On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game.
We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage.
Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not.
The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch.
So do you want to try again?
What? Why should mechanics be 80%? If the faster player should win all the time. Might as well have APM contest vs AI....
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design...
actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics.
really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand.
Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins.
I think at the start, it's about equal work wise but once you expand as terran in BW or actually, even as protoss expanding(don't play Zerg), I have to constantly watch my bases and move around my army and just do stuff. In SCII, usually I'll just 5 -> ss then just move the mouse around and sit back and relax since I just need 5 and 6 to make workers/units and I don't need to worry about making them mine or set rally points in comparison to BW. Either way, that wasn't my main point. I was mostly pointing out, that to me, it keeps me busy and gets me into the game when I have to 'work' for it.
I never said they kill comebacks. I said that the macro mechanics can make comebacks hard in some cases. You also seem to have missed my bolded text. I think the macro mechanics are but a factor in why comebacks are harder than in BW.
Comebacks are not "harder" because of macro mechanics though.
In SC2, you can clear drone lines and good macro allows Zerg to replace drones quickly enough to not be far behind.
Mules allows terran to quickly take an expo despite not having map control actually being able to abuse the lift mechanic on command centers as the fly to an expo, land, mine, then fly away when attacked.
Chrono allows tech switches to prevent Protoss from getting rock/paper/scissored out of a game.
These come backs are not very sexy. I'll never feel excited watching a zerg player replacing 10 drones in 2-3 hotkey strokes. But these mechanics definitely allow comebacks. Just, well, boring looking ones.
It doesn't take much to replace those drones though. I guess what I mean is, it doesn't impress me and you also agree on that. With the queen and the way larvae works, you get 7 larvae per hatchery so if you have 4 hatcheries(3+1 inbase) and assuming you haven't used any larvae, replacing drones after losing that many is as easy as clicking one control group then spamming SD and selecting the location. It may be a comeback but it's nothing special. I guess, I think it's way too easy. Same with terran or even protoss though in their case, mules and chronoboosting nexi is a different mechanics and it takes a bit longer to recover.
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game.
We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage.
Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not.
The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch.
So do you want to try again?
What? Why should mechanics be 80%? If the faster player should win all the time. Might as well have APM contest vs AI....
not sure where he got his 80% figure from but I see what he means. He's saying that mechanics should be the fundamental part of the game and I gotta agree to that lol
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design...
actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics.
really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand.
Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins.
I think at the start, it's about equal work wise but once you expand as terran in BW or actually, even as protoss expanding(don't play Zerg), I have to constantly watch my bases and move around my army and just do stuff. In SCII, usually I'll just 5 -> ss then just move the mouse around and sit back and relax since I just need 5 and 6 to make workers/units and I don't need to worry about making them mine or set rally points in comparison to BW. Either way, that wasn't my main point. I was mostly pointing out, that to me, it keeps me busy and gets me into the game when I have to 'work' for it.
I never said they kill comebacks. I said that the macro mechanics can make comebacks hard in some cases. You also seem to have missed my bolded text. I think the macro mechanics are but a factor in why comebacks are harder than in BW.
Comebacks are not "harder" because of macro mechanics though.
In SC2, you can clear drone lines and good macro allows Zerg to replace drones quickly enough to not be far behind.
Mules allows terran to quickly take an expo despite not having map control actually being able to abuse the lift mechanic on command centers as the fly to an expo, land, mine, then fly away when attacked.
Chrono allows tech switches to prevent Protoss from getting rock/paper/scissored out of a game.
These come backs are not very sexy. I'll never feel excited watching a zerg player replacing 10 drones in 2-3 hotkey strokes. But these mechanics definitely allow comebacks. Just, well, boring looking ones.
It doesn't take much to replace those drones though. I guess what I mean is, it doesn't impress me and you also agree on that. With the queen and the way larvae works, you get 7 larvae per hatchery so if you have 4 hatcheries(3+1 inbase) and assuming you haven't used any larvae, replacing drones after losing that many is as easy as clicking one control group then spamming SD and selecting the location. It may be a comeback but it's nothing special. I guess, I think it's way too easy. Same with terran or even protoss though in their case, mules and chronoboosting nexi is a different mechanics and it takes a bit longer to recover.
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game.
We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage.
Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not.
The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch.
So do you want to try again?
What? Why should mechanics be 80%? If the faster player should win all the time. Might as well have APM contest vs AI....
not sure where he got his 80% figure from but I see what he means. He's saying that mechanics should be the fundamental part of the game and I gotta agree to that lol
not sure where he got his 80% figure from but I see what he means. He's saying that mechanics should be the fundamental part of the game and I gotta agree to that lol [/QUOTE] if you are talking about casual/ladder play, yes replacing drones is not interesting. but if you are talking about pro level, replacing drones is not easy. in fact, I would argue the most successful thing about Life is because he has such an interesting drone/unit timing. He just knows how to utilize the units even if they were produced seemingly wrong time and then find another good timing to drone.
