| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NinjaNight
428 Posts
On October 26 2020 23:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There's plenty of strategy in SC2. Problem is that the language around it isn't well developed. Not saying there isn't much strategy, but the real time really outweighs the strategy. Mechanical skill and speed, etc. you really don't need much other than that and basic tactics until master/GM | ||
|
lestye
United States4178 Posts
On October 26 2020 20:21 NinjaNight wrote: I've always said SC2 is crazy fast paced and way more real time than it is strategy Can you expand on this? Where's the threshold of adequately fast? | ||
|
Swisslink
2954 Posts
I never played SC1, I started with the Terran campaign but jumped into playing Zerg in competitive. At the beginning I was just totally clueless as to what I was even supposed to be doing. And even when playing Terran the campaign did not seem to be a huge help. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
Minerals gathering (economy) should be similar as the big daddy of RTS : Dune 2 it means than your VCS has to gather minerals very far of your base, then they come back to your main base (no extension or so few..). Your income won t be regular/steady like in SC2. Two consequences : 1°) you can attack VCS during his journey (even if we will increase his armor  to prevent zergliings run-by )2°) you can t get a just-in-time production army and units time building is shorter (with 1°) it means the control of the map is mandatory cause you have to protect every path leading to a mineral pack). Of course you will also win if your ennemy has no economy but as units are very slow, you have to build more factory spreading over the map. 12:46 the "Dune VCS" is coming back home and the player gains 700 credit (you can see the percentage of gathering ressources in upper right corner) French Dune Video Then, you can consider gas as minerals economy in SC2, it means only few possible new location for base near his gas deposit (where your VCS can bring back minerals from a lonely and very far position). Unfortunately you have to modify each "harassement units" and test them like Blizzard did. I hadn t time to do that but it could be really cool. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On October 27 2020 00:40 Swisslink wrote: I do not like this attempt to have different leagues play different games. I do however think that the developers could do a far better job in teaching the players what to do. Especially the campaign in StarCraft II, while being a fun experience, provided me with... well... barely anything I could later use in the competitive environment. Of course campaings allow for a wide variety of activities and I do not want to miss them at all. At the same time, I think that after the campaign you should know some basic build orders for each match up, some basic building placements and probably even some of the more standard maps you are going to play on. And in this regard I do not think that StarCraft II really succeeded. Granted, this was also due to the races being split into three different campaigns. Which definitely did not help either. I never played SC1, I started with the Terran campaign but jumped into playing Zerg in competitive. At the beginning I was just totally clueless as to what I was even supposed to be doing. And even when playing Terran the campaign did not seem to be a huge help. I think SC2 does try to provide some more tutorials and tools to teach basic multiplayer concepts. There's a "Training" mode that guides the player through a basic build order, with UI notifications for idle production and upcoming supply blocks. Further levels of the mode increase game speed, open up the tech tree, and teach more advanced concepts. Buried in the WoL campaign UI are also various challenge missions that try to teach unit counters, macro builds, countering rushes, and micro. They're rather outdated after years of expansions and balance updates. I remember there also being an official challenge map for advanced micro techniques, with achievements tied to it, but it too is outdated. In a similar vein, I really liked the new "Art of War" tutorial campaign from Age of Empires 2: Definitive Edition. In it, there are missions that teach and guide through concepts like early game build orders, macro builds, rush defense, unit counters, and basic micro techniques. Despite all these tutorials for players to pull themselves away from the skill floor, the RTS genre ultimately is still brutally cut-throat for competitive 1v1 matches. There are just so many mechanics that widen the skill gap between players. Team games, alternative modes, and custom maps provide a more casual outlet for newer players, but it's just in the nature of the genre to have a level of complexity that is both a boon to fans and a bane to newbies. | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37032 Posts
| ||
|
Clear World
125 Posts
On October 27 2020 07:26 eviltomahawk wrote: I think SC2 does try to provide some more tutorials and tools to teach basic multiplayer concepts. There's a "Training" mode that guides the player through a basic build order, with UI notifications for idle production and upcoming supply blocks. Further levels of the mode increase game speed, open up the tech tree, and teach more advanced concepts. Buried in the WoL campaign UI are also various challenge missions that try to teach unit counters, macro builds, countering rushes, and micro. They're rather outdated after years of expansions and balance updates. I remember there also being an official challenge map for advanced micro techniques, with achievements tied to it, but it too is outdated. In a similar vein, I really liked the new "Art of War" tutorial campaign from Age of Empires 2: Definitive Edition. In it, there are missions that teach and guide through concepts like early game build orders, macro builds, rush defense, unit counters, and basic micro techniques. Despite all these tutorials for players to pull themselves away from the skill floor, the RTS genre ultimately is still brutally cut-throat for competitive 1v1 matches. There are just so many mechanics that widen the skill gap between players. Team games, alternative modes, and custom maps