|
I read Smorries post and also LunarCs post, but I still felt that there was enough room for discussion to create a new thread. If the mods don't agree, remove it  or move it to smorries thread. So, on to the topic.
I dont have a beta key myself (sigh), but at least I watched quite a lot of VODs/streams and replays.
I was thinking quite a lot about what I liked about SC:BW and what I didn't like about WC3. I came to the conclusion that Smorrie was kinda right. WC3 is more about waiting to get the right army composition and then the big armies collide and if one annihilates another, the game is pretty much decided (apart from the immense power of the heros and the fateful increasing "army" cost at higher supplies).
In extreme cases, the same is true for SC:BW, but not in all cases (the game over thing when big army was annhihilated I mean). So I asked myself, why is that? One good argument is also given by smorrie. Static defense is probably not strong enough PLUS (new) buildings die too fast. Think of the PvZ games, where the toss army is so much stronger than the zerg army, but Zerg has more expansions and secures them with lots of sunkens and lurkers and later nydus/dark swarm (especially in ZvT). Then, it becomes really hard to break this defense and even though u have the bigger army, it is still no autowin. Zerg can turn the game by staying alive long enough and harrassing e.g. new expansions etc.
I have the impression that this is much harder in SC2, as buildings die soooo fast and the static defense is not as strong (or maybe it is strong, but as the buildings die so fast, you can concentrate on the hatch/nexx/CC).
But that's not all to it. There is even one more major point, why SC2 seems inferior to SC1 strategy-wise etc. It's the weakened influence of the terrain, especially chokes and high ground vs low ground. I feel that this is a major drawback. I know they added some nice stuff like smoke and forest which reduces sight etc. But, in SC1 using high ground and chokes, you were able to hold your ground even with a way inferior army, even with the "wrong" unit composition (e.g. goons vs lings or whatever). This means that even if u had lost a big battle or if u chose the wrong counter etc., when using the terrain to your advantage you could still remain in the game and come back. Additionally, you could send smaller combat groups around and keep them alive etc.
In SC2, if you have the wrong unit combination or not enough units, choke and high ground (as long as the other can see with observer w/e) won't help you that much to hold, especially when the other has the right counter. Additionally, air is sooooo strong and strong units like collossus can simply step up the high ground and you are doomed.
Unfortunately, air units don't care about terrain. So, when air gets so strong it is used more often and terrain doesnt matter anymore. which is a pity, as it adds strategical and tactical depth.
I don't know if I could explain my thoughts well enough, but I hope you get my point. Think about a little more, there are much more subtleties about which I cant go into detail here. But I feel, that this is a major problem in SC2, and unfortunately, I don't know how to solve this easily  .
Thoughts?
|
In watching streams and replays, I'm already starting to see people move away from getting big army blobs and attacking. People are very much still figuring out the game, it looks like, and Blizz knows this. I'm not discounting your opinion, but I do think it's too early to say that this is definitively the case.
If this is really a problem, the metagame will show it and Blizz will patch it.