Why is replacing drone hard? When you are in mid to late game (assuming everything goes normal), you are supposed to have full drone saturation and go on full unit production mode. Replacing 20 drones could have been 20 different units that are needed, not to mention there is a time when the investment hasn't paid off etc and there is a timing widow where you are vulnerable to something. Watch DRG in ZvT, he gives up early upgrades for more banelings and build a tonnes of lings to defend the first push and drone once he see the first push is here while getting enough banelings.
and I have to disagree with that guy's 80% idea. mechanics don't mean playing faster, more precise and accurate clicks are mechanics too, see forcefields for example. if the game is balanced in that idea, how would mech, robo tech, swarmhost etc beat a faster player? why should a faster player win against a better smarter player??
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design...
actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics.
really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand.
Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins.
I think at the start, it's about equal work wise but once you expand as terran in BW or actually, even as protoss expanding(don't play Zerg), I have to constantly watch my bases and move around my army and just do stuff. In SCII, usually I'll just 5 -> ss then just move the mouse around and sit back and relax since I just need 5 and 6 to make workers/units and I don't need to worry about making them mine or set rally points in comparison to BW. Either way, that wasn't my main point. I was mostly pointing out, that to me, it keeps me busy and gets me into the game when I have to 'work' for it.
I never said they kill comebacks. I said that the macro mechanics can make comebacks hard in some cases. You also seem to have missed my bolded text. I think the macro mechanics are but a factor in why comebacks are harder than in BW.
Comebacks are not "harder" because of macro mechanics though.
In SC2, you can clear drone lines and good macro allows Zerg to replace drones quickly enough to not be far behind.
Mules allows terran to quickly take an expo despite not having map control actually being able to abuse the lift mechanic on command centers as the fly to an expo, land, mine, then fly away when attacked.
Chrono allows tech switches to prevent Protoss from getting rock/paper/scissored out of a game.
These come backs are not very sexy. I'll never feel excited watching a zerg player replacing 10 drones in 2-3 hotkey strokes. But these mechanics definitely allow comebacks. Just, well, boring looking ones.
It doesn't take much to replace those drones though. I guess what I mean is, it doesn't impress me and you also agree on that. With the queen and the way larvae works, you get 7 larvae per hatchery so if you have 4 hatcheries(3+1 inbase) and assuming you haven't used any larvae, replacing drones after losing that many is as easy as clicking one control group then spamming SD and selecting the location. It may be a comeback but it's nothing special. I guess, I think it's way too easy. Same with terran or even protoss though in their case, mules and chronoboosting nexi is a different mechanics and it takes a bit longer to recover.
On October 14 2013 12:30 vthree wrote:
On October 14 2013 07:47 XXXSmOke wrote:
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game.
We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage.
Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not.
The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch.
So do you want to try again?
What? Why should mechanics be 80%? If the faster player should win all the time. Might as well have APM contest vs AI....
not sure where he got his 80% figure from but I see what he means. He's saying that mechanics should be the fundamental part of the game and I gotta agree to that lol
not sure where he got his 80% figure from but I see what he means. He's saying that mechanics should be the fundamental part of the game and I gotta agree to that lol
if you are talking about casual/ladder play, yes replacing drones is not interesting. but if you are talking about pro level, replacing drones is not easy. in fact, I would argue the most successful thing about Life is because he has such an interesting drone/unit timing. He just knows how to utilize the units even if they were produced seemingly wrong time and then find another good timing to drone.
Why is replacing drone hard? When you are in mid to late game (assuming everything goes normal), you are supposed to have full drone saturation and go on full unit production mode. Replacing 20 drones could have been 20 different units that are needed, not to mention there is a time when the investment hasn't paid off etc and there is a timing widow where you are vulnerable to something. Watch DRG in ZvT, he gives up early upgrades for more banelings and build a tonnes of lings to defend the first push and drone once he see the first push is here while getting enough banelings.
and I have to disagree with that guy's 80% idea. mechanics don't mean playing faster, more precise and accurate clicks are mechanics too, see forcefields for example. if the game is balanced in that idea, how would mech, robo tech, swarmhost etc beat a faster player? why should a faster player win against a better smarter player??[/QUOTE]
Replacing drones isn't hard, but without the inject boosting larva numbers you would not have the capability to replace the drones in the same rate as you lose the drones.
