Is SC2 too fast?

On April 15 2016 15:42 RoomOfMush wrote:
As I see it you have 3 options:
1) Become faster
2) Play a slower game
3) Whine on the internet about it

On April 15 2016 15:46 Laul wrote:


Well that's not 'thoughts' more-so orders. I'm not complaining, no need to be rude. It's not an issue of skill, I'm just asking people what they think of game speed, jeez >.>

On April 15 2016 15:37 Laul wrote:When I play, I dun really see any opportunity to really be 'strategic,' yknow?

On April 15 2016 16:17 Darkn3ssFallz wrote:
Wasn't Blizzard planning on creating an unranked matchmaking option with game speed set to Fast?

On April 15 2016 16:32 Musicus wrote:
Sometimes I think it is, wc3 and BW were both slower, but then again it's also very exciting due to the speed. Every time I go back to wc3, it just feels soooo slow.

You can just set the game speed to fast instead of faster and play a custom game like this and see if you enjoy it more. I don't think you will.

On April 15 2016 17:08 BisuDagger wrote:
The damage output was extremely high and max supply death balls ended games in seconds. DPS still is on the strong side, but I think the redesign of LoTV has made the damage output more reasonable to manage. So while I wouldn't say the game speed is too fast, I would nerf the DPS across the board just the slightest bit.

On April 15 2016 17:29 SaraNghaeyosc2 wrote:
Not sure if trolling or actually retarded lol.

On April 15 2016 17:28 Musicus wrote:


Hm not sure about the pacing, I like the games to be shorter so you can play more. CS and moba games take way too long imo. I also like to get right into the action so the 12 worker change in LotV is great imo.

I thought OP was talking about the game speed, as in he wanted more time to do stuff like micro in battles, have more time to think about stuff, since everything is build slower, have lower dps etc...

Well game speed changes the pace of the game of course, so it's almost the same.



I mean people wanted this and plus the economy/worker saturation change, but I think we are past those changes now and Blizz said they tested both and didn't like it, if I remember correctly.

It seems to me that far too often lower league players are tying themselves unnecessarily to the way progamers play. They see, learn and even get taught builds of progamers, without adjusting them to their own skill level. Let me give you an example of how you can change that and probably have a better personal experience with the game.

On April 15 2016 18:26 Big J wrote:
Some of the units are too fast imo yes.

On April 15 2016 16:32 Musicus wrote:
Sometimes I think it is, wc3 and BW were both slower, but then again it's also very exciting due to the speed. Every time I go back to wc3, it just feels soooo slow.

On April 15 2016 17:08 BisuDagger wrote:
The damage output was extremely high and max supply death balls ended games in seconds. DPS still is on the strong side, but I think the redesign of LoTV has made the damage output more reasonable to manage. So while I wouldn't say the game speed is too fast, I would nerf the DPS across the board just the slightest bit.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

On April 15 2016 20:42 Gwavajuice wrote:


Seriously, I think it's about being at ease with yourself. If you don't have time and can't train, you can have fun in silver league, you have silly games you do your silly strats you execute them like crap but it's fun nonetheless. you sound like you'd want to be good without putting the effort to be good, that's will get you extremely frustrated. If you don't want to try hard, just don't and enjoy silver league or team games fun. It's cool to be bad at something when you're ok with it.

But more importantly, I personnally don't see any game in the world where you don't actually train one way or another. The least you do is to get just a tad better than last time you played. Trying to get better is the core of any game for me. If I don't want to get better, I just usually don't play at all.

On April 15 2016 20:42 Gwavajuice wrote:


Seriously, I think it's about being at ease with yourself. If you don't have time and can't train, you can have fun in silver league, you have silly games you do your silly strats you execute them like crap but it's fun nonetheless. you sound like you'd want to be good without putting the effort to be good, that's will get you extremely frustrated. If you don't want to try hard, just don't and enjoy silver league or team games fun. It's cool to be bad at something when you're ok with it.

But more importantly, I personnally don't see any game in the world where you don't actually train one way or another. The least you do is to get just a tad better than last time you played. Trying to get better is the core of any game for me. If I don't want to get better, I just usually don't play at all.

