SC2

[Zawicki]

It's finally here! I've played a bit of everything so far. The campaign is good, the challenges are fun, and ladder games are no different form the beta. I only have one complaint. Everytime I play online my wireless signal seems to disappear. it's very strange and kinda prevents me from playing multiplayer. Other than that everything been fun. So, who else has got it?

[EcoTerrorist]

.

[Zawicki]

Lol, sorry. it stands for starcraft2.

[MGRockwell]

I'm downloading this currently. I remember playing Starcraft 1 until I didn't have any grip strength left.

I'm very very poor at multiplayer but might be open to playing some friendly games online.

[The Crimson Eye]

Could you clarify what SC2 stands for?

Someone's been living under a rock lately :twisted:

[Lord Niron]

I got the game yesterday.

I never played the first one and I have never been a fan of RTS's in general but this game is very fun.

I'd be willing to play anyone in a few friendly matches if anyone is interested. I am pretty bad.

[Sexyrice]

Getting the game via mail in a day or two. Fucking stoked to be getting it.

[EcoTerrorist]

Irrelevant Data.

[MGRockwell]

Your loss, especially since they are both pretty much generic rip-offs of every Fantasy and Sci-Fi stereotype.

[Xhukari]

Could you clarify what SC2 stands for?

Someone's been living under a rock lately :twisted:


Actually I rather hate blizzard for basically ripping off Warhammer and therefore chose to ignore anything they create.

I'm looking forward to Old Republic and Dark Millennium, so I'm not living under a rock, just tossing it at blizzard ent.

I'm in a similar boat as you.
Everyone seems to praise Blizzard games so much.
And they're games get too much hype for release.
Nothing special here, move along ;)

[Sexyrice]

Except, Blizzard releases exceptionally well polished games and supports them until they die. Starcraft is a key example here, being played for years and even turning into South Korea's national sport (and fencing). Blizzard makes exceptional games and because of that get incredible exposure when they release something. Being owned by Activision certainly helps, too.

And the Warcraft/Starcraft series are hardly a rip off of Warhammer/40k as much as those two games blatantly rip off every other story out there. Warcraft is, what, humans vs orks and they have various allies helping them? Good vs evil? Starcraft is your typical political opera in space with various species warring against each other. Sure, there are parallels that can be made with 40k, but the universes are nothing alike and the similarities stop at the very, very basic groundwork of the species. 'Alien' aliens, 'Predator' aliens, and Humans warring against each other have been around since before Games-Workshop even existed. If you want to claim that Games-Workshop is a completely original company, you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

Not wanting to play a game is completely understandable; I don't even play 40k or Fantasy, and only occasionally dabble with other board games. But I don't go around telling people that their game sucks/isn't worth playing/isn't worth even researching for 'x' and 'y' reasons. If you took the two seconds to type in SC2 into the search bar that comes standard in every modern web browser you'd have come up with an explanation very, very quickly and avoided an enormous waste of time. Hell, even keeping up with the news on sites like 'digg', 'reddit', 'slashdot', or most major news sites (I think even CNN has articles about SC2) you'd know about the game being released. If you don't, I'd definitely say your head has been in a hole.

If I didn't get off work 5 hours early, I probably wouldn't be bored enough to write this. :lol:

Anyways, after playing the beta and talking with people about the game, I am absolutely stoked about its release and am waiting very eagerly for Starcraft 2 to arrive on my doorsteps. Definitely regretting pre-ordering through the mail instead of in-store pick-up.

[Xhukari]

I didn't say I write off certain games or anything.
Just that a game being made a certain company doesn't (or rather shouldn't) become it's weight in gold for that reason.

Sure since it's being made by a certain company gives it some reassurance of likely quality of the product...

[Lord Niron]

Except, Blizzard releases exceptionally well polished games and supports them until they die. Starcraft is a key example here, being played for years and even turning into South Korea's national sport (and fencing). Blizzard makes exceptional games and because of that get incredible exposure when they release something. Being owned by Activision certainly helps, too.

And the Warcraft/Starcraft series are hardly a rip off of Warhammer/40k as much as those two games blatantly rip off every other story out there. Warcraft is, what, humans vs orks and they have various allies helping them? Good vs evil? Starcraft is your typical political opera in space with various species warring against each other. Sure, there are parallels that can be made with 40k, but the universes are nothing alike and the similarities stop at the very, very basic groundwork of the species. 'Alien' aliens, 'Predator' aliens, and Humans warring against each other have been around since before Games-Workshop even existed. If you want to claim that Games-Workshop is a completely original company, you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

Not wanting to play a game is completely understandable; I don't even play 40k or Fantasy, and only occasionally dabble with other board games. But I don't go around telling people that their game sucks/isn't worth playing/isn't worth even researching for 'x' and 'y' reasons. If you took the two seconds to type in SC2 into the search bar that comes standard in every modern web browser you'd have come up with an explanation very, very quickly and avoided an enormous waste of time. Hell, even keeping up with the news on sites like 'digg', 'reddit', 'slashdot', or most major news sites (I think even CNN has articles about SC2) you'd know about the game being released. If you don't, I'd definitely say your head has been in a hole.

