|
On June 03 2016 10:22 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 09:47 Hider wrote:Like, why waste my time making solid tanks lines and defenses when I could just as easily mash A and stim attack-move till I win? Well cus your probably bronze and play vs bad players where you can do everything to win. Good luck not playing "strategic" at higher levels. Mechanics and multitasking are way more important than strategy from 0% - 98%+ on the ladder and even continue to be important right up to rank 1. Anyone who has played @ high level can see that
Depends on how you define strategy. OP uses it in the context of unit positioning. And Sc2 is all about unit positioning.
|
@ Cascade w3 is not slow, but you cant really compare. In W3 you are not suppose to loose a single unit, there is squirmish all over the map earlier in the game, and units have more spells. So yes units die slowly, but the game would be way too hard the other way.
|
On June 03 2016 18:43 Wohodix wrote:
@ Cascade w3 is not slow, but you cant really compare. In W3 you are not suppose to loose a single unit, there is squirmish all over the map earlier in the game, and units have more spells. So yes units die slowly, but the game would be way too hard the other way.
I'm not saying it's the wrong way to make the game, but yes, it feels extremely slow coming from sc2.
|
"Look at a game like League. The mechanics are there, but it's relatively easy to reach a point where the game is no longer determined by pure mechanics.
No the mechanics are just different and less stressful in a MOBA than in an RTS. LOL is certainly still very execution-based.
So I am the only one that actually enjoy the high pace in sc2? Even though I'm only gold?
The only way an RTS should be "slower" than Sc2 is by being more forgiven with a stronger defenders advantage (as we see in MOBA's).
|
On June 03 2016 19:45 Hider wrote:
The only way an RTS should be "slower" than Sc2 is by being more forgiven with a stronger defenders advantage (as we see in MOBA's).
One difference I've noticed with Starcraft and other games is that in most other games, you lose slowly and "incrementally." In League of Legends, you lose tower by tower. In CSGO, you lose round by round. Hell, even most arcade maps like Tower Defense and Desert Strike get this right. In Starcraft, you can lose instantly and suddenly, and this was made way way worse by all the HOTS changes. I also think map design has a large role in how games are played out.
|
|
|
I think its too fast for leisure players.
Maybe battle net can have a another ladder with slower speed?
|
It's not the game speed, its the game pace. It looks to me there are two different camps here arguing about two completely different things.
|
On June 03 2016 14:09 cutler wrote:
Yesterday i watched ESC GoOdy winning a lot of games on EU GM with Terran Mech...and he is not a fast player. He knows exactly how to use his tanks etc to his advantage...of course he is not winning big tournaments. But most of us aim for a high ladder ranking and that is clearly possible with low apm.
Exactly. Far to much is made of speed. It's far more about precision and efficient mechanics for most players rather then raw APM. I'd say that if you have above 130-150 before Masters you are most likely spamming and/or have inefficient mechanics and organization.
It's the speed of fights and the severity of some situations that make the game stressful to play for me.
|
On June 03 2016 23:39 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 19:45 Hider wrote:
The only way an RTS should be "slower" than Sc2 is by being more forgiven with a stronger defenders advantage (as we see in MOBA's).
One difference I've noticed with Starcraft and other games is that in most other games, you lose slowly and "incrementally." In League of Legends, you lose tower by tower.
I disagree, from the 10 orso games from this years lck that I watched there were alot of 40 minute plus games that were both teams would be almost even the entire game and then end because of one mistake.
However my sample size for other games isn't that big beside starcraft 1.
Also if we ignore the top 10-20 players, starcraft is not a game that should be instantly decided with the exceptions of some wierd BO loss or major micro fuck up.
|
On June 04 2016 01:55 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 14:09 cutler wrote:
Yesterday i watched ESC GoOdy winning a lot of games on EU GM with Terran Mech...and he is not a fast player. He knows exactly how to use his tanks etc to his advantage...of course he is not winning big tournaments. But most of us aim for a high ladder ranking and that is clearly possible with low apm. Exactly. Far to much is made of speed. It's far more about precision and efficient mechanics for most players rather then raw APM. I'd say that if you have above 130-150 before Masters you are most likely spamming and/or have inefficient mechanics and organization. It's the speed of fights and the severity of some situations that make the game stressful to play for me.
Completly depends on your race and playstyle.
|
On April 15 2016 15:55 BronzeKnee wrote:
The time to be strategic is in between games, where you plan a reaction to a build you've lost to or create an aggressive build, ect...
When you are in game, it is just act and react and you do what you know. If you try to make things up in game, you'll just get crushed, at least at the higher levels.
I also thought, that a lot of strategy is lost due to the 1000 things you have to keep in mind while playing.
