|
On April 18 2016 20:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
Sure, the early days of a game are exciting, because you see crazy stuff happen, but it's always more exciting to anticipate what might become possible as players have time to hone their skills.
I doubt that - at least for me, the "crazy stuff" is far more interesting. I really prefer "low-level" tournaments, where there's more strategic diversity because the players don't have the mechanics exploit missing cooldowns. If we had weekly balance patches and new maps, wcs or gsl would be a lot more entertaining to watch.
And regarding "true appreciation of the art of playing starcraft" - I personally completely fail to be able to appreciate something in a player that a machine could do better, say, splits, injects, spotting a drop on the minimap... it's the same thing as seeing someone weld as good as a production robot - it's hard to do, but a complete waste of time.
|
On April 18 2016 23:09 Haukinger wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 20:33 ZerglingSoup wrote:
Sure, the early days of a game are exciting, because you see crazy stuff happen, but it's always more exciting to anticipate what might become possible as players have time to hone their skills. I doubt that - at least for me, the "crazy stuff" is far more interesting. I really prefer "low-level" tournaments, where there's more strategic diversity because the players don't have the mechanics exploit missing cooldowns. If we had weekly balance patches and new maps, wcs or gsl would be a lot more entertaining to watch. And regarding "true appreciation of the art of playing starcraft" - I personally completely fail to be able to appreciate something in a player that a machine could do better, say, splits, injects, spotting a drop on the minimap... it's the same thing as seeing someone weld as good as a production robot - it's hard to do, but a complete waste of time.
Well you are obviously entitled to your own opinion, but I wouldn't expect any sort of consensus around it. If enough people were really interested in watching low-level shenanigans and constant rule-changes, a weekend pick-up tourney with new balance tweaks each time would be easy to pull off with some simple modding. I might even watch it once or twice for the entertainment value, much like I enjoyed Husky's Bronze League Heroes series. But it would be an entirely different thing from the enjoyment I get out of pro matches.
The point of a competition is watching people push the limits of human possibility. In any sport or art form, a machine could be designed to do the fundamentals more efficiently and effectively. You could conceivably replace all the players on a football field with GPS-guided rocket cars or rig up some sort of sensor-operated hydraulic contraption with a cricket bat. It's the mastering of the fundamentals combined with the strategic decision-making that makes competitions interesting. What makes Starcraft 2 different from any other sport that mastering fundamentals should be regarded as a "complete waste of time" just because a machine could be programmed to do the specific tasks on command?
|
The point of a competition is watching people push the limits of human possibility.
Nah
If that were the case, we'd place basketball rims waaaaaaaaaaaay higher.
|
On April 19 2016 00:09 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +The point of a competition is watching people push the limits of human possibility. Nah If that were the case, we'd place basketball rims waaaaaaaaaaaay higher.
Nice mental image :D
But this is not a counter argument since it would have made Space Jam a reality, which is much cooler than current NBA!
|
On April 18 2016 10:29 Dracover wrote:
If you find yourself unsure about what to do, e.g. I have scouts a spire building and you are like "what should I do"? you have not thought enough about strategy outside the game. Before the game even starts you should know I have 3 responses which are blah blah and blah.
If the game was slower what does it change exactly? Instead of 1min before the muta's come to your base, it's 3 mins. But I expect everything to be slower so I expect your response to be slower as well. It takes extra time to build that turret or cannon or phoenix.
I think the only difference the game speed of LotV has made vs HotS vs WoL is reward people who preplan i.e. strategies before going into a game.
True but you've only scratched the surface of the problem. Let's say a person does have the game knowledge to build a thor or turrets when they see mutalisks. Well your thors just got magic boxed and you lose anyway. Or let's say you see a terran building MMM and you get the correct response, colossus or banelings. Sorry, your colossus just got sniped without killing anything, or your opponent split and kited your banelings and they accomplished nothing. Compare this to reavers and lurkers. Reavers and lurkers are so efficient that even if you manage to snipe them with your m&m you probably lost a big clump of them in the process.