|
On March 01 2010 03:36 Drazzzt wrote:I read Smorries post and also LunarCs post, but I still felt that there was enough room for discussion to create a new thread. If the mods don't agree, remove it or move it to smorries thread. So, on to the topic. I dont have a beta key myself (sigh), but at least I watched quite a lot of VODs/streams and replays. I was thinking quite a lot about what I liked about SC:BW and what I didn't like about WC3. I came to the conclusion that Smorrie was kinda right. WC3 is more about waiting to get the right army composition and then the big armies collide and if one annihilates another, the game is pretty much decided (apart from the immense power of the heros and the fateful increasing "army" cost at higher supplies). In extreme cases, the same is true for SC:BW, but not in all cases (the game over thing when big army was annhihilated I mean). So I asked myself, why is that? One good argument is also given by smorrie. Static defense is probably not strong enough PLUS (new) buildings die too fast. Think of the PvZ games, where the toss army is so much stronger than the zerg army, but Zerg has more expansions and secures them with lots of sunkens and lurkers and later nydus/dark swarm (especially in ZvT). Then, it becomes really hard to break this defense and even though u have the bigger army, it is still no autowin. Zerg can turn the game by staying alive long enough and harrassing e.g. new expansions etc. I have the impression that this is much harder in SC2, as buildings die soooo fast and the static defense is not as strong (or maybe it is strong, but as the buildings die so fast, you can concentrate on the hatch/nexx/CC). But that's not all to it. There is even one more major point, why SC2 seems inferior to SC1 strategy-wise etc. It's the weakened influence of the terrain, especially chokes and high ground vs low ground. I feel that this is a major drawback. I know they added some nice stuff like smoke and forest which reduces sight etc. But, in SC1 using high ground and chokes, you were able to hold your ground even with a way inferior army, even with the "wrong" unit composition (e.g. goons vs lings or whatever). This means that even if u had lost a big battle or if u chose the wrong counter etc., when using the terrain to your advantage you could still remain in the game and come back. Additionally, you could send smaller combat groups around and keep them alive etc. In SC2, if you have the wrong unit combination or not enough units, choke and high ground (as long as the other can see with observer w/e) won't help you that much to hold, especially when the other has the right counter. Additionally, air is sooooo strong and strong units like collossus can simply step up the high ground and you are doomed. Unfortunately, air units don't care about terrain. So, when air gets so strong it is used more often and terrain doesnt matter anymore. which is a pity, as it adds strategical and tactical depth. I don't know if I could explain my thoughts well enough, but I hope you get my point. Think about a little more, there are much more subtleties about which I cant go into detail here. But I feel, that this is a major problem in SC2, and unfortunately, I don't know how to solve this easily . Thoughts?
This is the same case in SCII also. The new high ground mechanic is really powerful, and I would argue more powerful than the SCI high ground mechanic. You have to have sight now to shoot up cliffs...
Overall, games last longer in SCII than in SCI at least to me...I've had quite a few 25-30min+ back and forths with Zerg and Protoss.
Also, as Terran the new turrets are much more powerful than their SCI counterparts, and it seems to me that photon cannons are likewise as powerful. There are a few units that can take out buildings quite fast (Reaper, Void Ray, Ultra, baneling, etc.), but they are niche. Otherwise buildings die about as fast as in SCI.
My observations from playing around 100 games.
Let me say this also....I have about 100 APM in SCII so thats like 130-150 equivalent of SCI and when I get to 3+ bases it is impossible to micro and macro, scout, harass, drop, etc. without big drop offs in either macro or micro....especially with bio + medi + viking. Even with 250-300+ APM when you get 4+ bases there is no way to play perfect. When you have 4-6 CC it is impossible to do mule/scan, micro, and macro even with the new MBS and auto-mine. Let me assure you, no one is going to be playing perfect games macro/micro wise. It's impossible.
|
im sure they said the same about SC when switching from wc2.
|
I've had one game so far where high ground really played to my advantage. I'm pretty sure Stalkers can't blink up to a place they don't have LOS of (up a cliff without an observer), which I had parked quite a few tanks on top of. They were forced to go around and blink past my wall - right into my Thors and such. Didn't end too well for him in that event, but a direct confrontation would have been really bad for me.
That said I find only in specific situations with very specific units ie colossus and tanks does terrain matter anymore. I try to use terrain as much as I can but battles are so bursty and damage is so high you really don't get that opportunity to set up and usually it doesn't make a big difference.
