of strategy. Strategy → Operational objective → Tactic → Task. (source) I agree with your definition, but here is the twist: Since Starcraft is *supposed to be* a STRATEGY game it should be far less about tactics and mechanics (and economics) than it is atm. For a huge part SC2 is about the gathering of resources and building a huge reproduction capability to finally overwhelm your opponent with - more or less - endlessly replaced units. Either this or the category of "Strategy game" is wrong. You only think / adjust your strategy few times while permanently thinking about unit engagements and unit production, so its easily more about economics and tactics than it is about strategy. Personally I have thought for quite some time that SC2 is more about real-time-action than it is about real-time-strategy and we simply need to accept that fact. No biggie. ---- Since you had to "fight the UI and movement" in Brood War and the game didnt have any turbo boosts for production and economy it was still a strategy game in my opinion. You simply had far fewer units all the time and cared more about the individual ones. Thus choosing the right strategy (i.e. the way in which to overcome the enemy) was more important than simply overwhelming the enemy by sheer numbers. Sure overwhelming numbers could happen, but due to the mechanics you could still come back from most disadvantaged positions.
How can you whine about SC2's needing to be far less "about tactics and mechanics" than it currently is (and thus by implication not being strategical enough according to you) but then praise BW for its strategical aspects when that game is the most mechanically demanding game in existence? BW's mechanical challenges were so significant that you literally had no hope of beating a KESPA pro unless you were on a Korean team practicing along with them 12 hours a day. That's obviously not the case with SC2. There were also far fewer viable builds in BW than there are in SC2. There are fewer useless units in SC2 than there are in BW, etc. All of this leads to more choices in SC2 and more choices increases the chances for strategy, rather than mechanics, to influence the game, which is why someone like Nestea could have all of the success he's had in SC2.
To this point, I've followed most of your HoTS posts with what I'd call "confused amusement", but I do have to ask -- were you fired by Blizzard at some point? Did David Kim diss your mom?
|
Hellbats have similar DPS and similar health to a roach. For less speed, no burrow movement, and 50% range nerf, it gets AoE. However, in the end, they do about the same thing.
Many units share the same or similar numbers. As do the Hellbat and the Firebat from BW. On top of that they even share the same attack type. Yet you somehow dismiss the notion of them being similar. That's pretty childish.
Firebat AoE only was relevant against Zerglings and *maybe* zealots--but usually it wasn't really relevant there either. So trying to say Firebats and Hellbats are similar because Firebats are an AoE source is very very childish.
No it's not. Dismissing it is though. Design =/= how a unit will be used. When I say design I look at attack types, flying vs. ground, cloak vs. no cloak etc. Yes, some units will end up being used like they were meant to be and than everyone says this is "by design". If 2 units end up being used for different things does not necessarily mean their design is fundamentally different.
In this case however: Firebats did kill zerglings. As do Hellbats now. In fact, even trying to engage Hellbats with zerglings is suicide in most cases. They share the same core design. Blizzard just decided to not implement this "new" unit as a seperate unit. Instead they added it as a new form for the hellion. Which again, once the transformation is complete serves the same purpose. I don't know how I can explain this better. If you can't see that we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
On March 01 2013 07:32 nyshak wrote:Show nested quote +
Hellbats have similar DPS and similar health to a roach. For less speed, no burrow movement, and 50% range nerf, it gets AoE. However, in the end, they do about the same thing.
Many units share the same or similar numbers. As do the Hellbat and the Firebat from BW. On top of that they even share the same attack type. Yet you somehow dismiss the notion of them being similar. That's pretty childish. Show nested quote +
Firebat AoE only was relevant against Zerglings and *maybe* zealots--but usually it wasn't really relevant there either. So trying to say Firebats and Hellbats are similar because Firebats are an AoE source is very very childish.
No it's not. Dismissing it is though. Design =/= how a unit will be used. When I say design I look at attack types, flying vs. ground, cloak vs. no cloak etc. Yes, some units will end up being used like they were meant to be and than everyone says this is "by design". If 2 units end up being used for different things does not necessarily mean their design is fundamentally different. In this case however: Firebats did kill zerglings. As do Hellbats now. In fact, even trying to engage Hellbats with zerglings is suicide in most cases. They share the same core design. Blizzard just decided to not implement this "new" unit as a seperate unit. Instead they added it as a new form for the hellion. Which again, once the transformation is complete serves the same purpose. I don't know how I can explain this better. If you can't see that we'll just have to agree to disagree.