On April 15 2016 22:57 todespolka wrote:
All people who find sc2 too fast. Are you sure you want to play 1vs1 competitive ladder? Are you not looking for campaign esque gameplay with long drawn out games a la vs ki or like age of empire (even age of empire has fast strats).

On April 15 2016 22:48 deacon.frost wrote:

That's not right.

I want a game that is not a frustrating. Right now the game is about do a mistake -> lose a game. One. Fucking. Mistake.
Oh, you missed an oracle, game over, man.
Oh, you missed a mine drop, game over, man.
Oh, you don't have here a pylon, let me place a liberator there(though this is probably not that game ending damage).
Oh, you wasn't watching your army for a split second, game over, man!

You can lose the game so fast with 1 mistake. And then there;s no way to get back. I could count my comebacks on 1 hand.

I don't want to get better for free, I want to have a chance to make a mistake. RIght now I don't have that opportunity thus the game is frustrating. And that is the reason why I stopped playing. The game needs to slower down on lower levels. But no, Blizzard buffed everything so it is faster(even the creep spreads/receids faster now ) WTF?! The game was hard before and now it is only harder and less enjoyable. I was awed by templar openings from Parting. I was enjoying them so much I was playing ONLY them. I am bad at the game but I was thrilled. Compare to nowadays PvT...
(BTW I am not gold neither silver)

Edit> Maybe that's just me and my never ending love of Protoss, because I hate adepts, oracles, MSC, pylon overcharge, disruptor and WP pick up range aaand DT speed buff. Also tempests.

Basically the game is frustrating and they destroyed Protoss. Damn, I hate Blizzard and its design team. Hope they are not reading this.

On April 15 2016 22:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:
It's rather that no matter how good you are you will have games which are competetive because of the matchmaking.
I think that is pretty much the most important part, as long as it doesn't feel unfair the player usually has some form of fun (if he actually is interested in the game he is playing, that is the requirement obviously)
"Silly" here simply means not optimal, the lower the skill the less optimal you probably can play, you actually don't need to cut corners and can build static d (people always say "hey if only the zegr would have built 2-3 spores everywhere, yeah not gonna happen, at lower lvl it's no problem)
Now you maybe try to be actually good, but that is the same in every game.
In LoL you have to learn to lasthit and every single laning matchup you could encounter, in csgo you have to learn flashes/smokes and the spray control, etc
As soon as you actually give a damn about your skill level every single game becomes a "grindfest" and you have to actually analyze your gameplay.

On April 15 2016 22:57 todespolka wrote:
All people who find sc2 too fast. Are you sure you want to play 1vs1 competitive ladder? Are you not looking for campaign esque gameplay with long drawn out games just like vs AI or like in age of empire (even age of empire has fast strats/rushs). Even when sc2 was slower, as long as it has an impossible skill ceiling, you will always complain about something.

I sometimes think you guys play the wrong game or the wrong mode. The game gives you a certain number of tasks which sets the skill ceiling. If we reduce that number, so that everyone can do everything, then skill has no meaning. Also it wouldnt be fair for fast players.

The only way to make the game slower without reducing skill ceiling is to offer more tasks in the same time period. In that case fast players will be even faster. Not sure if you really want that. The community doesnt like a slow game. Wol at release was slow, blizzard made it faster because we wanted it. Second proof is the popularity of fastest maps.

Even if sc2 were slower. You will complain about something else.

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?

On April 15 2016 23:57 The_Red_Viper wrote:


See i don't agree with this all that much. The main selling point for sc2 is that it's an rts. People who like rts games like it for different reasons, but mainly i would imagine for the strategy, multitasking (macro/micro) and 1vs1 gameplay.
You saying this is behind a "glass skill ceiling" doesn't do it for me. You can do different strategies at silver level. You can do everything the pros do, just a lot worse (but as i said before, it doesn't matter because the matchmaking will give you opponents close to your skill)
You don't need 200 apm to have fun with sc2, you also can play it with 50 and be happy in silver league. Just as you can play csgo without having the perfect spray control or lol without having perfect cs.
The only difference might be that in sc2 there aren't a lot of new players which could play against each other to begin with, at that point the matchmaking kinda fails obviously.