This was most prominent during the blueflame era where a lot of terrans would get hellions in the base and kill 16-20 drones and the midgame was dictated by how effectively terran could capitalize on that loss. Due to high larva production, you actually have enough drones to replace those losses in 1-2 production cycles.
One of the cool aspects of BW was that due to slower worker production you did not need to kill workers as quickly to hurt an economy. Vultures could come in, kill 3-4 workers, and then retreat, and that run would hurt the economy. In SC2, unless you kill a 8-10 workers a lot of the times the damage isn't worth it because they get replaced too quickly.
This forces drops and runbys to be more all-in as the focus becomes about doing *enough* damage as opposed to doing *some* damage.
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
Or maybe to each their own?
Some want to emphasize Strategy, leaning on Real-Time mostly because they feel turn based is boring. Some want to emphasize Real-Time, leaning on strategy as a way to add intellectual stimulation to a physical game.
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
That is your subjective opinion just like I feel those things make the races even more diverse than before, and I am pretty sure Blizzard injected these macro abilities for one reason. It speeds up gameplay. They also added 6 vs 4 workers.
This makes spectating much more exciting early on since we can tell a players strategy a few minutes faster than in Broodwar. It also allows for tournaments to hold and cast more games, instead of only showing maybe 6-7 games we can see 10-20. More bang for your buck.
I do agree that battles end too quickly, but just like everything else in SC2s progression, it will only keep getting better. This is a fact. Even in the non split map scenarios, we get a tug of war type battle for a long time, with multiple engagements. And every time someone does actually lose with one bad engagement, isn't it always his/her fault? From a spectators stance we can see that mistake coming from a mile away, and had that player scouted better or not been so greedy they wouldn't be in that situation.
SC2 will die when Pro's reach a skill ceiling, but that won't happen. Like a previous poster said, a mid masters player right now thrown back in time to the first GSL would have a damn good chance at winning. Now imagine professional players in 3 years vs right now. We should be more positive.
Of course, it is subjective because I said it "feels" like a design flaw, not it "is" a design flaw.
Regarding your points, my question to you are as follows,
-Do people actually need "sped-up" gameplay in an RTS? -Regarding tournaments, do the spectators need to some more games, rather than just a few, good ones? -Should luck/gambling factor play such a large role in a strategy game when skill should be more considered? If so, why?
In addendum,
"it will only keep getting better. This is a fact."
I'm not quite sure I agree. People have not always praised Blizzard for what they have done with SC2 and from my perspective, I don't think they will change much in the future as well. The pros will come up with something, but I don't believe this is enough to make a game "better".
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
Or maybe to each their own?
Some want to emphasize Strategy, leaning on Real-Time mostly because they feel turn based is boring. Some want to emphasize Real-Time, leaning on strategy as a way to add intellectual stimulation to a physical game.
RTS really should boil down like this:
You want to win in a certain way huh?
Well you found how to do it? Good
Can you execute it perfectly?
What if this happens?
Can your mechanics be good enough to get yourself out that one?
So ofc someone with better mechanics should win every time.
Even a cheeser who strategically outsmarted their opponent have to the one conducting it, the one moving the units. And catch opponents off guard who can't follow it up.
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
You are completely ignoring the last letter of "RTS" ... and strategy has something to do with THINKING. You should also be able to OUTTHINK your opponent and win by making better decisions and not just win by "clicking contest" (which is a stupid contest). Making better decisions should be far more important than clicking faster and what you want is an "RTA" (real time ACTION game) ... which SC2 is. It is NOT an RTS anymore like BW was and which SC2 should have been.
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
Or maybe to each their own?
Some want to emphasize Strategy, leaning on Real-Time mostly because they feel turn based is boring. Some want to emphasize Real-Time, leaning on strategy as a way to add intellectual stimulation to a physical game.
RTS really should boil down like this:
You want to win in a certain way huh?
Well you found how to do it? Good
Can you execute it perfectly?
What if this happens?
Can your mechanics be good enough to get yourself out that one?
So ofc someone with better mechanics should win every time.
Even a cheeser who strategically outsmarted their opponent have to the one conducting it, the one moving the units. And catch opponents off guard who can't follow it up.
Speaking as a player whose favorite character to play in Streetfighter is Blanka, trust me when I say that I know what being a twitchy player means
I like mechanically demanding games. When I lose I always think to myself "I should have been faster, should have been quicker, maybe I could position my hand differently, get more precise with my keystrokes, etc..." I like having randomization be part of a game, something that *could* tip the scales in your favor assuming you have the balls to risk it. Doesn't matter if its magic the gathering, BW high ground, Saving throws, etc...