If I didn't get off work 5 hours early, I probably wouldn't be bored enough to write this. :lol:

Anyways, after playing the beta and talking with people about the game, I am absolutely stoked about its release and am waiting very eagerly for Starcraft 2 to arrive on my doorsteps. Definitely regretting pre-ordering through the mail instead of in-store pick-up.

Well actually Starcraft did directly steal the background of warhammer 40k.

It was suppose to be a 40k but GW ended up dropping it. So Blizzard took the game they had made, changed it slightly, and declared it there own.

[MGRockwell]

Well actually Starcraft did directly steal the background of warhammer 40k.

It was suppose to be a 40k but GW ended up dropping it. So Blizzard took the game they had made, changed it slightly, and declared it there own.

That is what I thought too, but doing some searching on Google all I've found is anecdotal evidence - no reliable news source. It is all word of mouth through forum posts that "saw it somewhere" or "heard from someone". I'd love to see something that said this from a reliable source.

[Sexyrice]

I was more responding to EcoTerrorist, Xhukari.

But a high end company that has experience making products that work, and ensures that they are still usable years after any other product of similar quality is removed from the shelves? Thats a company that you can rely on.

In my opinion, WoW is a serious tarnish on their record (the balance issues) but RTS is their specialty and they have thus far kept their end of the bargain. That they released the sequel to the world's most played, competitive video game is FUCKING HUGE NEWS.

For most people who have played Starcraft, which includes almost every RTS gamer, its common knowledge that the game has been there for a long time. To me, its comparable to a 3rd parent, with the amount of time I've spent playing it. I know many others have played as much, if not more and its just as important of a game to them too.

That Starcraft 2 is being released, more than 11 years after the original was released, its a huge deal. Blizzard is an awesome company, and really made their name with the Warcraft/Starcraft games. With their extremely well made games, the release of Starcraft 2 isn't just another game being released onto the shelves. Its one of the most anticipated events in gaming history.

Some of the complaints about the game can be founded rooted in the fact that Activision is the parent company of Blizzard. The lack of LAN play (most notably) and other features like no chat rooms and facebook integration stand out the most, but its still fixable in the future.

Its a company that releases solid, reliable products. They are known for putting in a lot of time and effort into insuring that they are releasing a quality product and are also known for how much money they put into their products to keep them running effectively, even AFTER THEY STOP MAKING MONEY FOR THE COMPANY.





And thank you MGRockwell, you have it perfectly right. Its just rumors. Until somebody posts transcripts of any communication between GW and Blizzard that state for certainty that Starcraft was originally a GW commissioned product, I wish the rumors would die. But its a juicy story with NO real evidence, so will probably last a very long time :(

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

The thing with Blizzard for me is while I can recognise they have a significantly better attitude towards their own work in comparison to companies like BioWare, they still spend the time needed on a project.

Starcraft 2 has been from what I've heard off a very reliable and consistant reviewer of games and friend is that it is brilliantly done, some jokes, but not too much. Especially the point about Kerrigan having permanent high heels. It's the whimsical element of 'why not?' that helps make their games work. You also can't go past some of the more humourous cut scenes of the first.

Feeling the hot love anyone?

I'll pick it up, and if he enjoys it, I certainly will. The question is more how much can we predict about the end result of the story before it gets confirmed.

[Coldfire]

*Ignores the 70% of this thread devoted to the extremely played out Blizzard/Games Workshop debate and general opinions on things not directly related to the game*

I didn't really intend to pick this game up right away, though that ended up being the case. I have to say, it's been much more fun than I anticipated. Haven't played a single game online yet, but the campaign has been surprisingly interesting. Especially Gabiral Tosh. He is just awsome.

Oh, and the ghost that shows up in the campaign to oppose the spectres:

[spoiler:30ej7gq0]Nova. Heh, that made me laugh. It was like Blizzards way of saying "Yea, that game's never getting made. So here's an obligatory cameo."[/spoiler:30ej7gq0]

[DEATHorGLORY189]

I was more responding to EcoTerrorist, Xhukari.

But a high end company that has experience making products that work, and ensures that they are still usable years after any other product of similar quality is removed from the shelves? Thats a company that you can rely on.

