|
To me "The Problem" with StarCraft 2 is that threads that try to discuss or address the problems actually spend more time on BW than SC2.
Regardless of how perfect BW was or wasn't or how nostalgic fans will never let SC2 out of the original's shadow, these comments do nothing. Pages and pages of comparisons between specific unit compositions between BW and SC2. Pages of knitpicking about whether dragoons or stalkers have more game impact have absolutely no place in this kind of thread.
Blizzard has shown that they DO in fact respond to the community when there seems to be near general consensus about problems in SC2 (note bunker build times and widow mines). They have also pretty clearly shown they have no intention of regressing the game engine to appease the rosy eyed BW fans.
It's time to move on people. There are actually a lot of constructive comments in this thread like the discussion above about warp gates, but these get completely drowned out by whining that the game isn't just BW in the first place.
I think a major way to improve SC2 and the community would be to have TL actual give out some warns or bans to posts too dedicated to BW when in the SC2 section of the forum.
Not to mention these also tend to be the worst offenders of the "game is dead" hate and general negativity trend.
|
SC2 should never have been pushed as an e-sport. The fact that is 'in the shadow' of Brood War to the extent that it has been is a result of the fact that blizzard put it there.
The fact that Brood War was more or less a 'legitimate' sport in Korea is because there was a strong gaming culture that evolved around it. That is to say, the elevation of Brood War from 'game to 'sport' was a cultural act first, and the business prerogative entered into it only later, as a response to the the culture.
With SC2 the process has been the reverse. Its claim to 'sport-nes' was/is a business decision first, as a response to the business of Brood War as a sport.
Therefore, SC2 e-sports may or may not be a culturally 'legitimate' sport, but it is unequivocally (also) a marketing vehicle . This has implications for the game-play as well as the community. The reasons why i will leave for you all to think on, if you care to.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 17 2013 08:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 08:36 BigFan wrote:On October 17 2013 08:16 lowercase wrote:On October 16 2013 22:01 Cream)Muffin wrote:
I do like the concept of warpgate for protoss. But maybe, it should go back to the drawing table with it. 'Cause I don't think it is working good in its current shape.
I still think a simple fix to warpgate, that would nerf it severely while still keeping it viable, would be to make gateways train units faster than warpgates. Defensive Protoss players could use gateways, changing them to WGs when they want to attack, or leaving some as WGs to allow defensive warpgates, or however they want to do it. It would also provide some defender's advantage in PvP, which could really fix that matchup a lot, in my opinion. this is what I've always thought they should do. You get an advantage and can macro like a terran or if you go on the offensive, they keep WG but add on +5 seconds or so, so then you decide if you'd rather just rally gateway units or wrap them in. You get a choice. Also, if this was the case, then uisng a pylon to wrap in on the high ground would've stayed in the game. I think Blizzard removing that(even though it was due to 4 gate) took more interesting strategies out of the game. Next you're going to talk about how 2base timing pushes stop being so powerful, unit buffs would need to be added to compensate, protoss upgrades would have to be slowed down to prevent midgame protoss rule, 4gate would never be a problem again, suddenly pylons can warp to high ground, warp prisms get a larger warp radius, warp tech can be sped up and most of the protoss nerfs and bad buffs could be reversed. Well that's just crazy 
like you read my mind :O In all honesty, I think aside from a couple of needed fixes after its release, Blizzard did more damage to SCII leading to a stale game by the end of WoL. Read below for more details: lol.
On October 17 2013 09:33 bombsauce wrote:
To me "The Problem" with StarCraft 2 is that threads that try to discuss or address the problems actually spend more time on BW than SC2.
Regardless of how perfect BW was or wasn't or how nostalgic fans will never let SC2 out of the original's shadow, these comments do nothing. Pages and pages of comparisons between specific unit compositions between BW and SC2. Pages of knitpicking about whether dragoons or stalkers have more game impact have absolutely no place in this kind of thread.
Blizzard has shown that they DO in fact respond to the community when there seems to be near general consensus about problems in SC2 (note bunker build times and widow mines). They have also pretty clearly shown they have no intention of regressing the game engine to appease the rosy eyed BW fans.
