|
On March 10 2016 00:59 RKC wrote:
Fast expos aren't that easy in BW. Which made a lot of 1-base cheeses possible to end games within 5 minutes. Does this diminish the game? Not at all, and 10-12 years of enduring competitive play in Korea is evidence of that.
Has viewer taste and expectation changed, and more viewers now expect longer drawn-out games? Maybe, I don't know.
But what I do know is that BW early game is a lot a more satisfying to watch than SC2, even if it ends in a 5-minute cheese or fail greedy play. Maybe because the harder mechanics and micro made the games look more exciting, and the outcome more acceptable (a cheese still needs a high level of execution to pull off).
Thoughts, Bisu Dagger?
I never said that expos were free in SC1. All I said was that all starting locations now had their own, easy-to-defend expansion. It eventually evolved into what we have now in SC2, with easy to defend natural expansions and even easier to defend pocket expansions.
I don't think it's the mechanics and micro that makes SC1 more fun to watch. When I look at old SC1 videos, I don't see the massive deathballs that are the hallmark of SC2. I see a steady pace from early to mid to late game, along with a steady ramp up in game intensity as the game progresses.
I believe that the existence of the early game in SC1 makes it more fun to watch and ironically more fun to play despite the outdated interface. Brood War is like a comfortable ride on a stick shift car, while SC2 feels like an automatic car that accelerates quickly to 60 mph and doesn't give you the option to drive slower.
|
I've been playing RTS games longer than some Korean pros have been alive. Please don't give me a condescending answer which questions my skill and experience at the game.
That's nothing without saying your league. Statements like this one are just ridiculous. "Yo I have my driver licence for 15 years, tho I'm only driving 10 minutes per day as my work commute." "I also been playing guitar for about 10 years and already know 4 chords, thus hear me out."
But the question is interesting, I can definitely give you an answer.
Starcraft is, first and foremost, a strategy game, and as any strategy game it is structured and balanced around its economy.
What is a strategy game? Some might say, - "A strategy game - is a game about economy". But this statement is not correct, even tho a lot of strategy games utilize in-game economies as their innate part, this property does not define what a strategy is. In SC2 you have a lot of things to produce, construct, upgrade and train. In Dota2 you have 1 of those 4. However in Chess or Go you have literally nothing, yet these games are strategy games.
Strategy is about ceasing control.
Let's go through a thought experiment. I'm increasing the amount of resources your workers collect, let's say x 3, thus eliminating the need to expand whatsoever. I also remove all the expands from this imaginary Sc2 mod and my Super-Efficient-Main ("SEM") base is limitless in terms of resources. Basically you and your opponent both have sufficient and thriving economy from the very beginning.
What we have now is one base on one base situation: in order to attack your opponent you most likely going to proceed right through the middle of the map, as it is the shortest path, and your opponent will do the same. There is only one attack point on the map for both of you - the SEM. This will resemble Nexus Wars and similar game modes: the first person who's gonna get some momentum will be able to overwhelm the other one because the game has very little room for other interfering momentums that can break the snowball as it starts rolling towards someone's SEM.
Defending base from Drops and Harassment type of attacks will no longer be a problem since your SEM IS your main defense point where you can allocate all the reinforcement units and it will never be a mistake.
Ceasing control is about proper positioning at the right time. With no outer contest points on the map, your unit positioning simply cannot be incorrect because there is no room for incorrect decisions to be made. This also eliminates most of the risks associated with separating units / allocating resources to defense / offence, protecting multiple points merely by scouting+reposition maneuvers - the thing Protoss players should be familiar with. And other races too, because they are at the attacking side of the coin.
Expanding opens you up for another player - yet another base is yet another attack point for your opponent, yet another point for you to protect. When both players have 4 expands each the map is so thinly divided the position game is (should) be insane because there is no way, literally, you can spread your 100 supply army on 4 bases. Because what if he's going to attack your 3rd one with 75 supply and you had allocated only 25 (100/4, math checks out)?