But I also know that for every blanka out there, there is a the slower and more precise Dhalsim player, leaning on good timings, precision mechanics, and good zoning. Sure he doesn't take up as much APM, but he is a legitimate option anyway.
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
That is your subjective opinion just like I feel those things make the races even more diverse than before, and I am pretty sure Blizzard injected these macro abilities for one reason. It speeds up gameplay. They also added 6 vs 4 workers.
This makes spectating much more exciting early on since we can tell a players strategy a few minutes faster than in Broodwar. It also allows for tournaments to hold and cast more games, instead of only showing maybe 6-7 games we can see 10-20. More bang for your buck.
I do agree that battles end too quickly, but just like everything else in SC2s progression, it will only keep getting better. This is a fact. Even in the non split map scenarios, we get a tug of war type battle for a long time, with multiple engagements. And every time someone does actually lose with one bad engagement, isn't it always his/her fault? From a spectators stance we can see that mistake coming from a mile away, and had that player scouted better or not been so greedy they wouldn't be in that situation.
SC2 will die when Pro's reach a skill ceiling, but that won't happen. Like a previous poster said, a mid masters player right now thrown back in time to the first GSL would have a damn good chance at winning. Now imagine professional players in 3 years vs right now. We should be more positive.
Asymmetric production boosts ARE a design flaw, because Terrans have only their most basic units boosted in production speed, Protoss only have their infantry boosted (but potentially everywhere and super fast) and Zerg can produce anything in any number they can afford. This gives Zerg a very very very huge advantage in the late game which turns the game into a "dont let the Zerg get there" competition, where the other races HAVE TO keep the Zerg larvae count low or be overwhelmed eventually. This is a BAD DESIGN.
Oh and the different boosts also create artificial timings (stupid buzzword IMO) where the other two races have a boost of power in the early game which their opponent has to survive. Bad design simply because those two races lose their "power boost" over time and thus Blizzard has artificially forced the players into a "straightjacket of behaviour" where they MUST DO certain things to have a chance to win. In BW that was NOT present and you could rush or go for economy at your own risk ... and because of this BW has a much better design than SC2. Players have far more freedom of choice!
@Thieving Magpie damn it the quote format got messed up, I will reply you here:
Like I said, replacing drone in low level is only easy, replacing drone in high level is HARD. The terran killing 16 to 20 drones into zerg winning games are most often because terran loses so many bfhellions that it makes it break even because terran loses all map control and a large chunk of his army, which is why it is safe to replace the drone loss. BUT most zerg would die to a followup push (pre queen buff) after a simple hellion runby or drops that isn't meant to kill too many drones and save the hellions.
well I find baneling and storm onto worker lines a lot more entertaining than what you are making the bw harassment sounds like
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
Or maybe to each their own?
Some want to emphasize Strategy, leaning on Real-Time mostly because they feel turn based is boring. Some want to emphasize Real-Time, leaning on strategy as a way to add intellectual stimulation to a physical game.
RTS really should boil down like this:
You want to win in a certain way huh?
Well you found how to do it? Good
Can you execute it perfectly?
What if this happens?
Can your mechanics be good enough to get yourself out that one?
So ofc someone with better mechanics should win every time.
Even a cheeser who strategically outsmarted their opponent have to the one conducting it, the one moving the units. And catch opponents off guard who can't follow it up.
Speaking as a player whose favorite character to play in Streetfighter is Blanka, trust me when I say that I know what being a twitchy player means
I like mechanically demanding games. When I lose I always think to myself "I should have been faster, should have been quicker, maybe I could position my hand differently, get more precise with my keystrokes, etc..." I like having randomization be part of a game, something that *could* tip the scales in your favor assuming you have the balls to risk it. Doesn't matter if its magic the gathering, BW high ground, Saving throws, etc...
But I also know that for every blanka out there, there is a the slower and more precise Dhalsim player, leaning on good timings, precision mechanics, and good zoning. Sure he doesn't take up as much APM, but he is a legitimate option anyway.
On my first post, say that we are playing a T v T right? The better one of us who can set up their tank line faster and missing the least amount of round of production will ALWAYS be the winner. That's a fact.
The thing is that mechanics != playing faster. It also means doing as much stuff as efficient as possible with the least amount of keystroke. Like Savior or Stork. Those players play with low APM. I would bet all my esport dollars that they have better mechanics than players like by.Hero who consistently have over 400 apm. Many people have a misconception on what mechanics are.
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
Or maybe to each their own?
Some want to emphasize Strategy, leaning on Real-Time mostly because they feel turn based is boring. Some want to emphasize Real-Time, leaning on strategy as a way to add intellectual stimulation to a physical game.
RTS really should boil down like this:
You want to win in a certain way huh?