provide a more casual outlet for newer players, but it's just in the nature of the genre to have a level of complexity that is both a boon to fans and a bane to newbies. Having modes/campaign things that teaches the basics and fundamental concepts such unit compositions, countering, scouting opponents, expanding while also how to defend those expansions, and lastly general improving multitasking, are all good and are needed; the actual gameplay experience newer players see while trying to play competitive is also important to consider. From my experience of wanting to play this game competitively during the WoL days, but finding it's gameplay design frustrating, probably the biggest reason is what that I labeled as "Proactively Reacting". This basically refers to actions a player has to preform (or just feels like they have to) to not lose the game instantly against your opponent if the opponent decides to take a certain action (especially if this action is not hard to perform). For some examples while playing as Protoss, scouting around my base & expansion to make sure my opponent hasn't decided to cannon rush/bunker rush me, walling the ramp just to prevent a zergling run in, or scouting my zerg opponent's base to see if they have a spire to not die to a muta rush. Another issue are just certain unit design and game mechanics they chosen to create. I have huge issues with how cloaking works with the game, because if I don't have detection, then cloaking was basically invincibility. Then there were things that just encourage all-ins like Nydus worm or fast warp-in. All these examples are things that my opponent can do, but doesn't mean they will actually do any of them or even commit any resources towards them, but just because these options exist for my opponent, I already felt pressure into committing to a response regardless of what they did. A solution to this would require a game to be design with this in mind from the beginning; making early pressure still useful, but not game-ending if you're playing reasonable but not on-top of your opponent's moves. I have other issues, like how the game is sort of very dependent on hard-counters instead of soft counters or mechanics that have valuable gameplay for both players. Example would be cloaking/detection. It lacks healthy counter-play, and just depend on hard counter with detection because I don't have detection, then cloaking was basically an invincibility. On a side-note, Starcraft II does not face a few glaring issues that Age of Empire II faces in being casually friendly. One of it is that SCII generally shows players most of its relevant information during gameplay, unlike AoEII which hides a lot of its bonus damage or terrain bonuses. Another would be, AoEII is super slow in actually ending a match. Unless your opponent just gives up, it can take a long time to put your opponent in a position to know they have lost. | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
I haven't considered automatic but worse features before Monk mentionned it during the Pylon show. I think an rts could be more fun for lower league player with more automation. Something like automatic unit production but there are 2-3 seconds of cooldown between each unit produced. I don't know how useful an auto-build feature would actually be in a Starcraft type game. There are other RTS's that have that feature- the old SupCom comes to mind. But the economy is entirely different where you have infinite resources on each node, but what allows you to make infinite units while you upgrade is that you can upgrade your resource nodes to tier 2 and 3. Sometimes you might shut off production either to cut corners or because you screwed up your economy, but it's more about income rates than finite cash. By contrast, I think you would be shutting off auto build all the time to build more production or to tech. (Because you can't upgrade your harvesters to be more efficient, you reach the rate of income fairly quick as SC2's saturation caps pretty quick.) That is, until you expand more, but that's the very thing newbies struggle with. I suspect that minerals and vespene gas that didn't run out so fast would be easier on new players because they tend to want to turtle. The problem is, that makes the game more defensive/ turtley for everyone. There are already features to effectively autobuild- all production buildings on one hotkey and you can queue. And because new players are rather bad at spending, they actually can queue three-four units in each building. The problem is somehow training new players to use hotkeys right away. It's not so intuitive and a lot of players default to all mouse clicks and their offhand doing nothing. The best success I've had in turning new players into reasonably good macro beasts is teaching hotkeys right away, but focusing on just a few so they will actually remember to do them. Hotkey Nexus/ CC and the worker hotkey. Hotkey main military production building (Gatway/ Factory) and the default soldiers that come out. Two basic army control groups. Good enough to macro most stuff even if they aren't hotkeying robo or stargate. But how do you encourage that? Can the campaign somehow get that built right in? I like the idea of automatically putting things on hotkeys, but I wouldn't like it only able to be toggled off at a particular league level. It should be customizable right away- any RTS that I start playing I try to match hotkeys to my BW playing because I have so much muscle memory built up. The same could be true for other beginner players and it would be just irritating if you couldn't change it to a higher level. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10675 Posts
On October 23 2020 07:49 yuisaka wrote: At bronze league you can have auto production/auto mining/autocast/build reminder/scouting reminder etc let new people focus on how to not just to play the game. Or they can watch streams / study guides... Maybe SC3 the entire game can be automated, so we just sit back and watch. | ||
|
Frankenberry
Denmark302 Posts