And we haven't even talked about how all the medivacs, warpins, and lack of high-ground advantage have marginalized positional play.
It's way too easy to beat strategy with mechanics/micro in this game. Right now I'd say mechanics are favored pretty heavily whereas I would prefer to see strategy be more important.
|
It seems like what some of you guys are asking for is composition strategy simulator no-rush 15 min when RTS really is all about timings. Maybe Starcraft isnt meant for you?
|
On April 19 2016 01:32 DonDomingo wrote:
It seems like what some of you guys are asking for is composition strategy simulator no-rush 15 min when RTS really is all about timings. Maybe Starcraft isnt meant for you?
And it seems to me like you, David Kim, JimmyJRaynor and others can only manage pathetic copouts like "love it or leave it" and "RTS is dead." Or maybe you're just trolling. Lemme ask you something. Why did Flash quit SC2 and go back to BW, where his stream alone manages more viewers than the entire SC2 category? By your reasoning since there's nothing wrong with the game, it must be because Flash just can't handle the mechanical difficulty of SC2!
Seriously though, if your best answer is to tell people to quit then really nobody should be listening to your vision for the game.
|
On April 19 2016 00:45 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2016 10:29 Dracover wrote:
If you find yourself unsure about what to do, e.g. I have scouts a spire building and you are like "what should I do"? you have not thought enough about strategy outside the game. Before the game even starts you should know I have 3 responses which are blah blah and blah.
If the game was slower what does it change exactly? Instead of 1min before the muta's come to your base, it's 3 mins. But I expect everything to be slower so I expect your response to be slower as well. It takes extra time to build that turret or cannon or phoenix.
I think the only difference the game speed of LotV has made vs HotS vs WoL is reward people who preplan i.e. strategies before going into a game. True but you've only scratched the surface of the problem. Let's say a person does have the game knowledge to build a thor or turrets when they see mutalisks. Well your thors just got magic boxed and you lose anyway. Or let's say you see a terran building MMM and you get the correct response, colossus or banelings. Sorry, your colossus just got sniped without killing anything, or your opponent split and kited your banelings and they accomplished nothing. Compare this to reavers and lurkers. Reavers and lurkers are so efficient that even if you manage to snipe them with your m&m you probably lost a big clump of them in the process. And we haven't even talked about how all the medivacs, warpins, and lack of high-ground advantage have marginalized positional play. It's way too easy to beat strategy with mechanics/micro in this game. Right now I'd say mechanics are favored pretty heavily whereas I would prefer to see strategy be more important.
I'm not understanding your point. Mechanics in BW are way more punishing. I was always a huge BW spectator during its prime, but whenever I tried to play, I simply could not keep up with even the worst players, mechanically speaking. I had all kinds of strategy knowledge from watching for years, but I never found a way to have an enjoyable experience with my own mouse and keyboard. To win my first game would have taken a ton of practice and/or coaching.
With SC2, I can actually apply my strategic knowledge in my own games and take wins off of players with 50% more apm than me.
Also, you are contradicting yourself a bit, saying that positional play has been marginalized immediately after complaining about getting punished for having your units out of position. You seem to equate strategy with 'hard-counters', saying that Mutalisks=Thor or MMM=Baneling. Strategy involves much more than building the right unit in response. You have to know when, where and how to attack. If you lose, you have to learn and practice and get better. I know that a BW aficionado such as yourself understands that.
EDIT:
I think Artosis boils down the distinction quite well:
SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices.
http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/122799820950/thoughts-on-the-gsl-kespa-defeat
|
On April 19 2016 01:32 DonDomingo wrote:
It seems like what some of you guys are asking for is composition strategy simulator no-rush 15 min when RTS really is all about timings.
In the first place, rts has nothing to do with timings. Timings come from the economy system implemented in sc2. rts is about all players acting simultaneously in a game that's about strategy, as opposed to one after the other in a turn based strategy game.
|
Short Answer: Yes
Actual Answer: Porque?