That's the whole point. Not only taking bases is a risk, but protecting AND attacking your opponent's bases are risks on their own. This web of decision making creates just a better strategy game than if you would have had the SEMs as the fundamental pillar of your economy design.
In conclusion, this characteristic of SC2 is similar to what makes Baduk (Go) more complex than Tic-Tac-Toe - more decisions to make, more interactions to have, more strategic and tactical depth for positional play.
/etofok
|
On March 09 2016 23:59 DinoMight wrote:
Because an easily defensible expansion is necessary to encourage more stable games. Zerglings beat anything in the open in the early game. If your workers had to go out and mine like they do in Red Alert, Zerg would always win.
I'd much rather say: Zerg would always lose without a save expansion. Almost every kind of Terran/Protoss early game push requires the Zerg to have two bases to defend it.
Zerglings would be strong in such a situation in theory, but on one base they're really not that scary because you need a decent number of Zerglings to really achieve anything.
|
I'd much rather say: Zerg would always lose without a save expansion. Almost every kind of Terran/Protoss early game push requires the Zerg to have two bases to defend it.
just wanna point out that's because hatchery is also THE production facility, that happens to be a resource collector building.
|
On March 10 2016 03:11 etofok wrote:Show nested quote +I've been playing RTS games longer than some Korean pros have been alive. Please don't give me a condescending answer which questions my skill and experience at the game. That's nothing without saying your league. Statements like this one are just ridiculous. "Yo I have my driver licence for 15 years, tho I'm only driving 10 minutes per day as my work commute." "I also been playing guitar for about 10 years and already know 4 chords, thus hear me out."
Oh, nice, we made it to four pages before the league elitism crept its ugly head. See, this is one of the biggest problems facing Starcraft today, one of the main reasons why we never get anywhere and problems which have existed for over a decade remain in the game. The Starcraft community has an incredibly elitist vocal minority that tends to disrupt legitimate discussion, to the point that your league standing means a lot more than a well-thought-out, well-formatted post.
It's basically a cop out. You can't find a legitimate way of countering my arguments, or in this case, answering my question so you resort to the very thing I asked people not to do in the OP. It's also the reason why the game has no casual player base. Casual players, the backbone of any game, any esport, are scared off when they ask honest questions in the Starcraft community.
But the question is interesting, I can definitely give you an answer.
Starcraft is, first and foremost, a strategy game, and as any strategy game it is structured and balanced around its economy.
What is a strategy game? Some might say, - "A strategy game - is a game about economy". But this statement is not correct, even tho a lot of strategy games utilize in-game economies as their innate part, this property does not define what a strategy is. In SC2 you have a lot of things to produce, construct, upgrade and train. In Dota2 you have 1 of those 4. However in Chess or Go you have literally nothing, yet these games are strategy games.
And we get into game bashing. Great, man. You're not helping your argument here.
Strategy is about ceasing control.
Let's go through a thought experiment. I'm increasing the amount of resources your workers collect, let's say x 3, thus eliminating the need to expand whatsoever. I also remove all the expands from this imaginary Sc2 mod and my Super-Efficient-Main ("SEM") base is limitless in terms of resources. Basically you and your opponent both have sufficient and thriving economy from the very beginning.
Alright, it's quite obvious you didn't actually read my OP carefully, nor read any of my other posts. You just replied to the main question.
What we have now is one base on one base situation: in order to attack your opponent you most likely going to proceed right through the middle of the map, as it is the shortest path, and your opponent will do the same. There is only one attack point on the map for both of you - the SEM. This will resemble Nexus Wars and similar game modes: the first person who's gonna get some momentum will be able to overwhelm the other one because the game has very little room for other interfering momentums that can break the snowball as it starts rolling towards someone's SEM.
Defending base from Drops and Harassment type of attacks will no longer be a problem since your SEM IS your main defense point where you can allocate all the reinforcement units and it will never be a mistake.