The firebat has 50 hp and deals 16 concussive damage
In SC2 terms that means it has less hp than a marine and deals the less damage than a reaper except its slow, short ranged, and costs almost as much as a reaper.
The Hellbat has 125% additional hitpoints and deals 200% more damage than the firebat.
They're not even remotely similar in design. Firebat damage is the concussive version of the Zealot damage and his hitpoint range is similar to the marine. Its splash radius was so aweful that only zerglings actually cared about the splash damage. So no, Hellbats and Firebats are nothing at all alike other than their animation.
|
On March 01 2013 07:32 nyshak wrote:Show nested quote +
Hellbats have similar DPS and similar health to a roach. For less speed, no burrow movement, and 50% range nerf, it gets AoE. However, in the end, they do about the same thing.
Many units share the same or similar numbers. As do the Hellbat and the Firebat from BW. On top of that they even share the same attack type. Yet you somehow dismiss the notion of them being similar. That's pretty childish. Show nested quote +
Firebat AoE only was relevant against Zerglings and *maybe* zealots--but usually it wasn't really relevant there either. So trying to say Firebats and Hellbats are similar because Firebats are an AoE source is very very childish.
No it's not. Dismissing it is though. Design =/= how a unit will be used. When I say design I look at attack types, flying vs. ground, cloak vs. no cloak etc. Yes, some units will end up being used like they were meant to be and than everyone says this is "by design". If 2 units end up being used for different things does not necessarily mean their design is fundamentally different. In this case however: Firebats did kill zerglings. As do Hellbats now. In fact, even trying to engage Hellbats with zerglings is suicide in most cases. They share the same core design. Blizzard just decided to not implement this "new" unit as a seperate unit. Instead they added it as a new form for the hellion. Which again, once the transformation is complete serves the same purpose. I don't know how I can explain this better. If you can't see that we'll just have to agree to disagree.
By these standards then Mutalisks and Scouts are the same design.
|
On March 01 2013 06:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 06:38 nyshak wrote:On March 01 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 01 2013 04:58 nyshak wrote:On February 28 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 28 2013 02:25 nyshak wrote:On February 27 2013 09:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top. Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed. Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe. That they both share the same form of attack cannot be compared? You can try to find differences where there are none if you which I guess. HF. Beefy short range unit with high hits per attack. Has high hitpoints but very immobile with higher tier tech helping. Sounds like a roach to me. Oh wait? Unless you're talking about the animation.... which has nothing to do with design. The roach does not have an AOE attack. Firebats don't have a sturdy body => highly relevant for a melee unit Hellbats don't have stim => highly relevant since its both a DPS and Speed boost A medivac + roaches will act much more similar to medivac + hellbats compared to Medivac + Firebats. Stop only looking at graphics when you want to talk about design. AOE is not about graphics. Single Target Damage, AOE, DoT etc. are at the core of unit design. Stimpack is an upgrade - not the core of the design of the units that can use it. The lurker / swarm host is about a unit that can only be fought with detection and not engaged (efficiently) without it, but yes the graphics differ. You're right on that one. It's beside the point though. Here's what you don't seem to understand. Hellbats have similar DPS and similar health to a roach. For less speed, no burrow movement, and 50% range nerf, it gets AoE. However, in the end, they do about the same thing. Firebat AoE only was relevant against Zerglings and *maybe* zealots--but usually it wasn't really relevant there either. So trying to say Firebats and Hellbats are similar because Firebats are an AoE source is very very childish. Lurkers burrow and need scans. Just like baneling landmines, infestor harass, burrow move roaches, etc... What made the lurker strong was its dynamic when mixed with Hydralisks/Overlords (to snipe observers) or Defiler/Zergling (to defend against pushes) Without those dynamics, a lurker is just a blueflame hellion with cloak. The Swarm Host is long range seige unit that (much like the siege tank) is useless in small numbers (the opposite of the Lurker). It's more akin to a siege tank that trades aoe for double the range + burrow. If you're willing to say SH = Lurker because they burrow, then Infestor = Lurker because they burrow.