Its like asking "is Indy Car too fast" just because slower races exists.
|
On April 19 2016 02:20 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 01:32 DonDomingo wrote:
It seems like what some of you guys are asking for is composition strategy simulator no-rush 15 min when RTS really is all about timings. Maybe Starcraft isnt meant for you? And it seems to me like you, David Kim, JimmyJRaynor and others can only manage pathetic copouts like "love it or leave it" and "RTS is dead." Or maybe you're just trolling. Lemme ask you something. Why did Flash quit SC2 and go back to BW, where his stream alone manages more viewers than the entire SC2 category? By your reasoning since there's nothing wrong with the game, it must be because Flash just can't handle the mechanical difficulty of SC2! Seriously though, if your best answer is to tell people to quit then really nobody should be listening to your vision for the game.
For the same reason Michael Jordan stopped playing baseball after trying it out for a while.
If you take an athlete away from their sport, do you really expect them to want to continue playing that sport? Especially when they're so bad at it?
Flash had an issue where he kept looking for perfect lines of play as opposed to adaptive lines of play. For the most part, his strategic capabilities was insufficient to keep up with the amount of strategic shifts necessary to play SC2 compared to BW.
|
On April 19 2016 02:45 ZerglingSoup wrote:I'm not understanding your point. Mechanics in BW are way more punishing. I was always a huge BW spectator during its prime, but whenever I tried to play, I simply could not keep up with even the worst players, mechanically speaking. I had all kinds of strategy knowledge from watching for years, but I never found a way to have an enjoyable experience with my own mouse and keyboard. To win my first game would have taken a ton of practice and/or coaching. With SC2, I can actually apply my strategic knowledge in my own games and take wins off of players with 50% more apm than me. Also, you are contradicting yourself a bit, saying that positional play has been marginalized immediately after complaining about getting punished for having your units out of position. You seem to equate strategy with 'hard-counters', saying that Mutalisks=Thor or MMM=Baneling. Strategy involves much more than building the right unit in response. You have to know when, where and how to attack. If you lose, you have to learn and practice and get better. I know that a BW aficionado such as yourself understands that. EDIT: I think Artosis boils down the distinction quite well: Show nested quote +SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices. http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/122799820950/thoughts-on-the-gsl-kespa-defeat
There are so many differences between SC2 and BW. When I say that SC2 rewards mechanics more than BW I am referring to the following:
Harassment units: This stresses multitasking. If somebody flies an oracle/medivac/warp prism into your base, you literally have 5 seconds max to react before you lose in a very cheap fashion. Look at all the new harassment units in SC2 that did not exist in BW: reapers, widow mines, oracles, banshees, liberators, phoenix, hellbats, adepts, warp prisms. And they're all superfast with high DPS, no real way to shut them down.
Really weak counters: Because there are "perfect" unit compositions / deathballs, it's just a question of who can macro/micro harder. Let's compare PvT in BW and SC2 as an example. In BW you would build entirely different units depending on the situation. Typically you'd start with a tank/vulture push and a dragoon contain, which would be swapped for carriers and goliaths later on in the game. Once all the tanks/vultures are dead and there's a lot of goliaths on the field, zealots start looking pretty strong and carriers stop being useful. You would entirely stop building one type of unit for another depending on what your opponent is doing. Whereas in SC2, you start with marines, marauders, and medivacs, and you keep building them until you mechanically overpower your opponent because there's nothing that can nullify them in the same way carriers nullify vultures.
In BW you actually had to think about which units you're building and be prepared to react and make big tech switches. The closest thing to this in SC2 PvT is that you have to decide when to add viking/ghosts to your death blob of MMM, to create a more perfect death blob.
Positioning: In BW you had the aforementioned dragoon contains but you could also have lurker contains and tank lines, tank pushes etc. Containment just isn't a strategy anymore because of the extreme mobility in SC2 granted by things like medivacs and warp prisms. This goes along with harassment rewarding multitasking over strategic positioning of forces.