Ceasing control is about proper positioning at the right time. With no outer contest points on the map, your unit positioning simply cannot be incorrect because there is no room for incorrect decisions to be made. This also eliminates most of the risks associated with separating units / allocating resources to defense / offence, protecting multiple points merely by scouting+reposition maneuvers - the thing Protoss players should be familiar with. And other races too, because they are at the attacking side of the coin.
Expanding opens you up for another player - yet another base is yet another attack point for your opponent, yet another point for you to protect. When both players have 4 expands each the map is so thinly divided the position game is (should) be insane because there is no way, literally, you can spread your 100 supply army on 4 bases. Because what if he's going to attack your 3rd one with 75 supply and you had allocated only 25 (100/4, math checks out)?
That's the whole point. Not only taking bases is a risk, but protecting AND attacking your opponent's bases are risks on their own. This web of decision making creates just a better strategy game than if you would have had the SEMs as the fundamental pillar of your economy design.
In conclusion, this characteristic of SC2 is what makes Baduk (Go) more complex than Tic-Tac-Toe - more decisions to make, more interactions to have, more strategic and tactical depth for positional play.
/etofok
Nowhere did I say that there shouldn't be natural expansions. I am simply asking why they exist, and why they're so easy to take and defend. Somehow, you twisted my words to mean that everyone should only have one base. But I get why. This is what many Starcraft discussions eventually devolve into. You ask for someone's league, their MMR, or whatever measuring stick you can use to see if you're better than them. Next, you misrepresent their argument and attack that misrepresentation to make them look unreasonable.
|
aah~, pardon me, reading through all that experience you were enumerating I had a hard time extracting the actual point from your post. However, my point still stands in its full force since it fits your question anyway.
Because of how SC2 evolved nowadays you contest for your 3rd, not your natural - in the days of xel-naga caverns getting a nat expo was the same as getting 3/4th today in terms of how much map presence you need.
But map sizes got bigger and tools at players disposal got better: reaper got reworked (scout + contain before speed, instead of scv scout), ovie speed got buffed, queens got buffed, protoss got MSC, naturals got narrow high-ground ramps.
This issue was especially apparent in the end of HotS because most of the players were aiming at 3 base barebone. Taking 3 bases was time consuming yet completely necessary, because of how safe it was. In Lotv it's the same, to an extent of course, but much faster with its new economy and 12 worker start. Since mid-game in Starcraft is easily the best part of it Blizzard just sped up the tech/eco development to this point. Yes, we did lose some interaction like hellions contain, but good riddance, because whoever is responsible for SC2 design is a smart person to create better interactions than that, which he did.
|
On March 09 2016 07:07 Eternal Dalek wrote:
Anyway, my main question is why do natural expansions exist? Why do Starcraft players get a freebie expansion that's a no-brainer to defend? Why is it okay for town hall first builds (CC first, Nexus first, Hatchery first) to exist? Why aren't there any maps where a one-base build is viable, and taking a second base is not guaranteed? Why are Starcraft maps so big?
You mentioned Warcraft 3 with his creeps. Well, one point you havent mentioned for WC3 is, you have natural expansion in this game too.
For the term "natural" expansion, it doesnt mean freebie expansion, it means the possible expansion that is most near and logical to take from your startpoint.
That you have a very close and easy to take second base comes from the core of starcraft, which is a macro based rts game. The first Starcraft (1) maps werent desigend this way, with a early second base, afair, just your home base ressources and more ressources over the map. Maps with bases and 1base or 2base, even to 3base, builds have been builded over time.
For example Command and Conquer, you have one base, because building constructions is based around your construction vehicle and building range (which is an old thing, that sticks to the C&C series, warcraft 1 had kinda a similar system too), so you cant really have multiple bases like you have in Starcraft. Or Warcraft 3.
The games have more differences, Wacraft 3 is mostly about micromanagement of units. The hero is the center of an army and whoever can controll their army better will win the game. Whereas in Starcraft the mentallity is more "player take bases for ressources to build lots of armies and throw stuff at eachother until one player runs out of ressources to rebuild their armies".