In my opinion, WoW is a serious tarnish on their record (the balance issues) but RTS is their specialty and they have thus far kept their end of the bargain. That they released the sequel to the world's most played, competitive video game is FUCKING HUGE NEWS.

For most people who have played Starcraft, which includes almost every RTS gamer, its common knowledge that the game has been there for a long time. To me, its comparable to a 3rd parent, with the amount of time I've spent playing it. I know many others have played as much, if not more and its just as important of a game to them too.

That Starcraft 2 is being released, more than 11 years after the original was released, its a huge deal. Blizzard is an awesome company, and really made their name with the Warcraft/Starcraft games. With their extremely well made games, the release of Starcraft 2 isn't just another game being released onto the shelves. Its one of the most anticipated events in gaming history.

Some of the complaints about the game can be founded rooted in the fact that Activision is the parent company of Blizzard. The lack of LAN play (most notably) and other features like no chat rooms and facebook integration stand out the most, but its still fixable in the future.

Its a company that releases solid, reliable products. They are known for putting in a lot of time and effort into insuring that they are releasing a quality product and are also known for how much money they put into their products to keep them running effectively, even AFTER THEY STOP MAKING MONEY FOR THE COMPANY.





And thank you MGRockwell, you have it perfectly right. Its just rumors. Until somebody posts transcripts of any communication between GW and Blizzard that state for certainty that Starcraft was originally a GW commissioned product, I wish the rumors would die. But its a juicy story with NO real evidence, so will probably last a very long time :(

A third parent?
Dude,its a computer game. Now to the orgional discussion question I usualy stick to World in Conflict and fps games but this game looks like a breath of sci fi fresh air. I'm picking it up at some point. As far as the story orgin thing who cares unless you have direct ties to to companies in question. The story was produced and people like it reguardless of the orgin. I understand credebility and creative morality but when its just rumors I don't think it to be wise to base what games I do and do not buy on rumored company dealings and or history.

[EcoTerrorist]

you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

If you don't, I'd definitely say your head has been in a hole.

[BadArmies]

you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

If you don't, I'd definitely say your head has been in a hole.




Yea so I will ignore any post you write for ever.
A) My Intelligence Quotient happens to be 163.
B) I am working on my Doctorate degree.
C) Your comments are uncalled for and unjustified.

Look out another interweb brianiac on the loose. My IQ is 181 and I am also a ninja, fo' realz.

SC2 is awesome. There is no such thing as an original idea, everything has been thought of before. If warcraft and starcraft are rip offs of whammer and 40k than warhammer and 40k are rip offs of DND and Mechwarrior. You could probably go back the the begining of human history and find out there have only been a couple original ideas since then.

For as smart as you claim to be you certainly are close minded and missing an opertunity to play what will be the 2010 game of the year.



Well actually Starcraft did directly steal the background of warhammer 40k.

It was suppose to be a 40k but GW ended up dropping it. So Blizzard took the game they had made, changed it slightly, and declared it there own.

That is what I thought too, but doing some searching on Google all I've found is anecdotal evidence - no reliable news source. It is all word of mouth through forum posts that "saw it somewhere" or "heard from someone". I'd love to see something that said this from a reliable source.


Blizzard and GW never entered any contracts or had any public facing relationship. Any suggestion that starcraft and warcraft are related to GW products is pure speculation by haters and fanbois


-------------------


adding one last thing Blizzard tells a great story with this game. It is rare in an RTS the story is much more than a minor back player to the game play. This game tells a fantastic story that is equal in quality to the game play. Blizzard did a great job, now if only they could do it again in less than 12 years.

[Zawicki]

Guys, I did not create this thread to talk about whether blizzard ripped off gw or w/e. This thread is meant to talk about the game and what you like/dislike about it. Some of these posts are starting to feel hostile and it'd be a stupid move if you got a warning because over whether you thought gw and blizzard had collaborated on star/warcraft.

Now, last night I played a bunch of 4v4 games with some friends and I had a ton of fun. Mass zerglings into mass ultralisk is CRAZY. It only really works in 4v4/3v3 because your allies can defend pretty much everything. In one game I think I had 24 ultralisks just rampaging through someones base.

I also really like all of the different mechanics you get in the campaign. The Diamondhead is freaking awesome.

So, is anyone else having fun with this game?

[Tarion]

I'll probably pick this up in a few months. I've never been one for competitive RTSs. I'll probably play through the campaign, go online once or twice to enjoy a crushing humiliation and then not bother again :P

[BadArmies]

my question is when is the sequel. The campaign was great, I expect the challenges and achivements to keep me busy for a few more months.