It's time to move on people. There are actually a lot of constructive comments in this thread like the discussion above about warp gates, but these get completely drowned out by whining that the game isn't just BW in the first place.
I think a major way to improve SC2 and the community would be to have TL actual give out some warns or bans to posts too dedicated to BW when in the SC2 section of the forum.
Not to mention these also tend to be the worst offenders of the "game is dead" hate and general negativity trend.
I'm not sure what you're reading but I haven't stumbled across much comments if any saying that Blizzard should reverse the engine. Even if they did in some alternate universe, there are too many other things that would have to be changed including maps and economy etc... to work with the AI. Most of the discussion, at least the ones I've talked about have been in regards to WG and how Blizzard can change it to allow more options for Protoss players and add more strategy and variety to the game.
While I understand Blizzard's concern with offensive 4 gates, I think nerfing the ability to wrap on high ground killed what I would consider a great strategy that can be implemented. Just imagine the possibilities. If they were to fix WG just by adding on a bit more time and keeping the high ground wrap in(no ramp though) then the defender still has a chance to defend due to having more time to get units out and it'll add more strategies into the mix. The same with the pylon radius nerf. Heck, even though I disliked amulet and thought being able to wrap in a ht to storm might be a bit unbalanced when you consider that this is coupled with WG(you had to keep on top of production or have a ht ready in BW so amulet was more balanced there), I was against it. I guess to me, SCII compared now to when it was first released, it just doesn't play or feel the same way. I feel that some of the changes that Blizzard implemented were reasonable but a lot of other ones should not have been done and they killed variety in all matchups etc...
|
On October 17 2013 09:33 bombsauce wrote:
To me "The Problem" with StarCraft 2 is that threads that try to discuss or address the problems actually spend more time on BW than SC2.
Regardless of how perfect BW was or wasn't or how nostalgic fans will never let SC2 out of the original's shadow, these comments do nothing. Pages and pages of comparisons between specific unit compositions between BW and SC2. Pages of knitpicking about whether dragoons or stalkers have more game impact have absolutely no place in this kind of thread.
Blizzard has shown that they DO in fact respond to the community when there seems to be near general consensus about problems in SC2 (note bunker build times and widow mines). They have also pretty clearly shown they have no intention of regressing the game engine to appease the rosy eyed BW fans.
It's time to move on people. There are actually a lot of constructive comments in this thread like the discussion above about warp gates, but these get completely drowned out by whining that the game isn't just BW in the first place.
I think a major way to improve SC2 and the community would be to have TL actual give out some warns or bans to posts too dedicated to BW when in the SC2 section of the forum.
Not to mention these also tend to be the worst offenders of the "game is dead" hate and general negativity trend.
As far as I'm concerned, every one of you who posted negatively is a rosy eyed *game which cannot be mentioned* fan. That means you too, bombsauce.
Time to move on, indeed. And those who aren't rosy eyed fans and still post negatively, time to move on to LoL. Right?
|
I still think Blizzard could've looked more on which aspects of BW made it a fun game to play and watch.
Sometimes I get a feeling that they are simplifying to much and limits the players ability to think for themselves and develop a personal style. Though this goes for almost all new games I come in contact with. Though that is another discussion.
Maybe it is enough for WG to have a longer production cycle then Gateways, i e Gateways produce faster, but where they are, warpgates anywhere but slower. This would make it viable to actually don't go for warpgate.
What do you think about the ever occuring 200/200 fights? something good or something bad?
|
On October 17 2013 18:13 flashimba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 09:33 bombsauce wrote:
To me "The Problem" with StarCraft 2 is that threads that try to discuss or address the problems actually spend more time on BW than SC2.
Regardless of how perfect BW was or wasn't or how nostalgic fans will never let SC2 out of the original's shadow, these comments do nothing. Pages and pages of comparisons between specific unit compositions between BW and SC2. Pages of knitpicking about whether dragoons or stalkers have more game impact have absolutely no place in this kind of thread.
Blizzard has shown that they DO in fact respond to the community when there seems to be near general consensus about problems in SC2 (note bunker build times and widow mines). They have also pretty clearly shown they have no intention of regressing the game engine to appease the rosy eyed BW fans.