One base maps with hard to get expansion would limit the gamemechanics way too hard. You would run out of ressource way too fast. As you said with the cost of harvester in C&C, the gamebalance is designed around ressources, cost and income.
One of the changes in the latest addon for SC2 is the reducing of ressources at each base, to encourage players to take more bases, and faster. Because that is the game SC2 about: take bases for ressources and build lots of stuff to throw at eachother. Starcraft has evolved into a macro based game, with ressourcenmanagement by taking and defending bases.
ps: one more thing i wanted to say, you start with units in wc3 because of the creeps, the whole system, including the importance of the heroes, doesnt let you play without them. In Starcraft you can start with static defense like cannons and still macro up without disatvantage of xp, items and so on.
|
On March 09 2016 07:07 Eternal Dalek wrote:
I've been playing RTS games longer than some Korean pros have been alive. Please don't give me a condescending answer which questions my skill and experience at the game. I want honest answers, preferably backed by facts (honest opinions are also welcome).
There's something wierd about someone who writes an opening post like this.
I seems fairly obvious that the OP doesn't play SC2 but maybe not even watch it due to the language and description he uses. There's no reason why one strategy game should use the exact same economic model as another in any case. There is also many examples of one base play and rushing and tech builds in pro games, nor are the bases totally free to take; in ZvZ for example, it is possible for a game to be 1base v 1 base for a substantial amount of time.
|
On March 10 2016 06:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 07:07 Eternal Dalek wrote:
I've been playing RTS games longer than some Korean pros have been alive. Please don't give me a condescending answer which questions my skill and experience at the game. I want honest answers, preferably backed by facts (honest opinions are also welcome). There's something wierd about someone who writes an opening post like this. I seems fairly obvious that the OP doesn't play SC2 but maybe not even watch it due to the language and description he uses. There's no reason why one strategy game should use the exact same economic model as another in any case. There is also many examples of one base play and rushing and tech builds in pro games, nor are the bases totally free to take; in ZvZ for example, it is possible for a game to be 1base v 1 base for a substantial amount of time.
It's not weird when you consider that almost all discussion about Starcraft devolves into league elitism, like this one has. Now this thread has gone into tinfoil hat territory. Why would I lie? Check my posting history on this site. Do you honestly believe that I've been playing a long con on TL.net since 2011?
I don't have to prove that I play or watch Starcraft, because I know that I do. Rather, I used to, and was drawn back to this site and this game when I heard bits and pieces about how David Kim is now more open to alternative map styles. After I posted this thread, I found a link to where David Kim said so and was cautiously optimistic about his statement. It might be bullshit PR, or it might be legit. Who knows?
|
On March 10 2016 09:11 Eternal Dalek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 06:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On March 09 2016 07:07 Eternal Dalek wrote:
I've been playing RTS games longer than some Korean pros have been alive. Please don't give me a condescending answer which questions my skill and experience at the game. I want honest answers, preferably backed by facts (honest opinions are also welcome). There's something wierd about someone who writes an opening post like this. I seems fairly obvious that the OP doesn't play SC2 but maybe not even watch it due to the language and description he uses. There's no reason why one strategy game should use the exact same economic model as another in any case. There is also many examples of one base play and rushing and tech builds in pro games, nor are the bases totally free to take; in ZvZ for example, it is possible for a game to be 1base v 1 base for a substantial amount of time. It's not weird when you consider that almost all discussion about Starcraft devolves into league elitism, like this one has. Now this thread has gone into tinfoil hat territory. Why would I lie? Check my posting history on this site. Do you honestly believe that I've been playing a long con on TL.net since 2011? I don't have to prove that I play or watch Starcraft, because I know that I do. Rather, I used to, and was drawn back to this site and this game when I heard bits and pieces about how David Kim is now more open to alternative map styles. After I posted this thread, I found a link to where David Kim said so and was cautiously optimistic about his statement. It might be bullshit PR, or it might be legit. Who knows?