[DEATHorGLORY189]

you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

If you don't, I'd definitely say your head has been in a hole.



Spat out my cofee when I lol'd. But I'm not really a fan of the 4v4 thing. Doesn't feel like there are enough races to support that.

[BadArmies]

you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

If you don't, I'd definitely say your head has been in a hole.



Spat out my cofee when I lol'd. But I'm not really a fan of the 4v4 thing. Doesn't feel like there are enough races to support that.


Multi-player is just like Brood Wars MP was. MM only in SC2 you add another M, so its MMM

Marine, Medic, Marauder Run 3 or 4 to 1 marines to marauders.

[Zawicki]

Lol, there are tons of starts that terran can do. Mass viking with siege tanks. Hellion harass. Thors with marines/marauders. And if the game goes late enough mass battlecruiser. MMM is most definitely not the only way terran can play.

[BadArmies]

Lol, there are tons of starts that terran can do. Mass viking with siege tanks. Hellion harass. Thors with marines/marauders. And if the game goes late enough mass battlecruiser. MMM is most definitely not the only way terran can play.


If you look at the top ladder replays they have out there right now its all MMM. It doesn't mean there won't be a counter for it some day but right now it is the dominant play style. Personally I love the Vikings, my favorite unit in the game, followed by the seige tank and basic marine.

Roaches are amazingly strong as well, I am sure they will turn up at the top once more people learn the nuances of them.

[Zawicki]

MMM was the build every terran used when the beta started. Near the end of the beta mech (lots of thors/hellions/siege tanks) was the dominant style. I have a feeling the same thing will happen in the first few months of the game.

And when you say top ladder, are you talking plat/diamond league, or silver/gold?

[tone.tran]

... you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

+1 warning for flaming.
-Tone-

[Novasry]

Anyone's Graphics card melted yet???

[MGRockwell]

It is actually pretty resource-light. I'm running everything on Ultra at 1680x1050 and haven't noticed any noticeable slowdown.

My PC cost $1000 about 6 months to a year ago.

If I remember I'll run FRAPs tonight.

[Novasry]

It is actually pretty resource-light. I'm running everything on Ultra at 1680x1050 and haven't noticed any noticeable slowdown.

My PC cost $1000 about 6 months to a year ago.

If I remember I'll run FRAPs tonight.
I think there's apparently a glitch in the menu screens, where there is no frame rate limit, so the game tries to do like, 200 fps, and it melts peoples computers

[BadArmies]

So anyword on when Fury of the Swarm comes out?

The ending to Wings of Libery was epic, time for part duex.

[Sexyrice]

18 months is rumour

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

So anyword on when Fury of the Swarm comes out?

The ending to Wings of Libery was epic, time for part duex.

I thought it was Heart of the Swarm, since I finished it last night. There's a few questions I'll have to see answered, but this might get me back to be able to stand a Blizzard product.

[BadArmies]

So anyword on when Fury of the Swarm comes out?

The ending to Wings of Libery was epic, time for part duex.

I thought it was Heart of the Swarm, since I finished it last night. There's a few questions I'll have to see answered, but this might get me back to be able to stand a Blizzard product.

I think you are right fury of the swarm is an mission from Brood Wars, I got SC on the brain. The final mission was great. Even on hard its a pretty easy defense. The biggest issue i had was you can only have 200 units. I wanted more banshees to kill the wroms 2 at a time. Did you kill the flyers or the nydus worms for the final mission? I obviously did the flyers. I am wondering how much more difficult it would have been if you had to deal with flyers. I guess you could just do colosus and vikings rather than seige tanks and banshees.

[Zawicki]

Well, IIRC, the protoss expansion is first. So heart of the swarm is a long ways out.

[BadArmies]

Well, IIRC, the protoss expansion is first. So heart of the swarm is a long ways out.

Nope when you beat wings it says zerg expansion is next "find out kerigan's and the zergs fate in heart of the swarm". I am not sure if you played through the Zeratul missions but they give alot of back story

[spoiler:1l2iims2]and present the overmind as a hero and kerigan as the savior of the universe. I am pretty sure you will find out the prince is behind the hybrids along with mobious. I did think it was odd that Duran never showed back up at least of a cameo.[/spoiler:1l2iims2]

[BadArmies]

... you most likely have the intellect of a humming bird.