Your response is a great view of seeing SC still strategical.
|
On June 04 2016 06:19 jume wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2016 15:55 BronzeKnee wrote:
The time to be strategic is in between games, where you plan a reaction to a build you've lost to or create an aggressive build, ect...
When you are in game, it is just act and react and you do what you know. If you try to make things up in game, you'll just get crushed, at least at the higher levels. I also thought, that a lot of strategy is lost due to the 1000 things you have to keep in mind while playing. Your response is a great view of seeing SC still strategical.
That's not a completely bad reasoning for why SC is still strategic, but it has an obvious flaw in its logic. This logic can be basically apply to any video game in any genre. In other words, that's what many people would refer to as 'metagaming'. This logic doesn't really make SC that much strategic because almost any game that has an actual competition side where players are actively trying to beat each other has metagaming.
For example, play a fighting game like Super Smash Brwal Melee, but instead of planning a reaction to a build, it's planning a reaction to a certain play style and character. One more example, play an Moba like Dota2, but once again, instead of planning a reaction to a build, it's planning a reaction against enemy composition and item builds.
|
I think if it wasn't as fast and intense as it is it wouldn't be sc2. It's a big part of what makes this game so damn amazing
|
"Too fast" as in units die fast? Or "too fast" as in matches are short? If it's as in "matches are short" I need to start laddering again because I like short matches. Not super short, but just long enough for me to enjoy the game without matches feeling drawn out.
|
Russian Federation367 Posts
On April 15 2016 15:37 Laul wrote:
When I play, I dun really see any opportunity to really be 'strategic,' yknow?
Like, why waste my time making solid tanks lines and defenses when I could just as easily mash A and stim attack-move till I win?
Or even if it does go to late game, I'm just left in a trance where I'm just pressing buttons until I win, trying to keep up production at max.
Thoughts?
Yes, youre right. SC2 isnt about being strategic. It was at WoL, and it kinda was at HotS (not so much though), but in LotV blizzard basically removed brain part of a game. Wanna know why? Because casuals whined about "where is fun, why so slow, how I beat infestors, omfg dis tanks damage, where is exposions" and things like that. Read TLnet forum if youre interested in exact word. Anyways, if you want ot be strategic - welp, welcome to scbw, but if you want smth fast where you play 10 mins game of pure micro and random things - welcome to sc2.
p.s. Played SC2 since closed beta, went through all stages being masters/gm terran, played toss and zerg at masters level, but didnt buy lotv. Why? HotS was already kinda bad as a game, didnt want to spend my time on a pure sht game like lotv. RIP
|
On June 03 2016 23:39 BaronVonOwn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2016 19:45 Hider wrote:
The only way an RTS should be "slower" than Sc2 is by being more forgiven with a stronger defenders advantage (as we see in MOBA's).
One difference I've noticed with Starcraft and other games is that in most other games, you lose slowly and "incrementally." In League of Legends, you lose tower by tower. In CSGO, you lose round by round. Hell, even most arcade maps like Tower Defense and Desert Strike get this right. In Starcraft, you can lose instantly and suddenly, and this was made way way worse by all the HOTS changes. I also think map design has a large role in how games are played out.
The way you lose in LOL is far from optimal either. Slowly dying a painful death since the game is so snowbally. Often times you need to wait 10 minutes before you will acutally lose the game despite you having less than 1% chance of winning the game.
The proper way is to make players almost lose instnatly when they drop below < 5% probability or so.
But going from 50% --> 5% should consist of a sequence of multiple events and multiple engagements with multiple opportunites for micro.
CS:GO is good in some ways (no real snowball - getting owned is a much lesser evil than in LOL), though I think 16 rounds to win is too much. If you are completley outmatched, a CS:GO game shouldn't take more than 10-15 minutes.
|
what a silly question to ask "is sc too fast" - it is a matter of learning, but even when I started to play a few years ago, I didn't even think the game is too fast or something like that
|
I think the arguments in favor of SC2 being "too fast" can be summarized as follows:
- Not paying attention for a short amount of time can be very costly (units deal a lot of damage quickly / have little health)
- Harassment options has the potential to kill many workers very quickly
- Harassment can be very inconsistent; the outcome depends on how much attention your opponent pays to your harassment, how well he is prepared, whether he knows how to react correctly, etc
- When you get harassed very successfully (losing plenty of workers) there is very little opportunity to come back into the game
- All of the above create a feeling of permanent danger and panic
- Win / Loss because of harassment feels cheap because the very same move can sometimes be super effective and sometimes not do anything at all and your success or fail feels disconnected from your own skill
Thats how I see it at the moment.
|
My thoughts?
Those that can: Do
Those that can't: Whine
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