Well you found how to do it? Good
Can you execute it perfectly?
What if this happens?
Can your mechanics be good enough to get yourself out that one?
So ofc someone with better mechanics should win every time.
Even a cheeser who strategically outsmarted their opponent have to the one conducting it, the one moving the units. And catch opponents off guard who can't follow it up.
Speaking as a player whose favorite character to play in Streetfighter is Blanka, trust me when I say that I know what being a twitchy player means
I like mechanically demanding games. When I lose I always think to myself "I should have been faster, should have been quicker, maybe I could position my hand differently, get more precise with my keystrokes, etc..." I like having randomization be part of a game, something that *could* tip the scales in your favor assuming you have the balls to risk it. Doesn't matter if its magic the gathering, BW high ground, Saving throws, etc...
But I also know that for every blanka out there, there is a the slower and more precise Dhalsim player, leaning on good timings, precision mechanics, and good zoning. Sure he doesn't take up as much APM, but he is a legitimate option anyway.
On my first post, say that we are playing a T v T right? The better one of us who can set up their tank line faster and missing the least amount of round of production will ALWAYS be the winner. That's a fact.
The thing is that mechanics != playing faster. It also means doing as much stuff as efficient as possible with the least amount of keystroke. Like Savior or Stork. Those players play with low APM. I would bet all my esport dollars that they have better mechanics than players like by.Hero who consistently have over 400 apm. Many people have a misconception on what mechanics are.
lol? if you put it this way, of cause that player is going to win. you are basically saying that player is better at macro and positioning (just because he set up their tank line faster).
I can say something like the more strategic player has better tank placement and get up a third and forth earlier and get an upgrade advantage and drop his bio onto the faster player's tanks while using excess minerals to build turrets and use vikings to zone out drops harass and doing more bio run by because the faster player is half way across the map doing drops.
On October 14 2013 14:06 ETisME wrote: @Thieving Magpie damn it the quote format got messed up, I will reply you here:
Like I said, replacing drone in low level is only easy, replacing drone in high level is HARD. The terran killing 16 to 20 drones into zerg winning games are most often because terran loses so many bfhellions that it makes it break even because terran loses all map control and a large chunk of his army, which is why it is safe to replace the drone loss. BUT most zerg would die to a followup push (pre queen buff) after a simple hellion runby or drops that isn't meant to kill too many drones and save the hellions.
well I find baneling and storm onto worker lines a lot more entertaining than what you are making the bw harassment sounds like
I'm not saying killing 20 workers doesn't hurt zerg, it does. I'm saying that it hurt even more to lose 20 workers in BW than it does in SC2 because of the rate income is replenished.
Income pretty much caps at 3 bases in SC2 (about 48-62 workers on minerals and 18 workers on gas). This means that "late game" worker counts usually ranges between 66-80 workers depending on saturation.
It took longer to hit this cap in BW because it was more difficult to make that many workers. You couldn't chrono probes, you had half the larva production, and you had no mules. This meant that in BW, worker lines were always more sparse than SC2 worker lines and harass would normally hit less workers at a time (to a degree).
A vulture takes 3 shots to kill a drone/probe and 4 shots to kill an SCV. All single target. They were still able to hurt enemy econ as badly as blueflame hellions since in BW you didn't *need* to kill all the workers to set them back.
And when storms/Reavers/lurkers hit workers--it was special since usually a harass would only ever kill a few workers unless it was a harass with tech units in which case a LOT of workers would die.
Why do we care that storms and fungals can kill workers when banelings/mines/hellions do that cheaper, faster, and earlier.
On October 14 2013 14:06 ETisME wrote: @Thieving Magpie damn it the quote format got messed up, I will reply you here:
Like I said, replacing drone in low level is only easy, replacing drone in high level is HARD. The terran killing 16 to 20 drones into zerg winning games are most often because terran loses so many bfhellions that it makes it break even because terran loses all map control and a large chunk of his army, which is why it is safe to replace the drone loss. BUT most zerg would die to a followup push (pre queen buff) after a simple hellion runby or drops that isn't meant to kill too many drones and save the hellions.
well I find baneling and storm onto worker lines a lot more entertaining than what you are making the bw harassment sounds like
I'm not saying killing 20 workers doesn't hurt zerg, it does. I'm saying that it hurt even more to lose 20 workers in BW than it does in SC2 because of the rate income is replenished.
Income pretty much caps at 3 bases in SC2 (about 48-62 workers on minerals and 18 workers on gas). This means that "late game" worker counts usually ranges between 66-80 workers depending on saturation.