+1 warning for flaming.
-Tone-

Taken from

http://www.worldofhummingbirds.com/behavior.php


Intelligence

Hummingbirds are extremely smart. A hummingbird's brain is larger in comparison to body size than any other bird. They have a terrific memory. They know every flower in their territory and how long it will take each flower to refill. Hummingbirds remember year to year, where each and every hummingbird feeder is, both at home and along a migration path. Female hummingbirds have been observed watching older female hummingbirds building a nest to learn some tricks and tips (and possibly steal some material). They also learn which people are the ones responsible for filling hummingbird feeders, and which ones don't. These are just smart little birds.

There have been some really good studies out about how smart hummingbirds are. Click on this link to hear a radio interview done by Quirks & Quarks on CBC Radio with Dr. Andrew Hurly of the University of Lethbridge on how hummingbirds use time management in their travels.



Maybe he was complementing him?

[tone.tran]

Regardless of how smart a hummingbird may be, it's still below one of a human and calling a member as smart as one is flaming. A chimpanzee may be considered extremely smart, but if anyone were to say you were as smart as a chimp, it would be an insult. Either way, context is important and reading the post, it's easily seen as an insult.

Let's keep this thread on topic please. If you feel like you would like to discuss my decision in more detail, PM me or any other Mod :D

[Leonix]

Now I remember what I hated about SC1... Things die too easily, now I remember why MM spam works =/

[Zawicki]

TBH, a few collosi, broodlords/ultras, or siege tanks basically make MMM spam worthless. The trick is being able to spot it and holding it off until you get what you need.

[Leonix]

TBH, a few collosi, broodlords/ultras, or siege tanks basically make MMM spam worthless. The trick is being able to spot it and holding it off until you get what you need.

Point is SpamCraft is the name of the game.

Don't get me wrong, the game is beautiful, but the bottom line of gameplay is rather simplistic, and honestly (imo) makes the majority of the units pointless.

[The Tommunist]

I've been playing alot of the custom maps lately. Main one is (I think) Nexis wars. Just waiting till civ wars comes out on it. If you want to search me up, my name is TheTommunist

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

So anyword on when Fury of the Swarm comes out?

The ending to Wings of Libery was epic, time for part duex.

I thought it was Heart of the Swarm, since I finished it last night. There's a few questions I'll have to see answered, but this might get me back to be able to stand a Blizzard product.

I think you are right fury of the swarm is an mission from Brood Wars, I got SC on the brain. The final mission was great. Even on hard its a pretty easy defense. The biggest issue i had was you can only have 200 units. I wanted more banshees to kill the wroms 2 at a time. Did you kill the flyers or the nydus worms for the final mission? I obviously did the flyers. I am wondering how much more difficult it would have been if you had to deal with flyers. I guess you could just do colosus and vikings rather than seige tanks and banshees.

Not that much harder to be honest. The way I saw it, was if I took out the Nydus worms, then I could base alot of my anti air fire on the ground with a significantly reduced threat. It doesn't matter how much air power they throw at me if it's not getting anywhere except cut to shreds. Psi distruptors and the flame turrets were a god send too.

The trick to the defence, I never needed more than around 130 out of 200 supply filled, is layered defence. Sensor towers, deployed siege tanks,purgation turrets and bunkers. Each one backs up the other, I have intelligence of when and where they are coming, I have firepower at long range, fire power at short range, and mixed with roaming patrols of Goliath's nothing got through. I think I had weapons and armour at level 3, starship, vehicle and infantry. Brood Lords were a pain to deal with, but then I think I had some Vikings on patrol to deal with them.

The real question is due to Sarah Kerrigan's expression at the end, as if she'd woken from a nightmare, how is she going to be linked to the Zerg, as Heart of the Swarm implies that it is the Zerg who are coming up in the next installment, and Kerrigan was the effective Overmind of the Swarm. Is she still in touch with the Zerg, and if she is how. Not to mention would she be aware of it.

[Coldfire]

I guess thats the whole point isn't it? To see what happens to the Zerg now that their "brain" has effectivly been cut off.

[MGRockwell]

I don't really care, because I don't get much into the story, but maybe you should put a spoiler warning in the title of this thread.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

I don't really care, because I don't get much into the story, but maybe you should put a spoiler warning in the title of this thread.

You have to know the end to understand the question, and to be honest if you didn't see that coming then really....

Damn, I just sounded like my DM in one game.

[Coldfire]

The story is actually the main reason I got this game. Well, the setting to be more specific. I have no desire whatsoever to get into multiplayer. The only exception being coop with some friends against AI, but even that I don't like much.

[LastLine]

Hm, is there a demo of this? I'm tempted but money's tight at the minute...

[BadArmies]

So I am working on hard achievements and 2 of them are holding me up. Destroy 50 protoss buildings in the laser drill mission and save 2 towns in safe haven. Its pretty obvious I am playing to slow as I can usually kill about 20 buildings with the laser drill before the mission ends, and I can almost save two towns I usually get the shield down and the mothership to half health then it fires on the second to last town.