If we are talking about attracting the masses to play sc2, sure then the general lvl of mechanics might be a problem (aka you kinda need to know all the hotkeys)
But i still think that the masses will never have fun with a game where multitasking is required, so i think it's more about rts as a genre and not so much about the specific design choices. Even though that could help a bit.

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?

On April 16 2016 00:39 beheamoth wrote:
close this thread please.

On April 16 2016 00:35 The_Red_Viper wrote:

For worse players that means that they play against worse players who also don't have the multitasking necessary to do these kind of things, or if they try it they do it inefficiently.
I was more talking about the absolut general kind of multitasking in an rts, controlling multiple units at once, the decision between micro and macro, these things. Basically what is understood as rts gameplay.
In mobas, csgo, fighting games, etc you don't have this. You control one unit alone and be done with it. You don't feel overwhelmed ever by having to control at two places at once, or macroing while pushing or similar stuff.
This is imo the main reason people (the masses) don't play a game like sc2 and no matter how much you make the controls easier, as long as this aspect of multitasking is still in the game people in general won't like to play it.
That's how i see it atm.

You surely could design the game less punishing though and that would help a bit, sure. I don't think that is the reason casuals don't play the game though. So yeah i guess in a way i agree with you, even though i don't think this is important for the lowest leagues all that much.

On April 15 2016 20:13 Dingodile wrote:
sc2 is like formula one. It is too fast so that you only can play/drive damn straightforwardly, very rare back and forth raand overtaking maneuvers in sc2/F1. Can you drive 300km/h by a bend? Slower them then you (better players/drivers) can finally overtaking something. They all only do waiting on mistakes by opponents all day long, so a such damn boring tactic.

On April 15 2016 18:52 Destructicon wrote:
The game itself is not too fast, the pace of the game however is way too fast, there are some units that are particularly guilty of this, like mutas, oracles and speedivacs.

On April 16 2016 02:33 Topdoller wrote:
"Your base is under attack"- you blink and realize that most of ya shit is vaporized in about 3 seconds. Its been a problem with SC2 since the beginning.One of the biggest failings in this game,that hurts new players the most and causes them to dump it promptly. SC2 is nothing to do with strategy. Its about build orders and reaction times

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?

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?

On April 16 2016 05:27 Poopi wrote:Is Canata representative of the whole korean scene? xD
Even foreigners think LotV being faster paced is more enjoyable.

On April 16 2016 01:01 DjayEl wrote:
You will never be able to run as fast a a professional soccer player if you do not practice at their level, which is one of the reasons you (and your friends as a team) would never beat a pro soccer team. This does not mean you cannot enjoy playing soccer casually with your friends against an equally-trained team in your local town, nor that no strategy does kick in at your level because of this "glass ceiling" you had yet to reach to play on a pro level.

In addition, in SC2, I would say up to top diamond, planning ahead your next moves and knowing exactly what to do at all times >>>> raw speed. Played ZvP (in HotS) against Adelscott once who was using 3x less apm than me and was still kicking my ass game after game just because every of his clicks was so much more effective and well planned. Confessed his low apm was preventing him to beat the best players though, but does that even matter for us mere mortals anyways?

Honestly I’m pretty sure any master-level playercan beat any player up to plat (whatever the race is) while not going past 50 apm at any given time, and I’m pretty sure they would still win 8 times out of 10… Might be wrong on this one, but it would be pretty interesting to test.

On April 16 2016 05:58 Laul wrote:


2. Strategy in sc2 is based more-so on build order and what units you wanna make before the game even starts.
(not so much in positioning or the environment, good unit lines etc)

On April 16 2016 05:58 Laul wrote:
So, is Sc2 really a ''strategy'' game like it says on the box in comes in?