I feel like I've explained this a thousand times on TL now. It's pretty clear that complaining is not going to help matters so I've started working on an arcade map to make tech switches, positioning, containment etc. more important and games less volatile. Because as much as I may dislike LOTV, I still love SC and want to play.
|
On April 19 2016 05:33 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 02:45 ZerglingSoup wrote:I'm not understanding your point. Mechanics in BW are way more punishing. I was always a huge BW spectator during its prime, but whenever I tried to play, I simply could not keep up with even the worst players, mechanically speaking. I had all kinds of strategy knowledge from watching for years, but I never found a way to have an enjoyable experience with my own mouse and keyboard. To win my first game would have taken a ton of practice and/or coaching. With SC2, I can actually apply my strategic knowledge in my own games and take wins off of players with 50% more apm than me. Also, you are contradicting yourself a bit, saying that positional play has been marginalized immediately after complaining about getting punished for having your units out of position. You seem to equate strategy with 'hard-counters', saying that Mutalisks=Thor or MMM=Baneling. Strategy involves much more than building the right unit in response. You have to know when, where and how to attack. If you lose, you have to learn and practice and get better. I know that a BW aficionado such as yourself understands that. EDIT: I think Artosis boils down the distinction quite well: SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices. http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/122799820950/thoughts-on-the-gsl-kespa-defeat There are so many differences between SC2 and BW. When I say that SC2 rewards mechanics more than BW I am referring to the following: Harassment units: This stresses multitasking. If somebody flies an oracle/medivac/warp prism into your base, you literally have 5 seconds max to react before you lose in a very cheap fashion. Look at all the new harassment units in SC2 that did not exist in BW: reapers, widow mines, oracles, banshees, liberators, phoenix, hellbats, adepts, warp prisms. And they're all superfast with high DPS, no real way to shut them down. Really weak counters: Because there are "perfect" unit compositions / deathballs, it's just a question of who can macro/micro harder. Let's compare PvT in BW and SC2 as an example. In BW you would build entirely different units depending on the situation. Typically you'd start with a tank/vulture push and a dragoon contain, which would be swapped for carriers and goliaths later on in the game. Once all the tanks/vultures are dead and there's a lot of goliaths on the field, zealots start looking pretty strong and carriers stop being useful. You would entirely stop building one type of unit for another depending on what your opponent is doing. Whereas in SC2, you start with marines, marauders, and medivacs, and you keep building them until you mechanically overpower your opponent because there's nothing that can nullify them in the same way carriers nullify vultures. In BW you actually had to think about which units you're building and be prepared to react and make big tech switches. The closest thing to this in SC2 PvT is that you have to decide when to add viking/ghosts to your death blob of MMM, to create a more perfect death blob. Positioning: In BW you had the aforementioned dragoon contains but you could also have lurker contains and tank lines, tank pushes etc. Containment just isn't a strategy anymore because of the extreme mobility in SC2 granted by things like medivacs and warp prisms. This goes along with harassment rewarding multitasking over strategic positioning of forces. I feel like I've explained this a thousand times on TL now. It's pretty clear that complaining is not going to help matters so I've started working on an arcade map to make tech switches, positioning, containment etc. more important and games less volatile. Because as much as I may dislike LOTV, I still love SC and want to play.
I'm still not sold on the idea that BW requires less multitasking than SC2. It seems like I would always lose in the time it took me to click on each of my barracks individually and queue up one marine each. But perhaps, because I don't have to do it in SC2, I have free time to drop things in my opponents mineral lines, which is more fun to me than clicking on barracks anyway. But I remember seeing mineral line obliteration happen all the time in pro-BW with reavers and stuff, so I guess I just don't get it.
I do agree with you on the weak counters. I also miss the fast and furious tech switches in BW. I feel like I see them on occasion in SC2, not so much with Terrans, but just not as often or dramatic and usually leaves me wanting more.
Harassment though, in my opinion, is what makes SC2 shine. I love BW for what it is, but I'm glad SC2 did things a little differently. To me, increased ease of harassment only emphasizes the need for strategically placed bases, defenses and forces. Attentive players can still shut that kind of stuff down with diligent use of phoenix or viking patrols. Yeah, its more tasks to do, but its army-oriented tasks rather than base oriented tasks and imo it adds strategic depth to the game.