It's time to move on people. There are actually a lot of constructive comments in this thread like the discussion above about warp gates, but these get completely drowned out by whining that the game isn't just BW in the first place.
I think a major way to improve SC2 and the community would be to have TL actual give out some warns or bans to posts too dedicated to BW when in the SC2 section of the forum.
Not to mention these also tend to be the worst offenders of the "game is dead" hate and general negativity trend. As far as I'm concerned, every one of you who posted negatively is a rosy eyed *game which cannot be mentioned* fan. That means you too, bombsauce. Time to move on, indeed. And those who aren't rosy eyed fans and still post negatively, time to move on to LoL. Right?
I am ready to move on from the game. I did do just that.
However I am not ready to move on from TL (forum).
|
On October 17 2013 19:59 Cream)Muffin wrote:
I still think Blizzard could've looked more on which aspects of BW made it a fun game to play and watch.
Sometimes I get a feeling that they are simplifying to much and limits the players ability to think for themselves and develop a personal style. Though this goes for almost all new games I come in contact with. Though that is another discussion.
Maybe it is enough for WG to have a longer production cycle then Gateways, i e Gateways produce faster, but where they are, warpgates anywhere but slower. This would make it viable to actually don't go for warpgate.
What do you think about the ever occuring 200/200 fights? something good or something bad?
The 200/200 fights happen because of the way how pathing are set up and the design. Now we all can refer to TM's blog for the former part.
Now to the latter aspect.
Design:
1. There aren't any units that can hold a piece of ground as much as Brood War does. Siege tanks dealt way less dmg, Spider Mines were much more cost effective, Dark Swarm is a defensive spell whereas Viper/Infestor are offensive ones, etc.
2. The high ground advantage is non-existent. This attribute to the first point. In many SC2 games, the battle ends too early because of the lack of retreat options. In BW you can easily retreat to a high ground after a lost fight and stabilize.
3. There aren't any good harass unit to divert opponent's attention and dissect the primary troops due to off positioning. This forces people to forgo harassment style at mid to late game thus create the 200/200 max syndrome.
Simple as that. If Blizzard can fix those 3 angle of the game. Then SC2 would flourish because SC2 at this point is too stressful to play because the entire game boils down to that one battle. I mean ofc there are many tiny battles that leads to that point or the loser of it attempt to fight back fruitlessly. There are absolutely no smart play to side-stepping the circumstance.
|
On October 17 2013 20:20 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 19:59 Cream)Muffin wrote:
I still think Blizzard could've looked more on which aspects of BW made it a fun game to play and watch.
Sometimes I get a feeling that they are simplifying to much and limits the players ability to think for themselves and develop a personal style. Though this goes for almost all new games I come in contact with. Though that is another discussion.
Maybe it is enough for WG to have a longer production cycle then Gateways, i e Gateways produce faster, but where they are, warpgates anywhere but slower. This would make it viable to actually don't go for warpgate.
What do you think about the ever occuring 200/200 fights? something good or something bad?
The 200/200 fights happen because of the way how pathing are set up and the design. Now we all can refer to TM's blog for the former part. Now to the latter aspect. Design: 1. There aren't any units that can hold a piece of ground as much as Brood War does. Siege tanks dealt way less dmg, Spider Mines were much more cost effective, Dark Swarm is a defensive spell whereas Viper/Infestor are offensive ones, etc. 2. The high ground advantage is non-existent. This attribute to the first point. In many SC2 games, the battle ends too early because of the lack of retreat options. In BW you can easily retreat to a high ground after a lost fight and stabilize. 3. There aren't any good harass unit to divert opponent's attention and dissect the primary troops due to off positioning. This forces people to forgo harassment style at mid to late game thus create the 200/200 max syndrome. Simple as that. If Blizzard can fix those 3 angle of the game. Then SC2 would flourish because SC2 at this point is too stressful to play because the entire game boils down to that one battle. I mean ofc there are many tiny battles that leads to that point or the loser of it attempt to fight back fruitlessly. There are absolutely no smart play to side-stepping the circumstance.
SC2's depth is superimposed and artificial.
