|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On February 08 2015 06:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 02:41 Footler wrote:
I'm fairly certain I only quoted what I disagreed with which was his claim that SC2 requires zero strategy. This is not an opinion, it flat out isn't true. He never claimed SC2 requires zero strategy. He claimed SC2 requires zero strategy below master's league. As well, an opinion is neither true nor false, its just an opinion. If you don't believe or agree with his opinion, that doesn't mean you have to be aggressive and attack him. But if you feel that another person's opinion is worthless because it doesn't align with your opinion, I would like to introduce you to bigots and racists. As I said before, we need to keep an open mind when talking to others, and this includes conversations on the forums of the Internet.
You are really grasping at straws. I used myself as an example of why there is strategy below masters level. I do not know what else to say to you or Thieving Magpie. You are both electing to ignore presented evidence as well as basic knowledge of the game. I am not attacking anyone personally but I will call the misinformation they present nonsense since that is exactly what it is regardless of how many times it is repeated.
Excludos just made a post above me that also explains the point quite simply. EDIT: Or on the previous page.
|
a lot of comments are pretty funny. My take on rts being not as big is simple, sc2 just isnt a good game. It has very low depth, you never ever feel like the possibilites are endless. And ive watched hundreds of hours of sc2. Its beacuse i got nothing better to do (no life). Difference is, when i watch broodwar, i allways feel like the possibilites are endless and that the depth is so huge. This is what a game needs. This is also what mobas have, that feeling of endless possibilites.
|
If you think the possibilities are endless in broodwar but not StarCraft 2 that is an opinion. The only thing that was limitless in broodwar was fighting the AI instead of the opposing player.
|
Geez alot of effort put into this OP
|
Bisutopia19366 Posts
On February 08 2015 07:59 Eliezar wrote:
If you think the possibilities are endless in broodwar but not StarCraft 2 that is an opinion. The only thing that was limitless in broodwar was fighting the AI instead of the opposing player.
Why bother to make this statement? It's a myopic assertion of BW that will only cause negative reactions. The difference between you and the poster before is that he stated his comment as an opinion and you stated your last sentence as if it was fact.
|
Well this IS the same thread where someone actually wrote "an opinion is neither true nor false, its just an opinion", just a few posts ago so...
|
On February 08 2015 06:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 06:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 08 2015 02:41 Footler wrote:
I'm fairly certain I only quoted what I disagreed with which was his claim that SC2 requires zero strategy. This is not an opinion, it flat out isn't true. He never claimed SC2 requires zero strategy. He claimed SC2 requires zero strategy below master's league. As well, an opinion is neither true nor false, its just an opinion. If you don't believe or agree with his opinion, that doesn't mean you have to be aggressive and attack him. But if you feel that another person's opinion is worthless because it doesn't align with your opinion, I would like to introduce you to bigots and racists. As I said before, we need to keep an open mind when talking to others, and this includes conversations on the forums of the Internet. Nope, this is not an opinion, its false. And it can be proven: Do you play better by making buildings and/or units in a certain order? Do people do this below master league? Aka there is NOT "zero strategy" below master. Just because its not optimal doesn't mean its not strategy. Only if people win by placing their nose on the F key and roll their face from side to side can you call it zero strategy.
Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy.
Building buildings because they make units is not strategy.
Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy.
Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents.
When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making.
Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all.
For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies.
This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic.
|
On February 08 2015 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 06:39 Excludos wrote:On February 08 2015 06:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 08 2015 02:41 Footler wrote:
I'm fairly certain I only quoted what I disagreed with which was his claim that SC2 requires zero strategy. This is not an opinion, it flat out isn't true. He never claimed SC2 requires zero strategy. He claimed SC2 requires zero strategy below master's league. As well, an opinion is neither true nor false, its just an opinion. If you don't believe or agree with his opinion, that doesn't mean you have to be aggressive and attack him. But if you feel that another person's opinion is worthless because it doesn't align with your opinion, I would like to introduce you to bigots and racists. As I said before, we need to keep an open mind when talking to others, and this includes conversations on the forums of the Internet. Nope, this is not an opinion, its false. And it can be proven: Do you play better by making buildings and/or units in a certain order? Do people do this below master league? Aka there is NOT "zero strategy" below master. Just because its not optimal doesn't mean its not strategy. Only if people win by placing their nose on the F key and roll their face from side to side can you call it zero strategy. Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy. Building buildings because they make units is not strategy. Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy. Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents. When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making. Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all. For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies. This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic.