I also find terrain matters more in 2v2 and FFA than 1v1 because most of the 1v1 maps are extremely small and clustered imo.
|
The game is still changing every week for fucks sake. Stop worrying so much. And maybe also realize that its possible SC2 won't be a direct clone of SC1, and understand that maybe that isn't a bad thing.
|
Something I think will die out in SC2 already (already noticeable imo). Playing and view streams/replays/youtubes I'm noticing as well less larger armies and people trying to contain and expanding. Games been out a week... things aren't going to stay the same.....
|
Yeah, sc2 hasn't been out very long at all. Imagine the kinds of strategies people were using when SC1 was in beta, or even directly after release. I can almost guarantee you people were just massing up and going OMG SCOUTS SUCK HE BEAT ME WITH MASS GOLS!
While I think direct unit counters might be a bit high in this game, people just need time to figure out how to properly harass while not losing to a big unit blob themselves.
If the unit blob does stay then I for sure think something should be done, but really, most the maps available to play atm have a huge choke in the center with all routes leading to that one spot, so its no surprise people just move their entire army at once since its almost impossible to harass.
|
But that's not all to it. There is even one more major point, why SC2 seems inferior to SC1 strategy-wise etc. It's the weakened influence of the terrain, especially chokes and high ground vs low ground. I feel that this is a major drawback. I know they added some nice stuff like smoke and forest which reduces sight etc. But, in SC1 using high ground and chokes, you were able to hold your ground even with a way inferior army, even with the "wrong" unit composition (e.g. goons vs lings or whatever). This means that even if u had lost a big battle or if u chose the wrong counter etc., when using the terrain to your advantage you could still remain in the game and come back. Additionally, you could send smaller combat groups around and keep them alive etc.
In SC2, if you have the wrong unit combination or not enough units, choke and high ground (as long as the other can see with observer w/e) won't help you that much to hold, especially when the other has the right counter. Additionally, air is sooooo strong and strong units like collossus can simply step up the high ground and you are doomed.
Unfortunately, air units don't care about terrain. So, when air gets so strong it is used more often and terrain doesnt matter anymore. which is a pity, as it adds strategical and tactical depth.
Unfortunately, pretty much everything except that air units don't care about terrain is completely incorrect. Wait until you either play beta a lot, or get the game then throw these opinions out.
My assumption is that you're posting these based off of watching bad players mass roaches and wonder why they got killed by stalkers with blink or something. Everyone sucks at this game right now, some people just suck less.
|
To be honest. You all are giving me hope^^
|
On March 01 2010 03:57 HuskyTheHusky wrote:
Yeah, sc2 hasn't been out very long at all. Imagine the kinds of strategies people were using when SC1 was in beta, or even directly after release. I can almost guarantee you people were just massing up and going OMG SCOUTS SUCK HE BEAT ME WITH MASS GOLS!
While I think direct unit counters might be a bit high in this game, people just need time to figure out how to properly harass while not losing to a big unit blob themselves.
If the unit blob does stay then I for sure think something should be done, but really, most the maps available to play atm have a huge choke in the center with all routes leading to that one spot, so its no surprise people just move their entire army at once since its almost impossible to harass.
Good points. But I think the main thing is that people are just being way too presumptuous. Look at how the game is played now compared to a week ago. Are we still seeing Zerg mass Roaches every single game? Is every single Protoss just 2 gating? Obviously not. As people are gaining more and more of an understanding of the game, people are branching out more. There is only so much you can do with so little of an understanding of the game. And though it may feel like its been longer, it has only been like 10 days or something like that.
To me, making judgments about the game at this point is not only extremely naive, but perhaps even arrogant. Its not bad to recognize that things aren't as you'd like at the moment, but to bring up ideas of how to change the game is just silly. Give the game at least a month...
|
On March 01 2010 04:04 Rickilicious wrote:
Everyone sucks at this game right now, some people just suck less.