It took longer to hit this cap in BW because it was more difficult to make that many workers. You couldn't chrono probes, you had half the larva production, and you had no mules. This meant that in BW, worker lines were always more sparse than SC2 worker lines and harass would normally hit less workers at a time (to a degree).
A vulture takes 3 shots to kill a drone/probe and 4 shots to kill an SCV. All single target. They were still able to hurt enemy econ as badly as blueflame hellions since in BW you didn't *need* to kill all the workers to set them back.
And when storms/Reavers/lurkers hit workers--it was special since usually a harass would only ever kill a few workers unless it was a harass with tech units in which case a LOT of workers would die.
Why do we care that storms and fungals can kill workers when banelings/mines/hellions do that cheaper, faster, and earlier.
I get what you mean then, but isn't it the same as early to mid game for a normal game before even close to reaching the 3 base saturation? A toss being 10 probes behind a Terran will be in a large disadvantage. A zerg being behind in worker is almost gg-worthy, terran is the only one that can reduce the pain on their econ in early to mid income loss.
and because I don't really think people care if the harassment was done by a tech unit or not, I think people care if the baneling will wipe the worker line or not. I see a lot of people going wow when baneling wipe and mineral line, just like how people look at mines and see which worker clump it hits
On October 14 2013 13:11 Xiphos wrote: Some of you guys are confused with RTS game and strategy games.
REAL-TIME meaning doing a certain specific tasks FASTER than your opponents.
You shouldn't dumb that aspect down.
Or maybe to each their own?
Some want to emphasize Strategy, leaning on Real-Time mostly because they feel turn based is boring. Some want to emphasize Real-Time, leaning on strategy as a way to add intellectual stimulation to a physical game.
RTS really should boil down like this:
You want to win in a certain way huh?
Well you found how to do it? Good
Can you execute it perfectly?
What if this happens?
Can your mechanics be good enough to get yourself out that one?
So ofc someone with better mechanics should win every time.
Even a cheeser who strategically outsmarted their opponent have to the one conducting it, the one moving the units. And catch opponents off guard who can't follow it up.
Speaking as a player whose favorite character to play in Streetfighter is Blanka, trust me when I say that I know what being a twitchy player means
I like mechanically demanding games. When I lose I always think to myself "I should have been faster, should have been quicker, maybe I could position my hand differently, get more precise with my keystrokes, etc..." I like having randomization be part of a game, something that *could* tip the scales in your favor assuming you have the balls to risk it. Doesn't matter if its magic the gathering, BW high ground, Saving throws, etc...
But I also know that for every blanka out there, there is a the slower and more precise Dhalsim player, leaning on good timings, precision mechanics, and good zoning. Sure he doesn't take up as much APM, but he is a legitimate option anyway.
On my first post, say that we are playing a T v T right? The better one of us who can set up their tank line faster and missing the least amount of round of production will ALWAYS be the winner. That's a fact.
The thing is that mechanics != playing faster. It also means doing as much stuff as efficient as possible with the least amount of keystroke. Like Savior or Stork. Those players play with low APM. I would bet all my esport dollars that they have better mechanics than players like by.Hero who consistently have over 400 apm. Many people have a misconception on what mechanics are.
lol? if you put it this way, of cause that player is going to win. you are basically saying that player is better at macro and positioning (just because he set up their tank line faster).
I can say something like the more strategic player has better tank placement and get up a third and forth earlier and get an upgrade advantage and drop his bio onto the faster player's tanks while using excess minerals to build turrets and use vikings to zone out drops harass and doing more bio run by because the faster player is half way across the map doing drops.
But in order to get up to that point he have to be constantly making guys to mine, not missing that specific timing for upgrades and can quickly build turrets in time. So even for such simple strategy, a huge degree of mechanics is involved. You simply can't separate the mechanics part from the strategical part in a RTS game. Don't be absurd lol
On October 14 2013 14:06 ETisME wrote: @Thieving Magpie damn it the quote format got messed up, I will reply you here:
Like I said, replacing drone in low level is only easy, replacing drone in high level is HARD. The terran killing 16 to 20 drones into zerg winning games are most often because terran loses so many bfhellions that it makes it break even because terran loses all map control and a large chunk of his army, which is why it is safe to replace the drone loss. BUT most zerg would die to a followup push (pre queen buff) after a simple hellion runby or drops that isn't meant to kill too many drones and save the hellions.
well I find baneling and storm onto worker lines a lot more entertaining than what you are making the bw harassment sounds like
I'm not saying killing 20 workers doesn't hurt zerg, it does. I'm saying that it hurt even more to lose 20 workers in BW than it does in SC2 because of the rate income is replenished.