On April 16 2016 06:36 nanaoei wrote:
i think it's such a trapping question to ask whether it's really a strategy game or where the strategy actually exists if at all.
if you're visualizing where the strategy lies, i think you first need to clearly define what sort of gameplay is strategic in a game you'd like to play. this is a forum based on starcraft--widely regarded as the best and most challenging strategy game--but it's a bit shallow to be asking why something supposed to be strategic doesn't feel right. maybe you enjoy the gameplay of setting up a line of long-ranged units that are supposed to be strong, incorrectly deigning that that is real strategy.

it is not.
if the competitive scenes have ever taught you anything, it's that you need to look at the bigger picture to understand the status of a game. the only thing that's set is the purpose of the game, which is to kill all the buildings, or in a similar fashion, force a forfeit.

honestly some people like watching armies meet and forever think that building a line of defenses is a proof of strategic thinking, which is why i make these statements about it. why won't these same people compare their experiences with lesser known games and describe in the same way how those situations felt? i think it's probably because their experiences in these games are shallow in general.

one of the arguments i see is that a single unit can sweep in and do way too much damage. i'm not going to talk semantics about the difference between strategy and tactics, but the fact that you can use that one unit to make that chaos, is a proof that there are strategies; everything else (like balancing) is moot.


for the people who feel that there is absolutely no strategy, i strongly feel that you guys aren't remembering or haven't experienced the time that you've been thoroughly owned and humbled. one of the escape methods leading those experiences is blaming some factor other than one's own skill at playing the game.

if you don't like losing, or even winning in specific ways, you do not enjoy the game.
it's not even a matter of whether the game has merits to its strategic gameplay or not.
people just play games and give it all extra meaning to validate thoughts and ideas. it's only when you forget the obnoxious details and get competitive where strategy is developed...
and i hope that somehow gives you what you wanted to hear.
i realize everyone more or less takes these sort of criticisms positively and negatively.
if you do enjoy the game but have the same shower thoughts about whatever strategy/builds/etc. exists in the game, continue thinking about what you do enjoy, rather than what you don't. this is because you need to compete and problem-solve, and not get stuck figuring why you dislike something and then increasing your dislike for it.

On April 16 2016 06:43 Green_25 wrote:
A lot of people suck at sc2. That's what it comes down to, and people need to be honest. I suck at it. I'm too slow, and there's nothing wrong with that. Yes there is strategy, it's just real-time. I'm great at turn-based strategy (maybe the OP should try it), but I enjoy both. I can just accept that I suck at one whilst succeed in the other. At the end of the day, I still have fun, and the challenge is interesting. Too many gamers have an obsession with being 'lite'.

On April 16 2016 06:25 Gwavajuice wrote:



I kinda disagree here, when both player know what they're doing, positioning and engaging is everything. Just look at TvT today : nothing important is decided pre-game (cause you know what your opponent will be doing) and it all comes down to the tankivacs' dance.

On April 16 2016 07:12 nanaoei wrote:
i think about total war and mass warfare games too. really, i haven't played anything seriously past supreme commander, warhammer 40k, starcraft, and warcraft which are all really different as you know.

from the very start, unit groups and having better units for better situations has all been the feel for the younger gamer in me.
my friends and i liked to feel, hear, see, and command things we earn+produce and match them up against each other along the same timeline. whoever does better in that same time, they did better, they're cooler, they're the people to beat! we get to see the results and actively try to make a difference. eventually it get to the point of attrition, external forces like micro, game philosophy, discussing.

and now we are at an age where we no longer hold LAN parties, very often. at least, it's not our only option for playing games together.

strategy games were cool because we could make alliances outside the ingame structure. the game was the proving grounds and anything outside that sandbox was preparation time. that is what i miss about gaming, rather than whether i can keep up in today's meta/norms/ingame competitive atmosphere or not.

i just hope you guys can figure out what you want out of gaming and RTS, rather than just blame the game itself.

On April 16 2016 07:18 Laul wrote:


Well said sir. Meta does take a lot out of a game's true enjoyment at times. I can remember having so much fun making mass armies of Riflemen and Footmen in WC3, and watching em wreck face. But then when I started learning more about the meta and what not, I'd get angry and stressed trying to keep up with my opponent, rather than role-playing as a Lordaeron general.