I uninstalled SC2 tonight. So I guess I'm one of the people leaving the game. It's not the first time but this time it's probably for good. Came back from a 4 year break to check out the game and I don't think I'll be giving it more chances. A bit about me. I've been playing on and off since WoL beta. Always played Terran. My highest rank was master 1 4 years ago. Can't remember my MMR but I was starting to meet some low GM's here and there. I took a break for 4 years and recently tried it out again. I played around 250 games around 4000 - 4200 MMR on EU. The main problem with Starcraft 2 in my opinion is that the races have way too many options now. There are so many all-ins, so many different forms of cheese and they are too hard to hold. Even if you scout them you will have an up-hill battle ahead of you. Why was it ever necessary to make so many different units viable in so many matchups ? Why is it a good thing that on top of everything else we now have Battlecruiser all ins or Shield Battery + Void Ray or Shield Battery + Immortal / Warp Prism and all the other bullshit. It's hard to scout and you got almost no time to react. To me it seems like Starcraft 2 more than ever before encourages the players to cheese. And I did notice there is a lot more early aggression / cheese / early all-ins now than there were 4 years ago when I played last time. 12 workers means you have less time to scout and adapt. That change from HotS combined with all these options makes the game very unenjoyable. If I get to a macro game the game is still solid. Still enjoyable, even after 10 years but the early game and the idea that every unit had to be viable for as many matchup's as possible has made it very volatile. A lot of my games felt like very "ooooh gotcha" and it wasn't cool. Cheese is just way too hard to hold. Even if you scout it. Don't feel like it's very well designed to be honest. TvP and TvT especially felt extremely random. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On October 27 2020 09:26 Seeker wrote: Thread renamed for coherency purposes. I think you should have renamed : why can t blizzard keep people..... but you have to keep people interested here... | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 27 2020 14:44 Golgotha wrote: that's why SC2 and BW has team games. for casuals who dont like 1v1.SC being hardcore is a good thing, without it we wouldnt have seen the rise of esports in Korea. Keep the hardcore, and just include team games or co op You did notice that teamgames in sc2 has huge performance issues and that nobody here wants to lower the skill ceiling? | ||
|
algue
France1436 Posts
If a terran wants some marines but also a BC, how does the starport produce a BC when everytime the players gets 50 minerals a new marine gets queued up? Seems to me that automation would just change Starcraft as we know it from a macro-management RTS game to an automation-management RTS game and at the end of the day I doubt it'd be much easier. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
kappa User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On October 26 2020 23:56 NinjaNight wrote: That's not true. Guides that focus completly on macro completely bypass the need to think about strategy, by giving the guide follower the strategy to follow, so they don't need to think about strategy at all. You can get to masters by following the same strategy over and over, and the tactics and the BO to go with it, likewise you can get to masters, by doing the complete opposite of these macro focused "guides". Or by being a well rounded player, having fun trying lots of different things. That's how most people get to masters. Most people who follow these guides which brainlessly produce mass marines or whatever stop well before masters.Not saying there isn't much strategy, but the real time really outweighs the strategy. Mechanical skill and speed, etc. you really don't need much other than that and basic tactics until master/GM | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6954 Posts
 SC2 is IMO not harder to learn than LoL or Dota and maybe a bit harder to master than those two. But I see where some of you are coming from. I tried to get a friend of mine into playing starcraft and he gave up about 20mins in, reason beeing "there is too little direct interaction in pvp" This leads me to think a new/next RTS should be easy on the macro/economy and move more towards player interaction/ micro/ battles/ heroes? | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On October 27 2020 20:03 Vision_ wrote: 1 marine is offered for 10 bought .... kappa User was warned for this post. sorry it was my 'A' keyboard touch which was bugged, i ve probably missunderstood something... | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On October 27 2020 23:38 Harris1st wrote: Like some sort auf auto idle mobile game? Sounds like a real moneymaker to me SC2 is IMO not harder to learn than LoL or Dota and maybe a bit harder to master than those two. But I see where some of you are coming from. I tried to get a friend of mine into playing starcraft and he gave up about 20mins in, reason beeing "there is too little direct interaction in pvp" This leads me to think a new/next RTS should be easy on the macro/economy and move more towards player interaction/ micro/ battles/ heroes? The idea that the game should artificially force interaction somehow is something I find odd. The two players playing the game are in charge of when they interact. If they aren't interacting enough, it's because they lack the mechanical prowess to interact. Also, the sooner you start interacting, the sooner a lead can be established and exacerbated. Also, the opinion of someone with 20 minutes of game time is literally irrelevant to the discussion of long-term commitment. EDIT: What I mean is you could give them any economy-based RTS, and it would have a slower build-up than SC2. Their opinion would be the same, because econ-RTS is clearly not for them. EDIT: Direct interaction is also an odd concept to attempt to produce in an econ-RTS. You are by the game's very nature interacting indirectly. You have two players who are playing God, controlling minions who do their bidding. If you cut out the middle-man, there is no game. There is no RTS. Strategists don't fight one another directly. They sacrifice the lives of subordinates to achieve objectives. | ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
Map Test Tournament
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