At no point should you have to prove if you watch SC2 or not. For the most part, its actually more relevant if you don't. Especially in a discussion about the watchability of an entertainment product. You don't make a movie that only fans of that genre will like unless your goal is to make a low impact movie with only elitists that chat with each other can appreciate. If the goal is to make something that people (not TL, people) will enjoy then the more abstract discussion of "what creates drama, what creates narrative" is an important part of the discussion.
|
SC2 fans dislike it when the game is approached with an outside perspective that isn't positive :/
|
On March 10 2016 10:11 BeStFAN wrote:
SC2 fans dislike it when the game is approached with an outside perspective that isn't positive :/
The problem is that "positive" is super subjective.
|
On March 10 2016 10:11 BeStFAN wrote:
SC2 fans dislike it when the game is approached with an outside perspective that isn't positive :/
The problem is that I'm not an outsider. I've followed Starcraft since its release in 1999. I bought Starcraft on its release day; I remember going to Best Buy that day to get my copy of the game before it sold out. It's just that I've been exposed to other RTS games that aren't Starcraft.
The last pretender to the throne of RTS games was Grey Goo. Unfortunately, the game is very poorly optimized and the Petroglyph seems to have spent most of their money on prerendered CGI cinematics. The graphics are more technically complex than Starcraft 2's but don't look as pretty. It feels like a throwback to early 2000s games which brag about their polygon counts despite the games looking very ugly compared to contemporary 2D titles.
Even if the game were better optimized, it still wouldn't do well because of its ridiculous pricetag.
Still, I consider this thread mostly a success since I got insider insight from the likes of FrozenArbiter Chinro Jinro and several others. It's just a few people spoiling our civil discussion.
|
On March 09 2016 07:27 Ctone23 wrote:
There is no simple answer. The evolution of StarCraft II as a game has a lot to do with it. In the beginnings of Wings of LIberty there was plenty of one base play, and Protoss v Protoss was for the most part this way all the way through hots.
One base plays still exist in Legacy of the Void but not very common. Also you start with more workers and some of the mineral patches have way less minerals, so the developer (Blizzard) is designing the game to promote expanding and defending.
Turtle play became a thing in WoL and Hots and they looked to changed that. Still doesn't answer your specific question of the natural expansions, but thats the best I can offer.
More like poor game design. Also, you could make an argument that some players and scenarios in BW could get away with such things like Flash. Then again, I remember Flash being punished for it more than a few times. Meh.
|
On March 10 2016 10:46 Eternal Dalek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2016 10:11 BeStFAN wrote:
SC2 fans dislike it when the game is approached with an outside perspective that isn't positive :/ The problem is that I'm not an outsider. I've followed Starcraft since its release in 1999. I bought Starcraft on its release day; I remember going to Best Buy that day to get my copy of the game before it sold out. It's just that I've been exposed to other RTS games that aren't Starcraft. The last pretender to the throne of RTS games was Grey Goo. Unfortunately, the game is very poorly optimized and the Petroglyph seems to have spent most of their money on prerendered CGI cinematics. The graphics are more technically complex than Starcraft 2's but don't look as pretty. It feels like a throwback to early 2000s games which brag about their polygon counts despite the games looking very ugly compared to contemporary 2D titles. Even if the game were better optimized, it still wouldn't do well because of its ridiculous pricetag. Still, I consider this thread mostly a success since I got insider insight from the likes of FrozenArbiter Chinro Jinro and several others. It's just a few people spoiling our civil discussion.
even on TL SC1 is alien when it comes anywhere near SC2 :/
|
|
|
On March 09 2016 11:11 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
It was a slow development in competitive Starcraft that lead to this, it wasn't just the maps changed and suddenly everyone fast expanded. Rather, for a very long time you had zerg opening with mostly fast expand builds, while terran and protoss would open with various 1 base builds into either trying to kill the opponent or pressure into a slower expansion (all the different 2 gate variations pvz, with various levels of commitment to the rush).