Sometimes I feel bad after a game of Sc2 even after a win, I'm shaking and I sweat a lot, my head hurts and I'm jittery from how much focus/stress I was just under. Do you keep playing a game if it's not "enjoyable" ? I mean I can't just put it down, I spent like 60 smackeroos on the bastard >.>

On April 16 2016 07:14 DinosaurPoop wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised on everyone's definitions of strategy here. I always considered execution and strategy to be one and the same. Executing something perfectly often involves having to make a million tiny different decisions and answer them all perfectly. For example, it's trivial with anyone with decent mouse control to land 2-3 forcefields in a rough formation instantly. To know figure out the best way to do it in the heat of battle is a whole other thing. Or for example when holding an allin, you often have to juggle your attention. You can't micro your immortal and split your probes at the same time (something even the best of pros can struggle with), but it's fairly dangerous to lose both. It's these types of small decisions that makes the difference as the game goes on. You can easily point out a lot of mistakes from even GSL Code S Finals games, and yet the fact of the matter is, these guys will be making far less of these tactical mistakes than anyone else will, which makes them so good at this game. And, at the end of the day, we all tailor our strategies to our execution. Some of us are good at slow, defensive, positional styles that give lots of time to think. Some of us are good at swiss cheese, some of us are just horrible and just need to make those 7 extra warpgates because we can't spend our money properly, and then 10 more pylons because we can't manage our supply properly. Some of us can be TLO creative. There's always strategy at every level-- if you and your opponent have roughly equal mechanical ability, one avenue to beat him is to out-strategize him, no?

On April 16 2016 07:40 nanaoei wrote:


my articulation is pretty bad and i'm sorry, but i think the idea is that games are more fun with people who are willing to roll with you. i'm not trying to say much with this, but: maybe you or anyone else could consider it a $60 lesson. i mean it brought you here, talking to us, or you learned a little more about what you want in a game.

of course there's that whole deal with expectations. WoL had huge expectations, and didn't meet a larger fraction of all of it. that is however a wake-up point about games being produced and played these days. i don't remember when i hit this rut of enjoying games less.

personally speaking (and this is very different for each person) i didn't have a great upbringing surrounding my hobby for games. i instantly fell in love with playing counterstrike competitive, and then as a really young guy, i went to the top competitions. i could not convince my parents or brother that it was going to be a thing and eventually they threw out my computer. that wonderment for gaming just did not go away. and here i am in my older years trying to regain that time i felt i lost by not playing to my heart's content all those years ago. i've heard similar stories before from other people i've met from the same sort of generation, and i'm sure it still happens today.
and after all that gaming, all these years later, i've reached a point where i can finally say i'm satisfied, or filled.
there are still regrets, but i've received so much out of gaming already, including all the knowledge and having new learning habits stemming from solving problems in games. even just the fact that you could put so much into a game is a level of reassurance that you can hope to put your all into something else.

in my opinion, where there's money to support all the things you ever want to do in life (whether for yourself or others), that's a viable main pathway in life. gaming was not like that before. i actually think our little microcosm of gaming could have easily happened in the reverse order compared to how it is now, where money existed, then disappeared. right now it's simply in a spotlight.

what i mean to say though is i hope each rts player has a great story to share even if it seems as small as one average ingame victory. as long as it stays with you--memories unaltered--it's a valuable kind of lesson for what you want in other games or perhaps what you want to achieve as long as you keep playing.
unfortunately as it is, especially for a 1v1 game like starcraft 2, our fate and most of our enjoyment is entirely up to us.

On April 16 2016 07:58 mauwee wrote:
I always found SC2 to be way to slow but perhaps that because I also still play SC1.

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?

On April 16 2016 08:10 nanaoei wrote:


i'll actually answer this question even though it's not addressed to me, and since i have a different view overall.
i know it's not as simple as you type out as the, "if you don't build x, you lose" deal.
i've been respected for ultra creative stuff which in respects to professional sc:bw and sc2 players i adore, is child's play at least half the time. it's the fact that you can still win while doing something ridiculous that's fun about it.
on the contrary to not following the norms to best of your ability, you can do something stupid and have quite a few windows to abuse and make something out of it. usually the brick wall is multitasking and general ingame experience.
you throw something wild out there, you need to continue to not follow the norms.
a small example: you're all-inning, usually you cut workers for this because you don't need them anymore. what about adding workers as you are wining and dining them in cheese and are succeeding? i mean you no longer have to continue the all-in, you can just reset to even or advantaged and take it from there.

for everything to succeed--at least often--you need the basics down pat. that is fact. a lot of people view it as build order dependancy and strict rules. it's true and not or in other words a matter of personal perspective. again, it's just another fact about playing games that have been explored a lot already. creativity can be expressed in other ways. your entire game-plan doesn't need to revolve around one gimmick turned into a strategy. it can be based on something as little as one little maneuver that you think is awesome. this is shit that you think before sleep, waking up, while dreaming, or daydreaming in the shower about. unfortunately or not, these things require good play. sometimes fast, sometimes above average, and mostly fleshed out.