Choosing to scout is a strategic decision, reacting a certain way based on what you scout is a strategic decision, how you choose to position in an engagement is a strategic decision. This happens at all levels of play and it does not matter if wrong decisions are made, it was just a strategically incorrect decision.
|
Fuck, I fucked up my edit. Sorry for second post.
|
On February 08 2015 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy.
Building buildings because they make units is not strategy.
Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy.
Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents.
When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making.
Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all.
For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies.
This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic.
Magpie I don't wholly agree with your assumption that strategy doesn't have an effect on the lower leagues.
As I said earlier, the better the mechanics the more strategy has a greater impact. At bronze, there is absolutely no strategy involved, because mechanics are quite lacking, but as you move up the ladder and gain rudimentary knowledge of builds and mechanics, then strategy starts to have an effect. It might not have a large impact, but it will still have one.
Your assumption is that in lower leagues the only strategy involved is build more units. Its a rudimentary strategy that holds much truth, but the concept is not quite so simple. What units should be built? Are certain units more preferred over others? How much of each unit should be built? There are too many questions involved if your strategy is simply build more units.
Only in silver and bronze does the "build more units" strategy become the focal point. As we progress with our mechanics, we start to have some strategic decisions. During WoL, I won some games against the infamous 12min max roach rush because of smart decisions, forcefields, and out strategizing my opponent. It took me a while to learn how to scout and counter max roach rush, but eventually I learned how many sentries and immortals I needed to survive the numerous waves of roaches barreling down my warpgates. This was in gold league.
My ability to build the right units and make the right decisions helped me win the game. In other words, I beat this strategy with my own strategy.
Sure myself and all my opponents played sub-optimally, but we still employed a modicum of strategy.
I agree that the best strategy at any level but masters is "build more units" but its just not that simple. We have many choices during each game, and each decision made is part of our strategy. Stating "build more units" does not encompass the entire strategy. What units should be built? How should we use each unit? How many of x units do we need at y time? Too many unanswered questions arise. This is the exact reason why newer players get frustrated when master league players give that advice, because it just doesn't help at all.
You are oversimplifying the mantra of "build more units", and its just not the case.
|
On February 08 2015 11:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy.
Building buildings because they make units is not strategy.
Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy.
Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents.
When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making.
Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all.
For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies.
This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic. Magpie I don't wholly agree with your assumption that strategy doesn't have an effect on the lower leagues. As I said earlier, the better the mechanics the more strategy has a greater impact. At bronze, there is absolutely no strategy involved, because mechanics are quite lacking, but as you move up the ladder and gain rudimentary knowledge of builds and mechanics, then strategy starts to have an effect. It might not have a large impact, but it will still have one. Your assumption is that in lower leagues the only strategy involved is build more units. Its a rudimentary strategy that holds much truth, but the concept is not quite so simple. What units should be built? Are certain units more preferred over others? How much of each unit should be built? There are too many questions involved if your strategy is simply build more units. Only in silver and bronze does the "build more units" strategy become the focal point. As we progress with our mechanics, we start to have some strategic decisions. During WoL, I won some games against the infamous 12min max roach rush because of smart decisions, forcefields, and out strategizing my opponent. It took me a while to learn how to scout and counter max roach rush, but eventually I learned how many sentries and immortals I needed to survive the numerous waves of roaches barreling down my warpgates. This was in gold league. My ability to build the right units and make the right decisions helped me win the game. In other words, I beat this strategy with my own strategy. Sure myself and all my opponents played sub-optimally, but we still employed a modicum of strategy. I agree that the best strategy at any level but masters is "build more units" but its just not that simple. We have many choices during each game, and each decision made is part of our strategy. Stating "build more units" does not encompass the entire strategy. What units should be built? How should we use each unit? How many of x units do we need at y time? Too many unanswered questions arise. This is the exact reason why newer players get frustrated when master league players give that advice, because it just doesn't help at all. You are oversimplifying the mantra of "build more units", and its just not the case.
