EPTIs SC2 too fast? - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
iloveav
Poland1478 Posts
| ||
|
Mistakes
United States1102 Posts
If you have 150apm you better have sweet builds or be really smart when reacting and engaging enemies. If you have 400apm you better have a basic build down, and attempt to pull your opponent apart with superior multi tasking. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
| ||
|
Tresher
Germany404 Posts
On April 15 2016 19:20 deacon.frost wrote: You are not supposed to train to enjoy a game unless you want to be a pro. This game requires training for being a FUCKING GOLD PLAYER! Get better isn't an aswer to someone who doesn't have the time and just wants to enjoy the game... never mind, why am I trying? This! On April 15 2016 19:05 seemsgood wrote: Yes game is too fast.I think becuase dustin browder used to make Red alert 3. That why we have viking and micheal bay's game. Dustin Browder made Red Alert 2 not 3. RA 3 was waaay slower. And that MORE EXPLOSIONS thing is more a David Kim thing. He was the one that said " many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment" . | ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
On April 17 2016 08:57 Tresher wrote: This! Dustin Browder made Red Alert 2 not 3. RA 3 was waaay slower. And that MORE EXPLOSIONS thing is more a David Kim thing. He was the one that said " many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment" . Oopss...sr i read about him wayyy too long ago didn't remember much. | ||
|
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
United States257 Posts
| ||
|
thePunGun
598 Posts
On April 17 2016 10:35 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: a little bit yes. Mostly things die too fast I love when things die fast...then I can build more stuff....which will die.....fast...so I can build..more .....no, I just lost the game... | ||
|
OrangeGarage
Korea (South)319 Posts
Yes, I understand this is part of the skill required to play the ridiculously intense game known as SC2, but the game punishes you (seemingly) too harshly, and you lose the entire game not because you played like a dolt and took a bad fight, but because you weren't looking at the right time. In BW, the pace would be a lot slower, and you would lose maybe 1/3, 1/4 of your army. Pretty bad, but not too late to look at your army and make the decision to run away, or try to micro and salvage the situation. This is where the 'micro' part so exciting for the RTS series comes in. With the proper micro, you would be able to salvage a bad situation. In SC2, if you get in certain bad situations, you aren't even able to micro out of it because your army is gone. I recall a documentary on youtube where a Wemadefox player was interviewed about APM. He says 'APM is how well you can draw out this picture in your mind you have and make it reality.' The focus here is the picture. Not the brush(APM). SC2 seems to be tilting a bit too much on the brush and not the picture. (although, I admit, the Jackson Pollock of RTS is the only actual remotely playable RTS game that was out in the last 5 years or so) This is from a recent post on a Korean community ( link ) that I think is related to the topic. "The speedy and frantic game which is now SC2 might be considered the point of the whole game. That's good. I understand. But know that SC2 had no need whatsoever to be made into this kind of game. Actually, I am certain that this change was a completely unnecessary one. This is an RTS. This is the sequel to SCBW, and that means there should be a physical(APM heavy) point to the game. This isn't a card game, you know. But take a look at how SC2 plays out right now. Is it playing as a legit strategy game where fast APM grants you an advantage, or is this an arcade where your win/loss is determined on your reflexes and build orders? This kind of game meta ends up boring (a lot of) the watchers as well. When I talk to my friends, they usually say they have seen SC2. They also say that they have played it before. However, the general consensus is that they like SCBW better. The reasons are the same as well. SC2 is centered on what you build at the time, not how you use your army. Of course, the SCBW meta has been stale for over 6 years now, and I can see that SC2 wants to prevent the same thing from happening. However, what I'm trying to get at here is that SC2 is approaching the solution the wrong way." If anyone wants full translation, PM me where they want it and I'll either translate it here, SC2 General, or their mailbox, wherever. | ||
|
rfoster
United States1005 Posts
| ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On April 17 2016 09:29 seemsgood wrote: Oopss...sr i read about him wayyy too long ago didn't remember much. But this is why so many people enjoy sc2, because its an endless way of improving oneself. Its a path of learning how to learn. | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
| ||
|
Gullis
Sweden740 Posts
It is the result of blizzard trying to force harass down people throats by making it fast, explosive and it have the ability to bypass terrain so much to the point that "harass" can kill even defensive players. A much better direction would have been to emphasize the natural conflict that arises when a player expands and the way to punish that should be with a real force of units (that doesn't instantly kill everything, allowing the time for micro) that you can see and grasp rather than a warp prism fucking you in the ass from behind. I would never recommend the current game to new player because there is just so much special knowledge and twitch reactions you need to not instantly die to some things that it's just not worth it. I watched a tvt on ulrena between two gold players. They repeatedly moved their army down to the natural taking a defensive position (as one would think would be logical) only to get doom dropped, taking huge damage only for it to be neutralized by making a doom drop of their own. Repeat this 3-4 times and then one of the player had won, not because he was doing anything better than the opponent, it was just the way the randomness played out. This game needs more just straight up army interaction with time for micro and it needs to go back to the roots of economy>defense>offence>economy rather than it being about having the right hard counter out in time. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