[shotcoder]

I am going to take my good ole time in this thread to call bull shit on every single one in this thread except SexyRice. The Beta was horrible in my completely honest opinion and the only reason anyone thinks it's better than the original is because it's easier. Yes easier. They made everything easier to appeal to the lower level players and so far abolished everything that made the original a dominating RTS.

Auto mine, Auto cluster(whatever you want to call it) and the easy selection of spellcasters just makes it that much easier for those who spent no time in the original working on mechanics and APM to hop right in and compete with the best in SC2. Yes I know of D+ level players in SC1 competing on a 50:50 basis with pros from SC1(namely Greg 'idrA' Fields) which is utter bullshit.

THis game will be an awesome RTS because of the storyline(which is the only reason I will be getting any of the SC2 games) and the flashy graphics. Not the intense multiplayer which in large battle is anticlimactic and looks like a large blob instead of interesting battles.

Also I know this will come with time but currently balance is still horrible even after all Blizzard did during beta. But this game seems to me like another throw away what made the original great and just make everyone ooooo and aaaaaah over flashy new units and graphics.

Sure SC2 will be great for a few months, hell maybe a few years depending on the length it takes Blizzard Activision to release the expansions but it will never top Brood War in Korea. And MLG is just praying to god that the game stays afloat so they can rake in the cash from new progamers. I'm sure you've noticed there have been no announcements for SC2 proteams in korea yet. There's obviously a reason since they assumingly would be the first since they are so tightly bound to SC1.

*I have not played the actual game and am referring to the multiplayer aspect of the game not Single player since I have not yet played campaign mode.*

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

I am going to take my good ole time in this thread to call bull shit on every single one in this thread except SexyRice. The Beta was horrible in my completely honest opinion and the only reason anyone thinks it's better than the original is because it's easier. Yes easier. They made everything easier to appeal to the lower level players and so far abolished everything that made the original a dominating RTS.

Auto mine, Auto cluster(whatever you want to call it) and the easy selection of spellcasters just makes it that much easier for those who spent no time in the original working on mechanics and APM to hop right in and compete with the best in SC2. Yes I know of D+ level players in SC1 competing on a 50:50 basis with pros from SC1(namely Greg 'idrA' Fields) which is utter bullshit.

THis game will be an awesome RTS because of the storyline(which is the only reason I will be getting any of the SC2 games) and the flashy graphics. Not the intense multiplayer which in large battle is anticlimactic and looks like a large blob instead of interesting battles.

Also I know this will come with time but currently balance is still horrible even after all Blizzard did during beta. But this game seems to me like another throw away what made the original great and just make everyone ooooo and aaaaaah over flashy new units and graphics.

Sure SC2 will be great for a few months, hell maybe a few years depending on the length it takes Blizzard Activision to release the expansions but it will never top Brood War in Korea. And MLG is just praying to god that the game stays afloat so they can rake in the cash from new progamers. I'm sure you've noticed there have been no announcements for SC2 proteams in korea yet. There's obviously a reason since they assumingly would be the first since they are so tightly bound to SC1.

*I have not played the actual game and am referring to the multiplayer aspect of the game not Single player since I have not yet played campaign mode.*

The more accurate question is would the South Korean market ever transfer over to SC 2. Blizzard can balance a game if given enough time, unlike their MMO.

I don't see the Korean market ever really getting into SC 2, most of it has been designed for an overtly western market. The only element that is overly eastern is the design of Kerrigan's armour in the cutscene, due to the lack of proper webbing present.

The other question is on the release of the final element would the leagues then consider the transfer to SC2, rather than on the first of three parts.

[shotcoder]

I am going to take my good ole time in this thread to call bull shit on every single one in this thread except SexyRice. The Beta was horrible in my completely honest opinion and the only reason anyone thinks it's better than the original is because it's easier. Yes easier. They made everything easier to appeal to the lower level players and so far abolished everything that made the original a dominating RTS.

Auto mine, Auto cluster(whatever you want to call it) and the easy selection of spellcasters just makes it that much easier for those who spent no time in the original working on mechanics and APM to hop right in and compete with the best in SC2. Yes I know of D+ level players in SC1 competing on a 50:50 basis with pros from SC1(namely Greg 'idrA' Fields) which is utter bullshit.

THis game will be an awesome RTS because of the storyline(which is the only reason I will be getting any of the SC2 games) and the flashy graphics. Not the intense multiplayer which in large battle is anticlimactic and looks like a large blob instead of interesting battles.