I already addressed that in the prior page. Bronze=>gold jus mass one unit. Marines, stalkers, doesn't really matter. Hit your timing, overwhelm them. In plat => Diamond pick your composition. MMM, Zealot Archon, stalker/colossus, mutalingbane, etc... Pick one and just master doing that one comp and you'll get to masters much better than dicking around with adaptive change ups to your compositions that requires different macro decisions, gas/mineral balance, and expansion pacing. Or just pick one comp and learn to maximize their production.
Trying to diverge from efficient preset builds when you can't even fully execute the builds is like not running a straight line in a foot race because you want to explore the other parts of the track. Sure there is a lot more track than path, but running the most efficient path is the only actual choice.
|
This thread has devolved into the equivalent of debating if an apple is a fruit or not. It's hilarious. Good luck.
|
On May 14 2014 05:01 urboss wrote:
So here is how our new game may look like:
- We keep similar types of units as in StarCraft
- There are no minions
- We add in heroes that can resurrect
- There are no buildings that need to be built
- Units can be warped in at the start point (in batches)
- The warp in takes some time
- The opponent can always see what is being warped in ahead of time
- There is no economy: Gold for warp-ins increases steadily over time
- The number of players per team is fixed
Or in other words:
MOBA minus minions, plus warpable and controllable units, plus steady economy.
I already made this game. Coming of the Horde, a WC3 mod. And it's great. The only thing it doesn't have is warp-ins.
|
On February 08 2015 13:48 Footler wrote:
This thread has devolved into the equivalent of debating if an apple is a fruit or not. It's hilarious. Good luck.
More like tomatoes, they're technically a fruit you know, not a vegetable!!!
|
Thieving Magpie, what games are you playing that have all these magnificent strategies?
I think you're incredibly oversimplifying SC2 to make your point.
It's like you're saying first person shooters are very easy because all you do is point and click. "I can 6 pool and beat every noob below x rank, this game is ez and takes no strategy", you're being very dismissive by going after non-relevant low hanging fruit.
|
In my opinion SC II is more of a tactics game than a strategy game.
The reason behind this is that the game has a very short term focus.
The qualities of strategy, are long term: identifying goals, managing resources of the whole nation/army/organisation, analysis, research, thinking, communication and it changes infrequently.
Tactics on the other hand are more short term and flexible to the current conditions. There are best practices, plans and processes (build orders, ways to micro scout, place buildings etc...)
And after all, it is simply one battle we are managing in SC II and although we can do research in SC II it is very limited. The strategical aspect in Real time strategy is often very diminished by the real time factor. Just imagine chess being real time or a turn taking a second or half a second it would be a cluster fuck and worlds away from the game of chess we know. In my opinion games like civilization have more of a strategical experience than games like SC or C&C and the like.
Maybe the term RTS should be changed to RTT or the RTS sector should make strides to develop their games into a different direction. Tactical games need another skill set than strategical games and as it stands, SC II is by far more tactical than it is strategical in that aspect.
Don't get me wrong, declaring SCII or C&C tactical games make them in no way less enjoyable or less demanding in the players skill level. I just think when the title says the future of RTS games we should also think of, what are the qualities of a strategy game, what should they be and what should they not?
|
Technically, tactics falls under the category of mechanics. Being capable of pulling off maneuvers with your units requires proper mechanics, so you are still in favor of mechanics over strategy.