It is more that the reaction speed demands is too high for most people. If you react one second to late to a doom drop or an oracle in your mineral line you have lost the game. Everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant. This is what causes people to stop playing the game. It would be fine if you were punished for not reacting fast enough but losing the entire game in one second? That may be reasonable on pro level but not on normal level. Unfortunately this is the kind of things that Blizzard do not seem to understand. Introducing Archon mode or more arcade games does not solve this, removing medivac speed boost and decreasing Oracle DPS does. Everything that causes players to lose the game in one second needs to be toned down. | ||
|
Gullis
Sweden740 Posts
| ||
|
91matt
United Kingdom147 Posts
| ||
Poopi
France12762 Posts
On April 17 2016 20:09 MockHamill wrote: The pacing of the game itself when it comes to taking expansions, building up infrastructure etc is good. It is more that the reaction speed demands is too high for most people. If you react one second to late to a doom drop or an oracle in your mineral line you have lost the game. Everything you have done up to that point becomes irrelevant. This is what causes people to stop playing the game. It would be fine if you were punished for not reacting fast enough but losing the entire game in one second? That may be reasonable on pro level but not on normal level. Unfortunately this is the kind of things that Blizzard do not seem to understand. Introducing Archon mode or more arcade games does not solve this, removing medivac speed boost and decreasing Oracle DPS does. Everything that causes players to lose the game in one second needs to be toned down. Your point isn't really true lol. Whether you react instantly or not to a doom drop or oracle won't change the outcome: it's how much you were prepared to a doom drop or oracle play that will have the most impact. For example if you are completely out of position it doesn't really matter how fast you respond to the doom drop, you are screwed either way and it's not a problem of reaction time but a problem of preemptively accounting for the possibility of such play, which comes down to decision making and experience. A better example would be a-clicking your terran army across the map and getting steamrolled by zergs/banelings because you didn't react in time, even though it's annoying that just means that you pushed carelessly because you can always send one or two stimmed marines ahead to have sound alert and gain a lot of time to react. Thus it's still not really a problem of reaction time but a problem of strategy at a micro level o:. A game being fast paced allow for tactical plays, real time (oh wait... real time strategy game???) decisions and such. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
It's OK when you're fine with it and you're ready to start a full-scale macro game right off the bat, but it's just rocket booster for people and I can certainly imagine some players not enjoying the fact that they can be beat based solely off of macro-mechanics. If you macro well enough and use a "safe" build, you literally beat anything up until diamond/masters. | ||
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
I believe the game is steered into a continuously faster pace, so that watching SC2 is more entertaining (and more profitable). So, I think this trend will continue, and the game will become even faster, because, well, revenue reasons. Looking at the big picture, perhaps this is Blizzard's way of compensating for the fact that it's not a team game, so it steers it to the idea of watching more players in the same amount of time? By adding more starting resources, and generally speeding up the pace, players finish faster, so you get to see more diverse Starcraft. As a result of this strategy, the game is, on one hand challenging, on the other hand its extremely frustrating for non-pros who have difficulties adapting. 1v1 ladder requires solid effort and commitment, you either keep up the pace and put in the time to get really good at it, or you stick to co-op and arcade and pretend you're good at Starcraft; or simply leave the game. Ultimately, it is a very tough test of your mindset, of your mental resilience, and very, very far from what I would call "fun"; but it's intentionally so. Your army will not clash too many times with the opponent; you have one shot, you're ahead and win, or you're behind and lose. You timed your attack well? Gz. No? Then you watch the replay, and try to be even faster than your opponent next time. Take disruptors, for example. I think their name fits superbly to what their role is; they can kill your army in a second. They really disrupt the game, and I believe the intention is to introduce more units like this, they help speeding up the games. Btw pros also are very aware of this, I just heard right now on a stream "the longer i wait, the worse it gets". my 2 cents; take them or leave them on the table | ||
|
Wintex
Norway16836 Posts
I mean, it works in CS, COD and whathaveyou, but the pace of that game is different. | ||
|
DonDomingo
504 Posts
It's not like Starcraft is all about mechanics. Strategy, decision-making and game understanding all matter a lot. If you understand Starcraft very well and your mechanics suck and you are not up for the challenge of improving them, you can always mentor someone with good mechanics? | ||
| ||