For instance, terrain doesn't matter so they add forcefields to fix the problem. Unit control doesn't matter so they add more spells and abilities. Macro doesn't matter so they add macro mechanics. Every time it's just a bandaid fix. This is obvious since so many units that don't have anything special to them become very boring like the corruptor and marauder.
I think all these things should matter at a deeper level, but they can't because it makes the game too "intricate" and then Blizzard would worry it offends casual players or game reviewers.
I just saw the new smash brothers documentary and they talk about how Nintendo perceives the SSBM community and how their vision of the game is that of a party game and they don't want it to be hijacked by "maniacs". Blizzard did make significant efforts to appease the maniac-portion of the community, but they too are invested in making the game play out the way they envisioned it. Every aspect of the game is streamlined and beaten into submission to confine it to the limits they consider acceptable. With all the complexity stripped out of the game, in the end, what's left? Play blink vs burrow micro wars the way Blizzard designed it?
If Starcraft 2 is to live up to its potential Blizzard should be way more ambitious and willing to take risks in the design to create a more interwoven game, where there are more interactions between the elements of the game and between the player and the game.
Literally, why can't they start the LotV beta tomorrow with a lot of experimentation and crazy ideas? The stable version of the game will still be around, but I know that many people will love to be part of an experiment like this. At least it will draw more attention than these balance test maps that nobody plays.
|
I quit the game and I quit watching the game because of one simple reason; I think the game is bad. Too many core game mechanics and units/abilities simply result in boring games to play and boring games to watch. Watch one TvZ (pre expansion) and you've seen them all (exaggerating of course but that’s how it feels). Games seem to follow very strict formulae and rarely diverts from this.
As Terran I could play a really great game for 15 minutes (I was master league) and then be a second too slow sieging my tanks resulting in an instant-loss (likewise I could win from opponents similar mistakes, it’s not an issue of balance for me). Combat seems too volatile for my taste. Too many unit compositions that serve as hard-counters to other mixtures… I’ve tried to get back into HotS, but nah, meh….
|
On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void.
The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2.
Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'.
|
My quick thoughts, probably said better by others and rooted in my own prejudices:
1) The battles are too often over before they begin. Terran built lots of Vikings and Protoss relied on lots of Colossi. We can watch the battle play out, but there's no point. Many pros will GG at the beginning of a battle with this in mind.
Solution: Less 'hard counter' units, more micro potential for units within a battle. Requires battles to run overall slower.
2) There are too few valid unit compositions. Every matchup has a few 'important' units and a few 'bad' units, to the point where an announcer gets excited when he sees hydras in ZvT or banelings in ZvP. For a race with so few units, it's disgusting that so few units are valid.
Solution: Less 'hard counter' units. There should be way more variance in how fast a race climbs its tech tree - probably done best by making low-tier units that cost gas more desirable.
3) Most spells and abilities only have one purpose, so there's no surprise when they're used correctly. Announcers can say that the storm was great, or the blinding clouds were timed perfectly, but never that they're used in an interesting way.
Solution: Units' spells right now are 'exactly what the race needs at this point'. Forcefield is necessary, not fun. Storm is necessary past a certain point. Spells should have higher risk and lower reward to make them less standard. Spellcasters should never be 'suicide units' (like viper and infestor), because then you're just paying 100/200 for a blinding cloud, so the blinding cloud has to make up the 100/200 cost. Spellcasters should have weak, versatile spells, and have high survivability.
4) All-ins are too rewarding. Many matches are very anticlimactic because it turns this real-time-strategy game into a 'hold this attack' minigame with a simple pass/fail condition.
Solution: More significant defender advantage. Better static defense.
5) Harass is very linear. Oracle harass is very linear and boring. Marine drops are too necessary and force Terran to keep them up to stay competitive. Zerg has no valid harass options other than mutas.
Solution: Make harassment lower cost, but higher chance of losing that cost. Reacting to harassment should be as difficult as it is now, but more rewarding if prepared for (shut down the harass rather than scare it off for now).
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 17 2013 21:23 fdsdfg wrote: 'suicide units' (like viper and infestor)
Woaht!?
|
90 pages of negativity or, should I say, a tiny vocal minority voicing their dissatisfactions?