Also, just because it hasn't been in the meta, doesn't mean good old-fashioned contains can't and don't happen. I saw a lot of them in the GSL last year with turrets and tanks and everything. I particularly remember one game where Flash (who himself says multitasking is easier in SC2) cut the map in half with turrets and starved out his opponent. I think if these styles were practiced more, they could totally be viable, at least in some situations. It really depends more on the maps than the units themselves. I'm holding out hope that LOTV, with the need to cover and defend more ground earlier on, will force the meta in that direction.
Anyway, good on ya for working on an arcade version of your vision. I'd definitely love to try it out!
|
Bisutopia19219 Posts
On April 19 2016 06:31 ZerglingSoup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 05:33 BaronVonOwn wrote:On April 19 2016 02:45 ZerglingSoup wrote:I'm not understanding your point. Mechanics in BW are way more punishing. I was always a huge BW spectator during its prime, but whenever I tried to play, I simply could not keep up with even the worst players, mechanically speaking. I had all kinds of strategy knowledge from watching for years, but I never found a way to have an enjoyable experience with my own mouse and keyboard. To win my first game would have taken a ton of practice and/or coaching. With SC2, I can actually apply my strategic knowledge in my own games and take wins off of players with 50% more apm than me. Also, you are contradicting yourself a bit, saying that positional play has been marginalized immediately after complaining about getting punished for having your units out of position. You seem to equate strategy with 'hard-counters', saying that Mutalisks=Thor or MMM=Baneling. Strategy involves much more than building the right unit in response. You have to know when, where and how to attack. If you lose, you have to learn and practice and get better. I know that a BW aficionado such as yourself understands that. EDIT: I think Artosis boils down the distinction quite well: SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices. http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/122799820950/thoughts-on-the-gsl-kespa-defeat There are so many differences between SC2 and BW. When I say that SC2 rewards mechanics more than BW I am referring to the following: Harassment units: This stresses multitasking. If somebody flies an oracle/medivac/warp prism into your base, you literally have 5 seconds max to react before you lose in a very cheap fashion. Look at all the new harassment units in SC2 that did not exist in BW: reapers, widow mines, oracles, banshees, liberators, phoenix, hellbats, adepts, warp prisms. And they're all superfast with high DPS, no real way to shut them down. Really weak counters: Because there are "perfect" unit compositions / deathballs, it's just a question of who can macro/micro harder. Let's compare PvT in BW and SC2 as an example. In BW you would build entirely different units depending on the situation. Typically you'd start with a tank/vulture push and a dragoon contain, which would be swapped for carriers and goliaths later on in the game. Once all the tanks/vultures are dead and there's a lot of goliaths on the field, zealots start looking pretty strong and carriers stop being useful. You would entirely stop building one type of unit for another depending on what your opponent is doing. Whereas in SC2, you start with marines, marauders, and medivacs, and you keep building them until you mechanically overpower your opponent because there's nothing that can nullify them in the same way carriers nullify vultures. In BW you actually had to think about which units you're building and be prepared to react and make big tech switches. The closest thing to this in SC2 PvT is that you have to decide when to add viking/ghosts to your death blob of MMM, to create a more perfect death blob. Positioning: In BW you had the aforementioned dragoon contains but you could also have lurker contains and tank lines, tank pushes etc. Containment just isn't a strategy anymore because of the extreme mobility in SC2 granted by things like medivacs and warp prisms. This goes along with harassment rewarding multitasking over strategic positioning of forces. I feel like I've explained this a thousand times on TL now. It's