I just think when the title says the future of RTS games we should also think of, what are the qualities of a strategy game, what should they be and what should they not?
Your question will be difficult to answer, but a good question.
The hardest part about designing an rts is creating many viable paths to winning games consecutively. In other words, I want different unit comps that have varying degrees of success depending on the opponent's unit comp.
|
On February 08 2015 14:50 lestye wrote:
Thieving Magpie, what games are you playing that have all these magnificent strategies?
I think you're incredibly oversimplifying SC2 to make your point.
It's like you're saying first person shooters are very easy because all you do is point and click. "I can 6 pool and beat every noob below x rank, this game is ez and takes no strategy", you're being very dismissive by going after non-relevant low hanging fruit.
I think WC3, Dota 2 and CS:GO (the ones I have played) are all way more fun to learn than SC2, partly because their strategical part develops more smoothly alongside other aspects. With SC2 I felt like I was constantly forced to follow a certain path (memorize, optimize, form a routine, repeat) whereas the other games constantly offer you options to figure out your own way, including the game sense and strategical aspects.
In other games I can choose to be a little foolish on some areas and excel on other areas and it all ends up forming interesting contests with other players. You're often having unique gameplay storylines because very different players clash and end up driving the game to some unexpected and fresh situation. Meanwhile in SC2 being a bit foolish often simply ends the game.
What this means to the future of RTS? When SC2 came out I was excited about the game. I had been wanting a deep and challenging 1 on 1 game for a long time. In some ways SC2 is exactly that, but it was never consistently fun to play and learning it asks you to be disciplined and memorize and optimize before you even understand the actual game to any extend.
I don't think any future RTS games need to cut away from depth and challenge. They have to balance the various gameplay aspects better to make the game fun to learn and play and allow people to find their ways of playing the game rather than forcing the progress route on people.
|
On February 08 2015 12:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2015 11:42 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On February 08 2015 10:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Making supply depots because barracks and units need them is not strategy.
Building buildings because they make units is not strategy.
Making units and moving them somewhere is not strategy.
Memorizing an efficient build and executing it perfectly is not strategy. Deviating from perfecting the execution of that build when executing perfectly is the better thing to learn is not strategy. Up until masters league there is only one correct choice, picking a build and executing it perfectly allowing you to make the maximum amount of units in a set time limit. Being unable to mechanically replicate this as close to 100% of the time is serving no one but your opponents.
When you get to masters the difference in mechanical efficiency goes away for the most part, strategy now becomes important because your decisions no longer is "make more stuff than the other guy." You now have strategic decision making and sometimes having less than the opponent (for, say, a tech advantage) is actually good decision making.
Before you get to that point, all options outside of maximizing mechanics is just the wrong decisions akin to shooting your own workers because you are a sadist. This is because in SC2, there is very little that can be done when one player has a shit tonne more dudes than you. His entire army can be brought to bear. Unit select limitations means having great unit control is as much a skill as great macro capabilities. So choosing between being as efficient as possible with build orders or choosing to not have great builds but good unit control is actually a choice. When there is only one correct choice the existence of other options is the same as having no other options at all.
For example, you can choose to not move or make any more units once the game begins. Just let your starting workers mine until you die. It is technically a strategic decision, but at the same point it's not a fucking strategy. The existence of bad strategies does not mean that they exist, it means there are ways for you to hurt yourself instead of help yourself. When there is only one good strategy (make a lot of dudes) and that strategy trumps all other strategies, then there is no other strategies.