Also I know this will come with time but currently balance is still horrible even after all Blizzard did during beta. But this game seems to me like another throw away what made the original great and just make everyone ooooo and aaaaaah over flashy new units and graphics.

Sure SC2 will be great for a few months, hell maybe a few years depending on the length it takes Blizzard Activision to release the expansions but it will never top Brood War in Korea. And MLG is just praying to god that the game stays afloat so they can rake in the cash from new progamers. I'm sure you've noticed there have been no announcements for SC2 proteams in korea yet. There's obviously a reason since they assumingly would be the first since they are so tightly bound to SC1.

*I have not played the actual game and am referring to the multiplayer aspect of the game not Single player since I have not yet played campaign mode.*

The more accurate question is would the South Korean market ever transfer over to SC 2. Blizzard can balance a game if given enough time, unlike their MMO.

I don't see the Korean market ever really getting into SC 2, most of it has been designed for an overtly western market. The only element that is overly eastern is the design of Kerrigan's armour in the cutscene, due to the lack of proper webbing present.

The other question is on the release of the final element would the leagues then consider the transfer to SC2, rather than on the first of three parts.

THank you for understanding my argument and not think I was bashing the game.

I really doubt Korea would ever change from Brood War even if brood war meant that the progaming scene in korea died. THe fact of the matter is the way SC2 is makes the game hard to follow in large battles and makes the viewers only see a ball of units without actually seeing each individual unit and its attacks go off at any specific time. Hell maybe they would switch after the final release of the expansions but Still I feel this would accomplish the same feat that WC3 did. WC3 was also supposed to replace Brood War as the top game in the Korean Pro Scene when it was first released then sputtered and died because of balance issues and the lack of drama in battles.

I hope for the sake of the game that the Meta will evolve into something like SC1 but like in my discussion with BCS last night I severely doubt it with all the new features.

[BadArmies]

shotcoder RAGE!!!! but you are pretty much right. The need to micro has been diminished although honestly you can't blame that on SC2 alone. It started with brood war and WCIII with the auto cast. The true loss of skill IMO is when they uncapped your control groups of 12. Now you can literally run your whole army as a single control group. Even with that a more skilled player may have several sub groups inside the larger group that they micro to get more mileage out of it and was less time on repositioning. Also they fixed map capping (or at least extended it), that was the most annoying thing about zerg in multi. The zerg could just turtle up and build lots of hatcheries and then all of a sudden the opposing player could not build units because each larva counted towards the 400 unit map cap but it didn't charge the zerg player control. Its still a good game, tells a great story.

Blizzard has been going this route for a long time, I played WoW for the first 3 years I would say, up until the end of the BC. The primary reason I quit the game is blizzard dumbed it down for the casual gamer. Early on when you sported MC, BL or Nax gear it meant you worked your ass off for it. Now they made it so every mouth breathing retard that can sit on the ass long enough to run a dungeon 100 times and collect tokens can be even in gear with the truly elite players. It was a business decision as was their decision to open up the MP field.

[Tarion]

It interests me that increasing the users control and removing unnecessary restrictions is considered "making it skill-less". Generally, I'd consider that "making the game better". Unnecessary, arbitrary limitations don't improve the game, they just put silly barriers down in front of new players.

As for the example of a pro SC player being beaten by bad SC2 players... Have you considered that he might just be bad at SC2? Surely, the fact that there are clear bands of skill in SC2 implies that there is a skill difference.

EDIT: Added a "2" to one of the SC's above, so it actually makes sense.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

shotcoder RAGE!!!! but you are pretty much right. The need to micro has been diminished although honestly you can't blame that on SC2 alone. It started with brood war and WCIII with the auto cast. The true loss of skill IMO is when they uncapped your control groups of 12. Now you can literally run your whole army as a single control group. Even with that a more skilled player may have several sub groups inside the larger group that they micro to get more mileage out of it and was less time on repositioning. Also they fixed map capping (or at least extended it), that was the most annoying thing about zerg in multi. The zerg could just turtle up and build lots of hatcheries and then all of a sudden the opposing player could not build units because each larva counted towards the 400 unit map cap but it didn't charge the zerg player control. Its still a good game, tells a great story.

I have to disagree, SC 1 became complex in MP because the players made it more complex. SC 1 was never a complex game. So they're fine tuned the experience for the more casual gamers, which is a good thing in this case as it opens up the game to a wider market. I'm not going to complain.

The thing is from my point view actively seeking complex RTS games is that they are not produced. Sure you have titles like Joint Task Force and Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, out of how many RTS games? The RTS genre can give us complex titles, such as the ones I just mentioned, or innovative titles in terms of story telling and 3D environments as Homeworld 1 and Ground Control 1 gave us, but on a whole the build, explore, attack formula has worked for most games. It even works in some of the more complex ones as well. The issue with them is that they actually manage to keep the level of threat high enough that even units with the right equipment can be dealt heavy blows.