you can't get creative with an art brush and canvas if you haven't even done any artwork or prep before. at the very least, you can't ask for anything close to a masterpiece. that is just disrespecting all the work and study that other artists pour into things to get to the point that they're at.
but once you know you can do something respectable or something close to what you envision, absolutely.. absolutely, there's so much you can do. that's how i see starcraft 2, with a little emphasis on the multitasking aspect.
i think being creative in this game and in a lot of competitive games is putting in a lot of extra (thinking, executiong, etc.) to gain just a moment of flair in your play. i really respect it because it really is difficult and isn't necessary to winning.

watch some SC2HL on youtube!
there's some hilarious stuff on there from the best of the best who are trained to perfect their play in the meta.

On April 16 2016 08:15 InfCereal wrote:
Y'know, I've been rolling this over in my mind since I read it this morning.

There's something to be said about seeing lings leave a base (if you see them at all), and having maybe 6 seconds to react. I haven't been a low league player since the first year of playing, but I remember I wouldn't even play 1v1 because it felt hopeless.

That was back in WoL, and the games were dramatically slower back then. With LotV, you have that 6 seconds to react still, but now your mains running out of resources by the time you finish defending. It's definitely a shock.

At my level, I don't really feel the difference too much. It's just the game it always was. Trying to put myself into a slower player's shoes, I can definitely see how the game would be perceived as way too fast.

On April 16 2016 08:37 Ball656 wrote:
I think most of the reason fights seem to play out quickly is the tendency for players to put all their stuff in one place, often clustered together like a phalanx or shield-wall. If there were more punishing ways to destroy close together units, players wouldn't do that as much and fights would tend to be slower. Perhaps paradoxically, I think the way to slow down fights is to actually increase the damage output of certain things in certain ways. There are of course other things that can be done to discourage clustering, for example something like CoH2's suppression mechanic or any other kind of widely spread harmful debuff.

I'm going to consider something that would probably break the game for a moment, so don't be alarmed because it's not something I'm saying should be done: what if, for example, the colossus did line damage like a hellion or lurker? And it could friendly fire for full damage. Clearly you couldn't use it like it was usually used in HotS or WoL in that case, hovering over the army-- you'd have to put it on the flanks or out in front. It would be yet better against masses of marines or hydralisks even without support, but worse in the case of supporting a bunch of units in front of it attacking from a safe position behind a blob of friendly units. I think the presence of such a unit would tend to slow fights down between people using it correctly and reacting to it correctly even though if it was used in a simplistic group everything and A-move fashion it would make the fight speed up even more by just killing everything in front of it indiscriminately. But because the correct response seems to be to keep most units out of its line of fire-- for both players-- then less units are actively participating in the battle and dealing damage. So that means less units are dying at the same time. And there might be more thought being put into exactly how each player wants to engage, though there would of course still be standard practiced procedures and responses.

So that's my view on the speed of fights in the game, for what it's worth (probably very little).