Income pretty much caps at 3 bases in SC2 (about 48-62 workers on minerals and 18 workers on gas). This means that "late game" worker counts usually ranges between 66-80 workers depending on saturation.
It took longer to hit this cap in BW because it was more difficult to make that many workers. You couldn't chrono probes, you had half the larva production, and you had no mules. This meant that in BW, worker lines were always more sparse than SC2 worker lines and harass would normally hit less workers at a time (to a degree).
A vulture takes 3 shots to kill a drone/probe and 4 shots to kill an SCV. All single target. They were still able to hurt enemy econ as badly as blueflame hellions since in BW you didn't *need* to kill all the workers to set them back.
And when storms/Reavers/lurkers hit workers--it was special since usually a harass would only ever kill a few workers unless it was a harass with tech units in which case a LOT of workers would die.
Why do we care that storms and fungals can kill workers when banelings/mines/hellions do that cheaper, faster, and earlier.
I get what you mean then, but isn't it the same as early to mid game for a normal game before even close to reaching the 3 base saturation? A toss being 10 probes behind a Terran will be in a large disadvantage. A zerg being behind in worker is almost gg-worthy, terran is the only one that can reduce the pain on their econ in early to mid income loss.
and because I don't really think people care if the harassment was done by a tech unit or not, I think people care if the baneling will wipe the worker line or not. I see a lot of people going wow when baneling wipe and mineral line, just like how people look at mines and see which worker clump it hits
It is the same "disadvantage" being behind on workers in both games, what I'm talking about is rate of worker replacement vs rate of worker loss.
You need blueflames in SC2 because if running hellions into a base only kills 5-6 workers at a time then no one would make them in SC2.
Think of it this way, a 2hatch 2queen setup in SC2 produces 20 larva a minute. A 3hatch opening in BW produces 12 larva a minute. When you lose 6 workers in SC2, you still have 15 larva left that minute (cutting 25% of your larva resource that minute), those 5 larva in BW cuts 41% of your larva resource that minute.
Killing 6 drones in BW hurts 50% of your larva production for a minute, you'd need to kill 10 drones in SC2 for it to be similar.
This is assuming 2base play in both games. When you get to at least 3base with a macro hatch it gets more lopsided.
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Accelerated macro mechanics(i.e. reactors, larva injects, warp gates) feel like an inherent core design flaw.
Being forced to right click minerals every 17 game seconds is not what I would call a good design...
actually, once you've played a couple of games, it's pretty easy to go to see each base and put them to work. Keeps you busy lol. I can never find enough stuff to do in SCII when the game starts since it's a bit too umm simplified? I have to agree with jkim91. The accelerated macro mechanics make it harder for comebacks because a deficit will get bigger with more time partially due to those mechanics.
really ? I am actually more bored in BW then in Sc2 at the start. The macro mechanics are really a 2 edged sword though. They make the races more diverse and make up for the lost difficult due to building selecting and stuff, but that way it makes some parts of a match really tough for one. For example a Terran taking a new base, has to be scouted within 15 seconds after the CC landed or its already worth it for the Terran. Best seen in TvZ currently. Zerg gaining ground ... CC lands mules drop, Bio productions gets out of hand.
Saying it kills comeback is ignoring everytime a Terran wins thanks to mule drops or a Zerg having 300 drone losses in one game and still wins.
I think at the start, it's about equal work wise but once you expand as terran in BW or actually, even as protoss expanding(don't play Zerg), I have to constantly watch my bases and move around my army and just do stuff. In SCII, usually I'll just 5 -> ss then just move the mouse around and sit back and relax since I just need 5 and 6 to make workers/units and I don't need to worry about making them mine or set rally points in comparison to BW. Either way, that wasn't my main point. I was mostly pointing out, that to me, it keeps me busy and gets me into the game when I have to 'work' for it.
I never said they kill comebacks. I said that the macro mechanics can make comebacks hard in some cases. You also seem to have missed my bolded text. I think the macro mechanics are but a factor in why comebacks are harder than in BW.
Comebacks are not "harder" because of macro mechanics though.
In SC2, you can clear drone lines and good macro allows Zerg to replace drones quickly enough to not be far behind.
Mules allows terran to quickly take an expo despite not having map control actually being able to abuse the lift mechanic on command centers as the fly to an expo, land, mine, then fly away when attacked.
Chrono allows tech switches to prevent Protoss from getting rock/paper/scissored out of a game.
These come backs are not very sexy. I'll never feel excited watching a zerg player replacing 10 drones in 2-3 hotkey strokes. But these mechanics definitely allow comebacks. Just, well, boring looking ones.
