| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
tokinho
United States785 Posts
On April 16 2016 08:00 Laul wrote: lol do you also do cocaine? xD There's no way you can't say SC2 is like, a weeeeee bit fast Lol do you smoke too much weed? xD There's no way you can't say starcraft 2 is a weeeeee bit slow. | ||
|
tokinho
United States785 Posts
On April 17 2016 08:39 cheekymonkey wrote: sc2 players are used to the current pace of the game. I can't stand playing on "fast", it feels slow. Not that I'm a particularly fast player, it's just that it doesn't feel right. Take the game for what it is, a huge part of becoming better is play faster. I don't know what kind of RTS which allows for strategic pondering during a game. Pretty much all of them are about executing what you know, and reacting appropriately. This is something you learn over the course of many games, not something you figure out during a game. Nicely put good sir  | ||
|
tokinho
United States785 Posts
On April 16 2016 07:41 Laul wrote: I find it's just a shame that no matter how creative or involved you are in your strategy/personal playstyle, you'll never actually "be good" unless you play in the holy meta everyone worships. "If you don't build x unit at x supply you insta lose " is what a lot of players, and myself, find to be true in practice, and overall the greatest deterrent to really enjoying this game, a lack of variation I suppose. Just my take on it though. What do you think? How would you like to play the game vs how you should play the game? Yes Its interesting in a real time strategy game that if your strategy has a hole in it because you decide to skip placing a building you can lose a game. That is part of RTS in general, but its also the same way in turn based strategy games too. Often you need to build a certain structure by a certain turn in the game if you opponent reacts some way. From your posts, it seems that you played warcraft 3 at a really low level and didn't notice the strategy. In starcraft 2 yes, there is sort of a rock paper scissors aspect of the openers, and sometime you can guess that your opponent will not scout for something and you just go attack aka "Rolling the dice". You can open, for example 17 hatch, 17 pool, 20 hatch or 18 hatch, 18 pool, 20 hatch and you get 1 extra larvae. You can open pool first and pressure a reaper fast expand to deny it, or get ahead, or you can play defensive with map control off speedling expand. You can open 2 barracks reaper into liberator, or reaper fast expand, or command center first into widow mine drops. The pros have taken time to optimize openers to find holes in other players styles. The fact that the transitions and strategy repeat itself a bit in the openers gives stability. I like to play a game that is stable, which offers ways to notice wholes in strategy based of the opponent cutting corners and trying to win by it. I prefer games that in general mean that a player who has practiced more and worked harder will generally win games. Starcraft excels at this aspect where the top 100 or so players who practice more and train harder continually beat other players. Since it appears that you don't want to optimize and just play anything i say do it. Starcraft is great that way!! Yes, being too "creative" can be a bad strategy because your creative strategy has easier holes compared to the other person's less creative much more refined strategy. If someone does something that beats your creativity, its fine just queue another game and continue to be creative and improve. Optimized play tends to beat creative play. It is this way in all turn based and real time strategy games including warcraft 3. I really think you need to suggest specifics in your posts about what issues you are having determining the strategies instead of this vague way of posting non-specific crap calling people crackheads on the forums who like the refined aspect of rts. If you want to play with creative builds do that, but don't stress that you aren't the best player if you don't understand the better strategy of your opponents. | ||
|
tokinho
United States785 Posts
| ||
|
Creager
Germany1889 Posts
On April 17 2016 11:03 RCCar wrote: Pretty sure the thread wanted to talk about the gameplay, not the literal game speed. I personally agree to some extent. It has become a fast paced game with drops everywhere, getting your entire army evaporated in about 2 seconds because you took your eye off of the enemy army to build more production before engaging, etc 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. I find this very fitting regarding my own experiences in the game - the trend towards even more APM while giving players little to make up for a lack of it. The only logical solution to people moaning about long stale mech/old SH matches is having fast-paced multipronged action from the get-go without any downtime, so they did that for LotV. I personally had plenty of that in Wings and Swarm and yes, the meta became a bit stale towards the end of HotS, but it was a very good and balanced game with a good pace as hyper-aggressive expanding wasn't needed as much and also without the huge variety on harassment options you have today. Still amazes me to see so many people apparently liking LotV best out of all SC2 iterations, but maybe I'm just getting too old/slow and am not longer part of the target audience? Don't know, but while watching and playing a few games from time to time still excites me, I find playing (LotV-)SC2 on a regular, progress-oriented basis to be pretty joyless and too demanding. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
You should read this thread, explains a lot of the points you guys are missing: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters | ||
Poopi
France12762 Posts
On April 18 2016 02:06 Creager wrote: I find this very fitting regarding my own experiences in the game - the trend towards even more APM while giving players little to make up for a lack of it. The only logical solution to people moaning about long stale mech/old SH matches is having fast-paced multipronged action from the get-go without any downtime, so they did that for LotV. I personally had plenty of that in Wings and Swarm and yes, the meta became a bit stale towards the end of HotS, but it was a very good and balanced game with a good pace as hyper-aggressive expanding wasn't needed as much and also without the huge variety on harassment options you have today. Still amazes me to see so many people apparently liking LotV best out of all SC2 iterations, but maybe I'm just getting too old/slow and am not longer part of the target audience? Don't know, but while watching and playing a few games from time to time still excites me, I find playing (LotV-)SC2 on a regular, progress-oriented basis to be pretty joyless and too demanding. I think most people prefer the WoL of before broodlord infestor / queen buff but other than this version, LotV is the best one by far. | ||
|
DonDomingo
504 Posts
On April 18 2016 02:52 Poopi wrote: I think most people prefer the WoL of before broodlord infestor / queen buff but other than this version, LotV is the best one by far. Slow Overlord Hellion out-ranging Queens Xel'Naga Caverns games!! Those were the days :D | ||