On April 16 2016 10:00 washikie wrote:
I disagree with all the people saying that Starcraft lacks stratagy. I think people who say this don't understand all the decision making that goes into playing the game at a decent level. I don't claim to be great at the game. I am only a mid tier masters player but even at my level I percive the substantial swing in advantage that strategic thinking can provide you in a game. Consider the scouting phase of the early game. Since I play Terran I'm going to talk from a Terran's perspective. As Terran you usually want to set up you economy and infistucture at this stage of the game while keeping tabs on your opponent. To do this scouting is critical. Say that I send out a reaper to see what my opponent is up to in tvp if I see 2 gas and a cyber core I know it's some kind of pressure opening. If I see a faster nexus then my opponent is planing to play more economically. From this information I need to make a wide variety of strategic decisions. If my opponent went for pressure I need to try to Scout it but I might not know what it is. Do I build a bunker at my front? Do I invest in missle turrets to deny oracles and Dts? Do I delay my star port to get extra barracks. Do I make cyclones or tanks? These are all strategic dicisions that will help me survive the early game. If instead my opponent opened defensive I need to figure out how I'm going to keep up with there economy. Do I try to get aggressive with some drop harass? Do I try to take a faster third base since they probably won't attack me? After this early phase of the game there are even more important decisions you have to make. The biggest 3 are generally what unit comp to go. When should I try to take my next base. And when should I try to do damage to my opponent as a Terran once agian these decisions are driven by information on what your opponent is doing . Based on thier unit comp you can determine what supprt units your army needs. Based on the time they plop down thier new bases and also the timing of thier Tech and your own economic state you decide weather to attake or not. There are countless examples I can give where you need to make decisions In a game of Starcraft and those dessions and the reasoning behind them vary based on matchup and game state. Now to adress the question of speed. Speed is important in sc2 there is no doubting that but it's not the only thing that matters. How fast you play often dictates how much stuff you can make. How much harass you can do and how well you manage fights. But speed can be counterbalanced by stratagy because like speed good corner cutting and decision making provide you an advantage. Further at the highest level I have herd pros describe how choosing which actions to do becomes part of the stratagy of the game because both you and your opponent are near the limit of amp that most people can achieve. Mechanics matter but that does not mean strategy does not. And for the game being to fast well, that's part of the fun and challenge its one of the things that makes sc2 an awesome game but it's not for everyone if it's not for you why not try playing a tbs like civ or chess.

On April 16 2016 09:04 coolman123123 wrote:
I'm going to go against the grain here and say I agree with OP. for 90% of the playerbase or more, it makes more sense to macro up a huge ball while scouting and defending and then a moving to victory. there is a reason more people watch this game than play it, its designed for the pros exclusively.

On April 16 2016 10:19 seemsgood wrote:

I think people confuse and can't have same agreement between "strategy" and "reacting"

On April 16 2016 10:00 washikie wrote:
I disagree with all the people saying that Starcraft lacks stratagy. I think people who say this don't understand all the decision making that goes into playing the game at a decent level. I don't claim to be great at the game. I am only a mid tier masters player but even at my level I percive the substantial swing in advantage that strategic thinking can provide you in a game. Consider the scouting phase of the early game. Since I play Terran I'm going to talk from a Terran's perspective. As Terran you usually want to set up you economy and infistucture at this stage of the game while keeping tabs on your opponent. To do this scouting is critical. Say that I send out a reaper to see what my opponent is up to in tvp if I see 2 gas and a cyber core I know it's some kind of pressure opening. If I see a faster nexus then my opponent is planing to play more economically. From this information I need to make a wide variety of strategic decisions. If my opponent went for pressure I need to try to Scout it but I might not know what it is. Do I build a bunker at my front? Do I invest in missle turrets to deny oracles and Dts? Do I delay my star port to get extra barracks. Do I make cyclones or tanks? These are all strategic dicisions that will help me survive the early game. If instead my opponent opened defensive I need to figure out how I'm going to keep up with there economy. Do I try to get aggressive with some drop harass? Do I try to take a faster third base since they probably won't attack me? After this early phase of the game there are even more important decisions you have to make. The biggest 3 are generally what unit comp to go. When should I try to take my next base. And when should I try to do damage to my opponent as a Terran once agian these decisions are driven by information on what your opponent is doing . Based on thier unit comp you can determine what supprt units your army needs. Based on the time they plop down thier new bases and also the timing of thier Tech and your own economic state you decide weather to attake or not. There are countless examples I can give where you need to make decisions In a game of Starcraft and those dessions and the reasoning behind them vary based on matchup and game state. Now to adress the question of speed. Speed is important in sc2 there is no doubting that but it's not the only thing that matters. How fast you play often dictates how much stuff you can make. How much harass you can do and how well you manage fights. But speed can be counterbalanced by stratagy because like speed good corner cutting and decision making provide you an advantage. Further at the highest level I have herd pros describe how choosing which actions to do becomes part of the stratagy of the game because both you and your opponent are near the limit of amp that most people can achieve. Mechanics matter but that does not mean strategy does not. And for the game being to fast well, that's part of the fun and challenge its one of the things that makes sc2 an awesome game but it's not for everyone if it's not for you why not try playing a tbs like civ or chess.