This does not make sc2 a bad game since I enjoy watching players who are masters and up play. But to call sc2 casual friendly just because the controls are easier than BW is like calling boxing easy because the tactics are less complex than chess. Sc2 is very very hard for 98 % of the player base and most of them will stop playing. Strategy is not an option for them until far too late in the games learning curve. Now they can choose to suck and be okay with that (that's my boat), but that doesn't mean their weaker options makes the game more strategic. Magpie I don't wholly agree with your assumption that strategy doesn't have an effect on the lower leagues. As I said earlier, the better the mechanics the more strategy has a greater impact. At bronze, there is absolutely no strategy involved, because mechanics are quite lacking, but as you move up the ladder and gain rudimentary knowledge of builds and mechanics, then strategy starts to have an effect. It might not have a large impact, but it will still have one. Your assumption is that in lower leagues the only strategy involved is build more units. Its a rudimentary strategy that holds much truth, but the concept is not quite so simple. What units should be built? Are certain units more preferred over others? How much of each unit should be built? There are too many questions involved if your strategy is simply build more units. Only in silver and bronze does the "build more units" strategy become the focal point. As we progress with our mechanics, we start to have some strategic decisions. During WoL, I won some games against the infamous 12min max roach rush because of smart decisions, forcefields, and out strategizing my opponent. It took me a while to learn how to scout and counter max roach rush, but eventually I learned how many sentries and immortals I needed to survive the numerous waves of roaches barreling down my warpgates. This was in gold league. My ability to build the right units and make the right decisions helped me win the game. In other words, I beat this strategy with my own strategy. Sure myself and all my opponents played sub-optimally, but we still employed a modicum of strategy. I agree that the best strategy at any level but masters is "build more units" but its just not that simple. We have many choices during each game, and each decision made is part of our strategy. Stating "build more units" does not encompass the entire strategy. What units should be built? How should we use each unit? How many of x units do we need at y time? Too many unanswered questions arise. This is the exact reason why newer players get frustrated when master league players give that advice, because it just doesn't help at all. You are oversimplifying the mantra of "build more units", and its just not the case. I already addressed that in the prior page. Bronze=>gold jus mass one unit. Marines, stalkers, doesn't really matter. Hit your timing, overwhelm them. In plat => Diamond pick your composition. MMM, Zealot Archon, stalker/colossus, mutalingbane, etc... Pick one and just master doing that one comp and you'll get to masters much better than dicking around with adaptive change ups to your compositions that requires different macro decisions, gas/mineral balance, and expansion pacing. Or just pick one comp and learn to maximize their production. Trying to diverge from efficient preset builds when you can't even fully execute the builds is like not running a straight line in a foot race because you want to explore the other parts of the track. Sure there is a lot more track than path, but running the most efficient path is the only actual choice.
Your argumentation sounds a lot like: "if you want to win in gold, having diamond mechanics is a pretty good skill".
Also you are prwtty arbirrarily dismissing things that in the most general definition simply are stratehic elements, without clarifying in the slightest what you actually think is strategy. Again, in this case it sounds again like:"if it is easy to understand it isnt strategy". At least thats the picture you seem to draw.
|
Hots has some major balance things that went wrong. I am not meaning the current winratios with balance.
In ZvT the meta is kinda the wrong way as terran has the role that zerg should actually have and the other way round when looking at how these races are being played in the curren't meta and what their original design aimed for.
Let me emphasize 4 major things of these two races to support this:
1. Zerg's design aims for flexibility in production of units (everything made at hatch) and switching them when necessary without having to add a whole new production.
2. Zerg's can expand (only 350 mins to expand) and push drones quickly (flexibility again) and anyway expanding increases the ability of making more fighting units as well as the economy (2 hatch saturated requires a 3rd hatch for production in any way, no matter if at new expansion or in-base).
3. Zerg's defense is weak, they gotta build different towers against air and ground, their towers have no special abilities such as long range (like e.g. nexus cannon, siege tanks) or invisibility (such as widow mines) and so on.
4. Zerg's ability to recover from attacks is weak. Once an expansion falls it is a breakdown in income & production at the same time. Workers can hardly be replaced as the larva is needed to build more units in order to defend the next incoming waves of attacks.
1. Terran's design in general is unflexible. You have to decide early if you wanna focus on bio or mech as you need different production buildings for any composition that you plan to build.