pretty clear that complaining is not going to help matters so I've started working on an arcade map to make tech switches, positioning, containment etc. more important and games less volatile. Because as much as I may dislike LOTV, I still love SC and want to play. I'm still not sold on the idea that BW requires less multitasking than SC2. It seems like I would always lose in the time it took me to click on each of my barracks individually and queue up one marine each. But perhaps, because I don't have to do it in SC2, I have free time to drop things in my opponents mineral lines, which is more fun to me than clicking on barracks anyway. But I remember seeing mineral line obliteration happen all the time in pro-BW with reavers and stuff, so I guess I just don't get it. I do agree with you on the weak counters. I also miss the fast and furious tech switches in BW. I feel like I see them on occasion in SC2, not so much with Terrans, but just not as often or dramatic and usually leaves me wanting more. Harassment though, in my opinion, is what makes SC2 shine. I love BW for what it is, but I'm glad SC2 did things a little differently. To me, increased ease of harassment only emphasizes the need for strategically placed bases, defenses and forces. Attentive players can still shut that kind of stuff down with diligent use of phoenix or viking patrols. Yeah, its more tasks to do, but its army-oriented tasks rather than base oriented tasks and imo it adds strategic depth to the game. Also, just because it hasn't been in the meta, doesn't mean good old-fashioned contains can't and don't happen. I saw a lot of them in the GSL last year with turrets and tanks and everything. I particularly remember one game where Flash ( who himself says multitasking is easier in SC2) cut the map in half with turrets and starved out his opponent. I think if these styles were practiced more, they could totally be viable, at least in some situations. It really depends more on the maps than the units themselves. I'm holding out hope that LOTV, with the need to cover and defend more ground earlier on, will force the meta in that direction. Anyway, good on ya for working on an arcade version of your vision. I'd definitely love to try it out!
Harassment in SC2 took too many years to finally be considered decent and if we were still in HoTS then it definitely falls second to Brood War. LoTV definitely upped this category. Brood War still takes it for me though: Vultures, spider mines, ling runbys, lurker drops, speed zealots, reaver drops, science vessels magic eraser, corsair, siege mineral line drops, mm multiplied attacks. But as I said already LoTV is finally matching the brood War list of options.
|
Hah. For some reason I thought they eventually took out science vessel eraser. That one was my favorite.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 19 2016 06:31 ZerglingSoup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 05:33 BaronVonOwn wrote:On April 19 2016 02:45 ZerglingSoup wrote:I'm not understanding your point. Mechanics in BW are way more punishing. I was always a huge BW spectator during its prime, but whenever I tried to play, I simply could not keep up with even the worst players, mechanically speaking. I had all kinds of strategy knowledge from watching for years, but I never found a way to have an enjoyable experience with my own mouse and keyboard. To win my first game would have taken a ton of practice and/or coaching. With SC2, I can actually apply my strategic knowledge in my own games and take wins off of players with 50% more apm than me. Also, you are contradicting yourself a bit, saying that positional play has been marginalized immediately after complaining about getting punished for having your units out of position. You seem to equate strategy with 'hard-counters', saying that Mutalisks=Thor or MMM=Baneling. Strategy involves much more than building the right unit in response. You have to know when, where and how to attack. If you lose, you have to learn and practice and get better. I know that a BW aficionado such as yourself understands that. EDIT: I think Artosis boils down the distinction quite well: SC1 is a game of speed and mechanics. Yes, there is a lot of strategy, of course, but it is certainly secondary to being able to make as many units as possible and to move those units in the right way.