Here is some light to shine on this negativity:
We have not seen a decline as a result of the rise of "DOTA Games." We don't see any "threat." They are very different games with very different types of players who want to play them.
|
On October 17 2013 21:22 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2. Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'.
BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot.
SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much.
This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 17 2013 21:28 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 21:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2. Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'. BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense.
You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated.
|
On October 17 2013 21:26 flashimba wrote:90 pages of negativity or, should I say, a tiny vocal minority voicing their dissatisfactions? Here is some light to shine on this negativity: Show nested quote +We have not seen a decline as a result of the rise of "DOTA Games." We don't see any "threat." They are very different games with very different types of players who want to play them.
This thread isn't about comparing Dota vs SC2. People who want to watch this game have/still/will watch this game. The issue that that many pro matches aren't entertaining for one reason or another.
On October 17 2013 21:24 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 21:23 fdsdfg wrote: 'suicide units' (like viper and infestor)
Woaht!?
Agreed, but I didn't want to waste time pointing it out. Too many responses without logic in this thread. Suicide units because he didn't micro them whatsoever.
|
On October 17 2013 21:32 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 21:28 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 21:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2. Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'. BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense. You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated.
Which players attack at a choke and which maps still have chokes at critical points? Your example seems a bit constructed.
|
Russian Federation40186 Posts
On October 17 2013 21:34 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 21:32 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:28 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 21:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2. Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'. BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense. You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated. Which players attack at a choke and which maps still have chokes at critical points? Your example seems a bit constructed.
Alot of players do attack in chokes and it is way harder to find an actually open space on most of maps. Whirlwind has one single open area in the center, Frost consists almost entirely out of chokes, but some are stupidly wide, so you can consider them open space. Derelict also has open areas near naturals. And that's essentially all, rest maps are about as chokey as they can. Also, where is the answer to question :S?
|
On October 17 2013 21:32 lolfail9001 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 21:28 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 21:22 lolfail9001 wrote:On October 17 2013 21:21 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 01:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 17 2013 01:18 Big J wrote:On October 17 2013 01:05 Rabiator wrote:On October 17 2013 00:11 ETisME wrote:
Rabiator you still don't understand why stalkers and marines are different.
stalkers role in the game is extremely different to marines.
this is why their cost, unit collusion, attack speed etc are different.
they aren't meant to stand toe to toe against eachother otherwise the deathball fight would be insanely overpower and blink stalker all in would be crazily unstoppable even if you have marauders.
late game stalkers are meant to be weaker for them to snipe vikings and ghosts, not to fight even. Stalkers and Marines have roughly similar stats to their counterparts in BW and the difference there was never that drastic as it is in SC2. Wrong. The difference was just as drastic. Clumps of marines DESTROY dragoons. Small numbers of marines get kited by small numbers of dragoons. Then Reaver/Storm shows up and the entire barracks tech tree is rendered null and void. The problem is that it wasnt that easy to create "clumps of Marines" in BW. In SC2 you just drag a box around all of them and they go wherever you click them to go, but how was it in BW? When the second and third group of Marines arrives you frantically click them to get into range an while they are wiggling through the first group they push them around and to the side which interrupts their fire. Sure you could get a dense clump of Marines, but it wasnt as dense as it is in SC2 AND it was work instead of automatic. All those things add TIME for the defender - the Protoss in this case - to react to the situation and this time is not available in SC2. Serious question: did you ever play SC2 at level, higher than 'Did not play, but criticizing'. BW ... dps (of Marines) slowly rises over a few seconds while they get close enough to shoot. SC2 ... dps (of Marines) is maximized nearly instantly because they dont need to rearrange their positioning as much. This much is OBVIOUS and the "very low reaction time for the defender" is one of the key problems of SC2. I dont need to play the game to figure it out because I have enough brainpower and some common sense. You did not answer the question. Also, if you a-move 100500 marines into 100500 roaches in a choke, marines won't maximize their DPS, so your information is outdated.
Ahm... All Marines that actually can get in firing range will still maximise their DPS and be as effective as possible?
Whats your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