Just thought of something funny, I would bet that anyone from this forum will be better at the game in one years time than everyone in the beta right now. Kinda puts things into perspective.
|
To me it seems like the attack speeds(and subsequentually dps) in general are too fast compared to move/build speeds, so battles end very fast, there's no time for reinforcements to arrive and delaying the enemy until you produce more units isn't really possible, e.t.c.
|
|
|
No offense but I would suggest you at least play a couple games before you decide that there is less strategy. IMHO, SC2 focuses a lot more on economy, macro, army composition, and overarching strategy than micro. Its for you to decide if thats for the better but you really can't tell until you try it out for yourself.
|
On March 01 2010 03:36 Drazzzt wrote:
I was thinking quite a lot about what I liked about SC:BW and what I didn't like about WC3. I came to the conclusion that Smorrie was kinda right. WC3 is more about waiting to get the right army composition and then the big armies collide and if one annihilates another, the game is pretty much decided (apart from the immense power of the heros and the fateful increasing "army" cost at higher supplies).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No.
No.
The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth.
I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up.
|
On March 01 2010 04:20 lololol wrote:
To me it seems like the attack speeds(and subsequentually dps) in general are too fast compared to move/build speeds, so battles end very fast, there's no time for reinforcements to arrive and delaying the enemy until you produce more units isn't really possible, e.t.c.
Yes stuff dies fast but isn't that always the case in starcraft, it's in wc3 that it often takes forever to kill anything even low tier units.
Btw I love wc3 and agree with above post, wc3 is not about "let's make a big army and meet in middle to fight ok?" generally, maybe noob games but not at a higher level.
|
On March 01 2010 04:51 OverShield wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 03:36 Drazzzt wrote:
I was thinking quite a lot about what I liked about SC:BW and what I didn't like about WC3. I came to the conclusion that Smorrie was kinda right. WC3 is more about waiting to get the right army composition and then the big armies collide and if one annihilates another, the game is pretty much decided (apart from the immense power of the heros and the fateful increasing "army" cost at higher supplies).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No. No. The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth. I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up.
Of course what he made was an over-simplification, but actually yes, that is pretty much how Warcraft 3 is.
|
On March 01 2010 04:49 DragonDefonce wrote:
No offense but I would suggest you at least play a couple games before you decide that there is less strategy. IMHO, SC2 focuses a lot more on economy, macro, army composition, and overarching strategy than micro. Its for you to decide if thats for the better but you really can't tell until you try it out for yourself.
Believe me. I would LOVE to. But unfortunately. I dont have a key . What can I do? >200€ is too much for my taste.
|
On March 01 2010 04:59 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2010 04:51 OverShield wrote:On March 01 2010 03:36 Drazzzt wrote:
I was thinking quite a lot about what I liked about SC:BW and what I didn't like about WC3. I came to the conclusion that Smorrie was kinda right. WC3 is more about waiting to get the right army composition and then the big armies collide and if one annihilates another, the game is pretty much decided (apart from the immense power of the heros and the fateful increasing "army" cost at higher supplies).
Stopped reading here. No. Just.... no. No. No. The entire WC3 metagame revolves around harassing your opponent and because creeping is so imperative to the outcome of the game you are constantly in contact with the other player's army. Games are typically very back-and-forth. I know you all hate WC3 but please stop making shit up. Of course what he made was an over-simplification, but actually yes, that is pretty much how Warcraft 3 is.
Actually no, that's not at all how it is. Because there are so many micro opportunities in the game that is very rarely the case. Players will usually clash several times before there is a decisive battle. The fact that there is less macro/bases/defensive positioning obviously means that a decisive battle will be just that: decisive. In SC it took a lot more to break through a line of tanks, yes, but that doesn't mean that WC3 is some mindless clash that is an instant win or lose. In fact, the inclusion of town portal (being able to teleport back to base) allows you to salvage your army and live to fight another day. I'm by no means a great player but even in most of my matches I'll have to pick away at my opponent before I overtake them, unless I'm doing an all in tower push or something. Even with towerpushes though I've witnessed many pros play an extended 10-15 with several towers inside their base. And even if you lose much of your army, excellent hero usage can give you the opportunity to still win the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