While I agree with most of what you say, I think your stance on the Swarm Host is only half accurate. For me the main relation between Swarm Host and Lurker is the way they mix with hydra/overseer or queen/oveseer or corrupter/overseer. This makes swarm host play feel very similar to BW lurker with relation to getting in position and sniping observers in ZvP. Yes you need more SH than you did Lurkers for these compositions to work, but the feel is quite similar. When using them in this way you also generally have them much closer to your opponents than you would when utilising them for a more seige style because you need each wave in the action asap to maintain the pressure.
|
On March 01 2013 07:16 The_Darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 02:07 Rabiator wrote:On February 27 2013 23:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On February 27 2013 22:46 Rabiator wrote:On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
I think "blocking some units with stuff" is more a TACTIC ("implementation of a specific mission") and not a STRATEGY (long term goal). The strategy would be to "defend until I have the superawesome army and then win" or "to win with air attacks" while the tactic is the unit-wise implementation on the battlefield. Just read the wiki entrys to check their definitions ... maybe you agree with me. Sadly Strategy plays a far less important role than tactics do in SC2 ... at least in my opinion. This is the case because there are too many units involved in each battle and the economics of the game make reproducing your units almost more important than being able to use them well. If the game was about strategy it would involve a lot of units which have seen many battles and defensive positions which are hard to crack, but that isnt the case. Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct, a strategy game is only as entertaining as the tactics available. Personally I define tactics as the mechanical implementation of strategy. Strategy → Operational objective → Tactic → Task. (source) I agree with your definition, but here is the twist: Since Starcraft is *supposed to be* a STRATEGY game it should be far less about tactics and mechanics (and economics) than it is atm. For a huge part SC2 is about the gathering of resources and building a huge reproduction capability to finally overwhelm your opponent with - more or less - endlessly replaced units. Either this or the category of "Strategy game" is wrong. You only think / adjust your strategy few times while permanently thinking about unit engagements and unit production, so its easily more about economics and tactics than it is about strategy. Personally I have thought for quite some time that SC2 is more about real-time-action than it is about real-time-strategy and we simply need to accept that fact. No biggie. ---- Since you had to "fight the UI and movement" in Brood War and the game didnt have any turbo boosts for production and economy it was still a strategy game in my opinion. You simply had far fewer units all the time and cared more about the individual ones. Thus choosing the right strategy (i.e. the way in which to overcome the enemy) was more important than simply overwhelming the enemy by sheer numbers. Sure overwhelming numbers could happen, but due to the mechanics you could still come back from most disadvantaged positions. How can you whine about SC2's needing to be far less "about tactics and mechanics" than it currently is (and thus by implication not being strategical enough according to you) but then praise BW for its strategical aspects when that game is the most mechanically demanding game in existence? BW's mechanical challenges were so significant that you literally had no hope of beating a KESPA pro unless you were on a Korean team practicing along with them 12 hours a day. That's obviously not the case with SC2. There were also far fewer viable builds in BW than there are in SC2. There are fewer useless units in SC2 than there are in BW, etc. All of this leads to more choices in SC2 and more choices increases the chances for strategy, rather than mechanics, to influence the game, which is why someone like Nestea could have all of the success he's had in SC2. To this point, I've followed most of your HoTS posts with what I'd call "confused amusement", but I do have to ask -- were you fired by Blizzard at some point? Did David Kim diss your mom?
1. Not everyone lives in the US and I wouldnt work for Blizzard unless they would hire me as a dictator. Since that wont happen I would say your remarks about my post just come from confusion and unwillingness to understand the problem.
- MORE isnt automatically BETTER.
- FASTER isnt automatically BETTER.
- You CAN have too much of some things ...
Maybe you will figure out some things that are wrong with these guidelines.
2. You apparently didnt understand the point of my praise of BW. It was SLOWER than SC2 and this made "mechanical control" (clicking skills) far less important than it is in SC2 + Show Spoiler +Sure you could improve your skill through better control of units in BW, but there was no "you MUST split your Marines against these Banelings" units in BW which totally screw over newbies and casuals.
SLOWER is BETTER because it allows more control. (Allows for casuals to be not-so-far-behind their not-so-casual friends who can more easily manage vast amount of multitasking.)
FEWER UNITS on the battlefield is BETTER because it allows more control. (Watching a 2v2 Zergling v Zergling battle where one player wins with BOTH his Zerglings still alive is far more exciting than watching two clumps 50-100 units for both sides annihilate each other.)