2. Terran's can expand slower with more investment only (cc+oc/cc+pf, no instant saturation). Expanding with terran at first decreases their ability to build more units as minerals that go into CC, OC, more SCV and depots slow down their army production and tech.
3. Terran's defense abilities are strong. A base secured with a PF, 1 bunker, 2 mines and 1-2 tanks and turrets can hardly be attacked with anything but full army engagements in order to be profitable.
4. Terran's ability to recover is great. Attacks on a terran expansion allows oftenly to lift up and safe the OC even if he needs to give up this position. Mules can be used later on or at a different spot.
Following from this zerg should have a stronger midgame and weaker endgame. Zerg should be in the position of being the attacker throughout the game until terran gets his endgame army up and grows very strong. Zerg should be enforced to make use of it's versatility and mix up different compositions of units to continuously harrass the terran and slow down terran expansions as much as possible in order to prevent this strong lategame army to be formed. Zerg should be in the position where he has to trade units with a terran in a good spot for terran and bad position for zerg, which is close to terran production, off creep, far away from zerg production in order to prevent him from gowing.
However the reality is sad & different: Zerg is condemned to defend throughout the whole game without having the right tools for that and without having the ability to recover if things went wrong. Terran has to come on creep always in order to prevent zerg expansions and put pressure on his growth what makes him very fragile to counter attacks once things have gone wrong. Zerg's flexibility is limited to producing zerglings, banelings, mutalisks and enough of them for sure in every single game. (Roach builds can be considered as semi cheese with limited windows that will be shut down in the end if not doing enough damage or kill.) Terran has to trade with zerg continuously (and therefore on creep) in order to not let the zerg grow too much.
In a 4vs3 or 3vs2 base situation ZvT a zerg can most of the time not recover from losing that 3rd or 4th base. If let alone, however, zerg is going to macro up and gets into a strong position from where winning is more likely than losing. If zerg overcomes the terran' pushes, it will be most likely at a good place for zerg and bad place for terran, which is on or close to creep, far away from the terran production, close to the zerg production. That makes terran taking at risk and losing more units than his race is designed for (slowly rallying behind production can be overcome with fast moving ling/bling/muta). And so on.
All this is induced by a stronger zerg lategame and a stronger terran midgame. Responsible for the strong terran midgame is simply bio and its versatility that makes everything else obsolete. Bio takes away the flexibility of zerg at the same time tho and turns the metagame into what it is and what I described. The only thing that helps against bio is making alot of banelings. The response of terran is to build more bio. So we end up in if terran has more bio + additions (medivacs, mines ...) against if zerg has enough banelings + additions (ling, muta) throughout a good and long period of most games in TvZ.
This is the definition of a matchup being stale for me. Not only this, it is completely negates alot of strategical elements of the involved races even at high the higher levels of play and last but not least decimates the FUN aspect of SC2 in this matchup.
The right metagame for TvZ would be a meta that fits to each of the races as described in points 1.-4. This is the opposite of what it is now. In the current metagame of hots, each terran and zerg are not allowed and not forced to make use of it's race intrinsic strengthes. Therefore it's stale and unfun to play.
Just one simple thing as an example representates it all:
- bring irradiate back in order to deal with huge muta balls, this allows constant reliable damage on mutalisks and allows the zerg to do micro and split and lose only 1 muta per irradiate or lose 1 and damage others heavily (multiplied with several irradiates at the same time). Those missiles are not reliable enough and if they hit they do too much damage at once = bad balance, no fun, oftenly a bit luck based or a matter of seconds of reactions = no fun.
I don't wanna go too much into my personal balance suggestions and stop here. But this simple example alone shows why SC2 is bad. It is all designed around hit or miss. If you hit with 3-4 missiles a ball of 20+ mutas that is unsplitted you kill them all at once and win. If you don't hit them you do zero damage and your ravens just are not viable for the job dealing with/reducing the muta danger and you lose. Whole SC2 is designed too much in this way and this is why players, watchers lose interest into this game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