|
DekkuM
United States149 Posts
| ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
I think the speed of units atm is fine. Battles themselves are fun and engaging, the fast paced battles make micro difficult but still well within human capability and really makes those clutch moves feel fun and significant. Because of this playing on a lower speed setting makes the game feel super slow and boring to me. I do feel like there's a lack of strategic depth at the moment though, but I dont think it's a result of the speed of units, but rather the speed of the economy. It doesn't take long at all to get a huge army, so investments in non-standard tech paths become gimmicks that need to do damage in a short time window to make it worth it in most scenarios. It also discourages making units over investing in economy because investments in economy and/or infrastructure are hard to punish relative to the potential rewards. There's a lot to be said about this, but basically I'd be really interested to see what the game looked like if the 'economy' was slowed down but units remained as they are. | ||
|
TheDougler
Canada8302 Posts
On April 15 2016 15:37 Laul 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? Good luck with that.  | ||
|
Dracover
Australia177 Posts
The reason I say this is because speed only matters on decisions which are made within the game. Most decisions in fact can be made outside the game. 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. | ||
|
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
On April 18 2016 10:29 Dracover wrote: 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. Excactly. And that's - in my opinion - the major flaw of sc2: it promotes a style of play that's not really about actually playing the game but memorizing one or more builds for every matchup and every map. And that brings in all the other stuff that makes sc2 boring - standard maps, stable meta, nearly no patches, no new units, korean click-robots that dominate everything. If you weren't able to know beforehand that spire means turrets, you would need to think and actually do something strategic - image how boring chess would be if there would be rules like "advancing his left pawn means I have to move my right knight"... | ||
|
WhosQuany
Germany257 Posts
we can close the thread now the point has been right here i agree :D | ||
|
RichardNPL
185 Posts
| ||
|
Dracover
Australia177 Posts
On April 18 2016 15:56 Haukinger wrote: Excactly. And that's - in my opinion - the major flaw of sc2: it promotes a style of play that's not really about actually playing the game but memorizing one or more builds for every matchup and every map. And that brings in all the other stuff that makes sc2 boring - standard maps, stable meta, nearly no patches, no new units, korean click-robots that dominate everything. If you weren't able to know beforehand that spire means turrets, you would need to think and actually do something strategic - image how boring chess would be if there would be rules like "advancing his left pawn means I have to move my right knight"... Actually chess has the same thing. Most top players have standard opener. Most games when played at a high enough level have the same thing. Here is a list of possible openers, here are a list of possible responses. Players who are aware and across them will be better. Somehow I don't think a grandmaster chess player who would have a clock sits there thinking about their first dozen moves. Pick any games non turn based game: - Dota -> many of my friends and i'm sure pros can tell you how people will lane and play in position simply from seeing hero picks - CS:GO -> rounds are much faster than SC. Players have already decided stratgies before moving out. Once out there I don't think they're discussing strategy about shooting in the middle of some guns spraying | ||
|
SpiritOfChicago
19 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On April 18 2016 16:12 WhosQuany wrote: we can close the thread now the point has been right here i agree :D In BW you can do strategic and tactical pondering quite a lot. Situations are almost never identical and there are many possible ways to deal with them. | ||
|
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
On April 18 2016 16:33 Dracover wrote: - Dota -> many of my friends and i'm sure pros can tell you how people will lane and play in position simply from seeing hero picks - CS:GO -> rounds are much faster than SC. Players have already decided stratgies before moving out. Once out there I don't think they're discussing strategy about shooting in the middle of some guns spraying Yes, that's what seperate strategy games from non-strategy games, and sc2 clearly lacks on strategy although it calls itself a strategy game. | ||
|
ZerglingSoup
United States346 Posts
On April 18 2016 15:56 Haukinger wrote: Excactly. And that's - in my opinion - the major flaw of sc2: it promotes a style of play that's not really about actually playing the game but memorizing one or more builds for every matchup and every map. And that brings in all the other stuff that makes sc2 boring - standard maps, stable meta, nearly no patches, no new units, korean click-robots that dominate everything. If you weren't able to know beforehand that spire means turrets, you would need to think and actually do something strategic - image how boring chess would be if there would be rules like "advancing his left pawn means I have to move my right knight"... Chess has all kinds of situations like that, actually. The whole point of the game is to control your opponent's moves and force him to react in a way that favors you, meanwhile thwarting his efforts to do the same. And guess what, many people find chess to be slow and boring. But those with an appreciation for the game would strongly disagree. I completely disagree that SC2 is all about memorizing builds, at least in LOTV. The low-econ bases really reduce the level of 'safety' and predictability a player can maintain. The opportunities to give and take damage are greatly increased, thus introducing opportunities to interrupt pre-planned strategies. Players have to think on their feet more and respond to constant threats. It's a lot more of a boxing match now, where players are trading blows, rather than circling around trying to one-punch the other guy. Any game with rules is going to get figured out. It's a necessary part of having a fair game that people can get better at. If you truly have an appreciation for the art of playing Starcraft, then the more perfectly and consistently someone is able to plan and execute their strategy, the more amazing it is to you. The Korean 'click-robots' have put in hours of training to push themselves ever closer to perfection. 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. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Soulkey
AllThingsProtoss
Road to EWC
BSL: ProLeague
Cross vs TT1
spx vs Hawk
JDConan vs TBD
Wardi Open
SOOP
NightMare vs Wayne
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
GSL Code S
Cure vs Zoun
Solar vs Creator
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
