EPTIs SC2 too fast? - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ilililililililiii
United States93 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
The problem is more that you can die in seconds to anything. A single mistake should not cost you the game at least not on non-pro level. Basically cheese and harassment are much too strong on non-pro level (and maybe even on pro-level). You should harass to get an advantage. Not auto-win if your opponent does react immediately. This game has almost no defenders advantage any more, except for Protoss who are immune to early attacks (which is going too far in the other direction). | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On July 28 2016 19:56 MockHamill wrote: I do not think the pace of the game itself is too fast. The problem is more that you can die in seconds to anything. A single mistake should not cost you the game at least not on non-pro level. Basically cheese and harassment are much too strong on non-pro level (and maybe even on pro-level). You should harass to get an advantage. Not auto-win if your opponent does react immediately. This game has almost no defenders advantage any more, except for Protoss who are immune to early attacks (which is going too far in the other direction). Aside from dt and oracles, what other harrasment gives an auto win? | ||
|
imp42
398 Posts
On July 28 2016 10:47 _Major wrote: The 2nd concept doesn't exist in a vacuum. The value and opportunity costs of the units have to be factored in too. That is exactly what I am saying: the 2nd concept does not exist in a vacuum, but influences the first one. I like your example of upgrading. Upgrading costs about 2-3 actions (adjust screen, select building, select upgrade), yet it gives huge rewards. However, when it comes to microing units in a battle it comes down to opportunity costs just as you say. Given the speed of the battle (and therefore the lower control) the opportunity costs of microing are just too big = small reward. It is more rewarding to spend the actions on producing new units, except for the most expensive and slow to produce units. Superior control (upgrading, supporting, and microing units to increase their lifespans) will still be worth it, because favorable tradeoffs are the key to keeping/taking the iniative. Superior control is also what opens the door for more advanced strategies like gambits because strategic sacrifices can be pulled off convincingly. Even the best pros maybe move their damaged immortal back, if they find the time during the battle, but not much more. Basically the only example of true micro battles I know are blink stalkers. This is no coincidence: The blink ability greatly changes how much distance a unit can travel per time (blink: large distance in short time). This mechanism therefore rewards the player much more, making micro worth it. Try moving a zealot back, he will take so much damage while moving back that the micro actually affects the battle negatively. Therefore: Yes, superior control makes a difference, but a comparatively small one due to the high opportunity cost while at the same time the risk (=variance) is relatively high. Just remember this rule: the higher the variance, the less consistently a good player will prevail over a bad one. Blizzard thinks this makes for fun games (see Hearthstone...), especially having the casual gamer in mind. However, designing a strategy game towards the casual gamer in such a way is poison. Making a game appealing to casual players is not about increasing their chance to win against a good player through narrowing the skill gap or increasing random chance, but about making a fun experience playing against other casual players. | ||
| ||