Only the really pro players can actually manage the amount of stuff that needs to be done in SC2 now and casuals - who are the excuse for putting in the whole ez-mode junk - dont really get anything at all. All they get is being overwhelmed by massive a-move-all-ins with Banelings or whatever crazy stuff is the flavour of the month.
3. Who are you kidding about Koreans? They are trained in the most intense environment and hardly any westerner can make up for that except with superior talent; in the Korean "prepare a week for one match against a player you analyze beforehand" situation beating them is hardly possible at all. The only exception is a long and tough competition - like MLG or Dreamhack - where you play many games a day and are physically taxed in addition to the challenge of the game.
|
2. You apparently didnt understand the point of my praise of BW. It was SLOWER than SC2 and this made "mechanical control" (clicking skills) far less important than it is in SC2
You and I have very different recollections of BW it would seem. The BW I remember took considerably more clicks to do just just about anything. Try sending an army of zerglings anywhere across them map and then tell me whether or not you think mechanical control is less important in BW than SC2. Don't get me wrong BW micro was a beautiful thing, but stop making up stuff to try and prove a point that doesn't matter.
|
On March 01 2013 20:54 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 07:16 The_Darkness wrote:On February 28 2013 02:07 Rabiator wrote:On February 27 2013 23:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On February 27 2013 22:46 Rabiator wrote:On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
I think "blocking some units with stuff" is more a TACTIC ("implementation of a specific mission") and not a STRATEGY (long term goal). The strategy would be to "defend until I have the superawesome army and then win" or "to win with air attacks" while the tactic is the unit-wise implementation on the battlefield. Just read the wiki entrys to check their definitions ... maybe you agree with me. Sadly Strategy plays a far less important role than tactics do in SC2 ... at least in my opinion. This is the case because there are too many units involved in each battle and the economics of the game make reproducing your units almost more important than being able to use them well. If the game was about strategy it would involve a lot of units which have seen many battles and defensive positions which are hard to crack, but that isnt the case. Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct, a strategy game is only as entertaining as the tactics available. Personally I define tactics as the mechanical implementation of strategy. Strategy → Operational objective → Tactic → Task. (source) I agree with your definition, but here is the twist: Since Starcraft is *supposed to be* a STRATEGY game it should be far less about tactics and mechanics (and economics) than it is atm. For a huge part SC2 is about the gathering of resources and building a huge reproduction capability to finally overwhelm your opponent with - more or less - endlessly replaced units. Either this or the category of "Strategy game" is wrong. You only think / adjust your strategy few times while permanently thinking about unit engagements and unit production, so its easily more about economics and tactics than it is about strategy. Personally I have thought for quite some time that SC2 is more about real-time-action than it is about real-time-strategy and we simply need to accept that fact. No biggie. ---- Since you had to "fight the UI and movement" in Brood War and the game didnt have any turbo boosts for production and economy it was still a strategy game in my opinion. You simply had far fewer units all the time and cared more about the individual ones. Thus choosing the right strategy (i.e. the way in which to overcome the enemy) was more important than simply overwhelming the enemy by sheer numbers. Sure overwhelming numbers could happen, but due to the mechanics you could still come back from most disadvantaged positions. How can you whine about SC2's needing to be far less "about tactics and mechanics" than it currently is (and thus by implication not being strategical enough according to you) but then praise BW for its strategical aspects when that game is the most mechanically demanding game in existence? BW's mechanical challenges were so significant that you literally had no hope of beating a KESPA pro unless you were on a Korean team practicing along with them 12 hours a day. That's obviously not the case with SC2. There were also far fewer viable builds in BW than there are in SC2. There are fewer useless units in SC2 than there are in BW, etc. All of this leads to more choices in SC2 and more choices increases the chances for strategy, rather than mechanics, to influence the game, which is why someone like Nestea could have all of the success he's had in SC2. To this point, I've followed most of your HoTS posts with what I'd call "confused amusement", but I do have to ask -- were you fired by Blizzard at some point? Did David Kim diss your mom? 2. You apparently didnt understand the point of my praise of BW. It was SLOWER than SC2 and this made "mechanical control" (clicking skills) far less important than it is in SC2...
Not sure if troll or serious.
the moment when a person tries to tell me that sc1 was easier(in terms of micro/multitask/unitcontrol) and not as demanding as sc2, is the moment when i close the browser and stop taking anything that person has or will say seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