It doesn't take much to replace those drones though. I guess what I mean is, it doesn't impress me and you also agree on that. With the queen and the way larvae works, you get 7 larvae per hatchery so if you have 4 hatcheries(3+1 inbase) and assuming you haven't used any larvae, replacing drones after losing that many is as easy as clicking one control group then spamming SD and selecting the location. It may be a comeback but it's nothing special. I guess, I think it's way too easy. Same with terran or even protoss though in their case, mules and chronoboosting nexi is a different mechanics and it takes a bit longer to recover.
On October 14 2013 12:30 vthree wrote:
On October 14 2013 07:47 XXXSmOke wrote:
On October 14 2013 07:25 Velouria wrote: We just had a great series of ZvZ of all things and a foreigner almost take the whole cake, this thread is pointless. I think we can all agree over time SC2 has added not subtracted strategies which makes each player play his MU a certain way and in turn makes for a better viewing experience.
Blizzard could be and maybe needs to be more helpful for the E-Sports scene, increasing tournament overall prize pot is the first step they should take.
People complained about Forcefields for the longest time, complained about units clumping, now every single Pro splits and makes arcs like BW and we still havent reached the ceiling there, people rightfully complained about the maps being too small, and now we have a variety of medium and large maps. There is no inherent core design flaw in SC2, it just keeps getting better.
Forcefields are still terrible game design, people complain less because FF' wont be changed this late in the game.
We have had splitting since the game came out, the problem is that no matter how good you split or arc your army the battle will still be over in less than 10 seconds and will probably decide the game right there. That is a huge design flaw aka Terrible Terrible damage.
Maps are about the only thing that has been fixed with SC2 and a lot of people theorized that would fix the games problems and it did not.
The fact that a foreigner even almost won is actually one of the biggest problems with SC2....... The game plays more like poker than a RTS. Certain builds are auto loss to other builds despite mechanics. Mechanics should be at least 80% of an RTS, the faster player should be able to dominate a lower player. Then the last 20% should be about strategy and smart plays. That is if you want a game that is entertaining and fun to watch.
So do you want to try again?
What? Why should mechanics be 80%? If the faster player should win all the time. Might as well have APM contest vs AI....
not sure where he got his 80% figure from but I see what he means. He's saying that mechanics should be the fundamental part of the game and I gotta agree to that lol
if you are talking about casual/ladder play, yes replacing drones is not interesting. but if you are talking about pro level, replacing drones is not easy. in fact, I would argue the most successful thing about Life is because he has such an interesting drone/unit timing. He just knows how to utilize the units even if they were produced seemingly wrong time and then find another good timing to drone.
Why is replacing drone hard? When you are in mid to late game (assuming everything goes normal), you are supposed to have full drone saturation and go on full unit production mode. Replacing 20 drones could have been 20 different units that are needed, not to mention there is a time when the investment hasn't paid off etc and there is a timing widow where you are vulnerable to something. Watch DRG in ZvT, he gives up early upgrades for more banelings and build a tonnes of lings to defend the first push and drone once he see the first push is here while getting enough banelings.
and I have to disagree with that guy's 80% idea. mechanics don't mean playing faster, more precise and accurate clicks are mechanics too, see forcefields for example. if the game is balanced in that idea, how would mech, robo tech, swarmhost etc beat a faster player? why should a faster player win against a better smarter player??
I never say it's straight forward easy but it's not interesting at all. Pros and even those on ladder who have played enough will be able to know when to drone or not based on how the attack was. As you mentioned, if your opponent loses all his hellions, then it's likely a lot safer than if he loses 1-2 and runs out with the rest. Point is, it's not interesting to watch and it's doable. It's just not awe-inspiring or anything. Back when I used to play ZvT at WoL release, I used to give up some drone production and build some slings/banes since back then, terrans would always attack with MM so I was ready.
That's called being efficient and as Xiphos mentioned, players like Saviour and Stork are very efficient players who play with a lower APM. Even Flash only has 250 apm or so and his macro is top notch, he's always making units, workers, moving his army and attacking multiple fronts. Why do you think it's entertaining watching BW players(some SCII players to some extent but nowhere as much as BW)? It's because their speed in the game factors in decision making and strategy as well so they are faster and smarter. When you watch them move their army so fluidly around the map, attack at multiple fronts while microing and macoring at home which is harder to do than SCII, your thoughts are: WTF is this? Is this even humanly possible? My point? That you can be smart and fast. You seem to think just because you are faster, that you will win your opponent when that's not necessarily the case. Either way, I don't think you'll understand my point until you see this:
You have to watch this imo. This describes exactly what I wrote but you'll see it for yourself first hand and wonder just what is going on. So much decision making, strategy while playing fast and macroing like a madman lol. Hope it'll explain things XD
EPT