I think people confuse and can't have same agreement between "strategy" and "reacting"

On April 16 2016 10:52 washikie wrote:

I don't think there needs to be much confusion. The majority of stratagy in any stratagy game is making the best possible decisions based on the game state. Admitidly there is the opening game where your choices are not affected as much by your opponent. You can also have a general game plan like I want to take three bases then do a big attack. But honestly these kind of overarching stratagies are just a small portion of the strategic thinking that goes on in a game. Few people consider chess a deep and interesting game because The decision to open queens gambit vs something like indian or English is so interesting. A far more important skill is deciding what to do based on the board state. I guess if you want to argue semantics you could say I'm discussing tactics and not grand stratagy . Mabey you would be right but grande stratagy Is usually a vague outline of what you want to achive and how you plan to get there. and in the case of most stratagy games this means any one can look up a stratagy on the web that they can open with. What realy differentiates players and shows off intellect though is the decsions you make for yourself based on the variance of the game to get the most out of your initial plan. So yeah mabey in sc2 tactics are more meaningful then stratagy if you go the semantic route but if you do then in almost any situation. Where decision making matters tactics will be the more important and interesting skill than stratagey. But most rts gamers don't think about semantic stratagey because frankly it's not that helpful to And lump tactics into strategy.

On April 16 2016 10:52 washikie wrote:
I don't think there needs to be much confusion. The majority of stratagy in any stratagy game is making the best possible decisions based on the game state.

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?

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.

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" .

On April 17 2016 10:35 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
a little bit yes. Mostly things die too fast

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

On April 18 2016 01:08 tokinho wrote:


Nicely put good sir

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"...

On April 18 2016 16:12 WhosQuany wrote:

we can close the thread now the point has been right here i agree :D

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

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.

On April 19 2016 00:09 Incognoto wrote:


Nah

If that were the case, we'd place basketball rims waaaaaaaaaaaay higher.

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.

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?

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.

On April 19 2016 02:20 BaronVonOwn wrote:

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 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:



http://scdojo.tumblr.com/post/122799820950/thoughts-on-the-gsl-kespa-defeat

On April 19 2016 06:31 ZerglingSoup wrote:


+ Show Spoiler +
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 +t!

On June 03 2016 04:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:
BW required absurd amounts of mechanics due to the sloppy AI, so I have no clue where these people are getting the, Well BW was slower" when only the battles in BW were slower because controlling large armies was almost impossible for all but the Korean pros.

The strategy in SC2 is in the scouting, decision making, and engagements, all of which has to be done whilst performing macro and other mechanics.

On June 03 2016 05:02 Brutaxilos wrote:
Does anyone else also feel like they can't enjoy other games much anymore because they just feel so slow to you? The few times I played Moba games it just felt so boring that there was only a limited amount of actions I can do at once. I also can't really enjoy my favorite games like Zelda anymore.

On June 03 2016 07:38 Gullis wrote:
I don't think it is to fast.
I do think the damage (especially on some harass units against workers) is to high.

On June 03 2016 08:26 Shield wrote:


This is true, but I think StarCraft 2's biggest problem is it adds to complexity when it needs to enhance gameplay (fun) instead. That's why people go back to BW in my opinion. You can't tell me people go back to BW because they like its graphics, its bugs or hard mechanics. I played BW and I know that's not the case for anyone who is reasonable.

On June 03 2016 08:42 Barrin wrote:
On /r/starcraft right now there is a post asking "What annoys you the most while playing Starcraft?".

Top comment (more upvotes than the post itself): "All the things that can instantly lose you the game."

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

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?

On June 03 2016 09:47 Hider wrote:


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.

On June 03 2016 08:42 Barrin wrote:
On /r/starcraft right now there is a post asking "What annoys you the most while playing Starcraft?".

Top comment (more upvotes than the post itself): "All the things that can instantly lose you the game."

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

On June 03 2016 08:45 ejozl wrote:
The HotS package in Medivac Boost, Oracles, Widow Mines are the worst offenders, coming from my Protoss perspective.

On April 15 2016 15:42 RoomOfMush wrote:
As I see it you have 3 options:
1) Become faster
2) Play a slower game
3) Whine on the internet about it

On June 03 2016 09:47 Hider wrote:


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.