Slowly, presumably as the other side got better at defending, people started expanding faster and faster themselves, until finally both sides were mostly fast expanding while mixing in all-ins etc. Even as someone who had liked the forge first expansions and no-gate nexus builds in BW before they were even popular, I remember being a bit sad when the 1 gate/corsair/dt/expansion builds died (and became forge first nexus -> corsair -> dt instead :D) because it was a really fun way of playing with a ton of finesse.
I don't, however, think that this is a problem that should be solved by removing natural expansions. It's like how in Go most of the early game is spent securing territory and extending along the sides, you don't hear people complain that this is the superior way of playing (generally) to opening in the middle of the board. It's just part of what makes the game what it is.
Island maps were fun tho, if really hard to balance (zerg's reliance on an expansion).
SC1? What the hell? Just refer to it as BW BeStFAN. Few play Vanilla SC nowadays. As for you FA, island maps in BW were so imbalanced >_<
|
Map maker has a huge role in this imo.
Even with the current LotV, if we play games on old maps like Metropolis, Lost Temple or more Steppes of War, there is still going to be a lot of one base play.
I still remember back in WoL people are complaining about the one base all-ins, we sure have gone a long way to today.
|
Its not that they get away. In broodwar people started with one base builds but learnt over time how to defend attacks with smaller amount of units. Thats the beauty of starcraft. You have a lot more options than in other rts games and thats what it made that successful.
This will happen in most rts games once you have a vibrant competitive scene. If its not the expansion it will be some other advantage. If it doesnt happen it means the game is dul and doesnt offer enough options.
|
On March 09 2016 10:01 Eternal Dalek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2016 09:26 blade55555 wrote:
Actually Blizzard did try your approach for too long. It made sc2 a horrible game and a lot less fun. At first it was fun and ok because the whole game was new. Then it was just 1 base all day everyday which ruined the game. They tried experimentation that failed and just made the game not as fun. Close positions metalopolis, steppes of war, etc.
That is why the maps are designed the way they are, the provide the most strategies and a lot more fun then staying on 1 base forever.
What they should have done however, is have 2 separate ladder systems. The competitive ladder system with Tournament maps only and a Casual ladder system with funky maps such as island maps, 1 base, etc. That would have been a good decision imo as I know a lot of casual players prefer those kind of things.
None of those qualify as "drastic" in my book. When I say drastic, I mean changes that completely change how the game works. The last drastic change I remember that was received well by the community was the complete removal of macro boosters in the LotV beta. For the first time in many years, we had a clearly-defined early game, mid game, and late game. Building units first wasn't an automatic loss. Expanding first was actually risky and not easily held off by what few units you had when the enemy came knocking on your door. One of the earliest and most drastic changes I encountered in Starcraft 1 was in 1.02, when Photon Cannons were changed from explosive damage to normal damage. Suddenly, Photon Cannons could now hold off early game infantry instead being dead weight. This simple change doubled the amount of DPS cannons dealt to zerglings, marines, and zealots. A drastic change I'd like to see would be a rework of zerglings so maps no longer require mandatory chokepoints so that Zerg doesn't automatically win. Some maps should have the aforementioned chokepoints, but not all of them should have it, and the natural expansions that always come with them. I also really miss island maps. If you read old, old strategy guides and forums back in the day, people talked about Terran's easy access to expansions on island maps as a real advantage. That was what the flying buildings were made for; in fact, in one mission, you started with your buildings in space and had to land on a space station and take over the place. Anyway, to the other poster in this thread. It's good to hear that King David is open to different types of maps. It's been a long time since I've seen anything other than the standard SC2 map.
Thats not how you approach those things. You want that the game works and has the most diverse set of strategies. You slowly change maps and look if its still works. Imagine the people you would upset if all of a sudden maps offer only one option.
But again this has nothing to do with maps. Over time people get more efficient and can defend bigger armies with smaller and use the additional income for an advantage.
Also starcraft1 (bw) developed from 1 base to 2 base and at the end to 3 base.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