SC2 is a game of strategy. Yes, there are lots of mechanics and speed required, of course, but those are much less punishing than making incorrect strategic choices. http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/122799820950/thoughts-on-the-gsl-kespa-defeat There are so many differences between SC2 and BW. When I say that SC2 rewards mechanics more than BW I am referring to the following: Harassment units: This stresses multitasking. If somebody flies an oracle/medivac/warp prism into your base, you literally have 5 seconds max to react before you lose in a very cheap fashion. Look at all the new harassment units in SC2 that did not exist in BW: reapers, widow mines, oracles, banshees, liberators, phoenix, hellbats, adepts, warp prisms. And they're all superfast with high DPS, no real way to shut them down. Really weak counters: Because there are "perfect" unit compositions / deathballs, it's just a question of who can macro/micro harder. Let's compare PvT in BW and SC2 as an example. In BW you would build entirely different units depending on the situation. Typically you'd start with a tank/vulture push and a dragoon contain, which would be swapped for carriers and goliaths later on in the game. Once all the tanks/vultures are dead and there's a lot of goliaths on the field, zealots start looking pretty strong and carriers stop being useful. You would entirely stop building one type of unit for another depending on what your opponent is doing. Whereas in SC2, you start with marines, marauders, and medivacs, and you keep building them until you mechanically overpower your opponent because there's nothing that can nullify them in the same way carriers nullify vultures. In BW you actually had to think about which units you're building and be prepared to react and make big tech switches. The closest thing to this in SC2 PvT is that you have to decide when to add viking/ghosts to your death blob of MMM, to create a more perfect death blob. Positioning: In BW you had the aforementioned dragoon contains but you could also have lurker contains and tank lines, tank pushes etc. Containment just isn't a strategy anymore because of the extreme mobility in SC2 granted by things like medivacs and warp prisms. This goes along with harassment rewarding multitasking over strategic positioning of forces. I feel like I've explained this a thousand times on TL now. It's pretty clear that complaining is not going to help matters so I've started working on an arcade map to make tech switches, positioning, containment etc. more important and games less volatile. Because as much as I may dislike LOTV, I still love SC and want to play. + Show Spoiler +I'm still not sold on the idea that BW requires less multitasking than SC2. It seems like I would always lose in the time it took me to click on each of my barracks individually and queue up one marine each. But perhaps, because I don't have to do it in SC2, I have free time to drop things in my opponents mineral lines, which is more fun to me than clicking on barracks anyway. But I remember seeing mineral line obliteration happen all the time in pro-BW with reavers and stuff, so I guess I just don't get it.
I do agree with you on the weak counters. I also miss the fast and furious tech switches in BW. I feel like I see them on occasion in SC2, not so much with Terrans, but just not as often or dramatic and usually leaves me wanting more.
Harassment though, in my opinion, is what makes SC2 shine. I love BW for what it is, but I'm glad SC2 did things a little differently. To me, increased ease of harassment only emphasizes the need for strategically placed bases, defenses and forces. Attentive players can still shut that kind of stuff down with diligent use of phoenix or viking patrols. Yeah, its more tasks to do, but its army-oriented tasks rather than base oriented tasks and imo it adds strategic depth to the game. + Show Spoiler +Also, just because it hasn't been in the meta, doesn't mean good old-fashioned contains can't and don't happen. I saw a lot of them in the GSL last year with turrets and tanks and everything. I particularly remember one game where Flash ( who himself says multitasking is easier in SC2) cut the map in half with turrets and starved out his opponent. I think if these styles were practiced more, they could totally be viable, at least in some situations. It really depends more on the maps than the units themselves. I'm holding out hope that LOTV, with the need to cover and defend more ground earlier on, will force the meta in that direction. Anyway, good on ya for working on an arcade version of your vision. I'd definitely love to try it ou t!
THough it's annoying as fuck to play against in lower leagues. That's what I get from all my 20 friends in my friend list in HotS and that's what I am saying in LotV.
For noobs it is too much, medevac speed, oracle speed, mines, muta regen and other buffs created a game which is a fast and good to look at. But it is horrible to play for many people. That's why SC2 has so "good" ratio of people playing the game to people watching the game. But the player base is lowering and nobody can stop it when Blizzard is forcing harder and more challengin game without catering noobs like me and my SC2 friends.
|
|
|
No, the speed contributes to the skill cap and fun of the game. If it's not for you try playing tbs.
|
With the ladder revamp, I was thinking about making the bronze league progressive.
Let's say you end in Bronze III and all the ladder games will be played in the normal speed, than you will get promoted and the speed will increase. It will help new players to adapt much more.
And to be honest I could not stand anything slower than current speed... it is ridiculously boring and dumb. BUT as part of the lerning process I dont mind it.
|
When I play. My speed changes from game to game, situation to situation. I might have a game where I get an average apm of 300+, because I get into a situation i'm very familiar with. Then I might go into the next game with an average apm of 120, because the match requiries less intensive macroing/microing. Since I mostly play teamleague 3v3-4v4 I have more things to take into consideration which may or may not slow me down. Regardless I'd say I enjoy my slower matches more cause I get more of a sense of strategic warfare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