Micro-ing was never a test of skill, it was a test and sign of single mindedness, and dedictation to learning a particular system of rules, as presented by the time. Often I would rate the winner as he who knew the values the most, how many clicks, when to click, how much resources etc, rather than anything else. Sure memorisation of that much information is complex, but that does not make the use of it, or the game itself complex.

[MGRockwell]

Starcraft 2 is a good game, regardless of if you ever play the multiplayer. I loved Starcraft 1 and hardly played multiplayer, it will be the same for me with Starcraft 2.

Also, since when was WoW complicated or skill based? The game at release was a casual gamers' MMO. Nearly all MMO's reward for one thing - time spent in game. If you play enough you'll have the highest levelz/gearz.

I also think it is a mistake to compare a game that just came out to a game that has been out for 12 years based on balance. As far as I know, SC1 wasn't the most balanced right when it was released either.

[BadArmies]

Starcraft 2 is a good game, regardless of if you ever play the multiplayer. I loved Starcraft 1 and hardly played multiplayer, it will be the same for me with Starcraft 2.

Also, since when was WoW complicated or skill based? The game at release was a casual gamers' MMO. Nearly all MMO's reward for one thing - time spent in game. If you play enough you'll have the highest levelz/gearz.

I also think it is a mistake to compare a game that just came out to a game that has been out for 12 years based on balance. As far as I know, SC1 wasn't the most balanced right when it was released either.

Lol you never tried to ogranize 40 monkeys fucking a football then.

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

It interests me that increasing the users control and removing unnecessary restrictions is considered "making it skill-less". Generally, I'd consider that "making the game better". Unnecessary, arbitrary limitations don't improve the game, they just put silly barriers down in front of new players.

As for the example of a pro SC player being beaten by bad SC2 players... Have you considered that he might just be bad at SC? Surely, the fact that there are clear bands of skill in SC2 implies that there is a skill difference.
That's what I told him in the debate we got into about it on chat.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen SC2 go a little farther in evolving the gameplay. Maybe e if the game was a step further away from the original, we wouldn't have fans hating it because it isn't the original. I love SC1, and was excited to see the growth of the system after 12 years. I didn't really want SC2 to be SC1 with better graphics, and it's not. So I'm happy.

Also, Shot: by what authority are you labeling people's opinions and thoughts "bullshit"?

[Tarion]

That's what I told him in the debate we got into about it on chat.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen SC2 go a little farther in evolving the gameplay. Maybe e if the game was a step further away from the original, we wouldn't have fans hating it because it isn't the original. I love SC1, and was excited to see the growth of the system after 12 years. I didn't really want SC2 to be SC1 with better graphics, and it's not. So I'm happy.
It really was stuck though. If it had gone further, even more fans would have been outraged. Players want it to be exactly the same, and yet add something new.

[BadArmies]

I don't think I said the game was skill-less i said it required less skill to play, i do believe to master it all the skilled used in SC will make you a better SC2 player. The gap between pro and suck has gotten smaller but I do not expect noob's to be schooling anyone any time soon.

[shotcoder]

It interests me that increasing the users control and removing unnecessary restrictions is considered "making it skill-less". Generally, I'd consider that "making the game better". Unnecessary, arbitrary limitations don't improve the game, they just put silly barriers down in front of new players.

As for the example of a pro SC player being beaten by bad SC2 players... Have you considered that he might just be bad at SC? Surely, the fact that there are clear bands of skill in SC2 implies that there is a skill difference.
That's what I told him in the debate we got into about it on chat.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen SC2 go a little farther in evolving the gameplay. Maybe e if the game was a step further away from the original, we wouldn't have fans hating it because it isn't the original. I love SC1, and was excited to see the growth of the system after 12 years. I didn't really want SC2 to be SC1 with better graphics, and it's not. So I'm happy.

Also, Shot: by what authority are you labeling people's opinions and thoughts "bullshit"?

Mainly this whole SC2 is all holy and great when they are just jumping into the story after not playing the game for years while some of us have lived and breathed Brood War for years. It's the reason I hate SC2 multiplayer, because it killed the multiplayer outside of koreans with the "Chance to make it big" as a progamer with it's newness and ease of play. That's what everyone hear reminded me of and the bullshit I call shenanigans on.

[Tarion]

Mainly this whole SC2 is all holy and great when they are just jumping into the story after not playing the game for years while some of us have lived and breathed Brood War for years. It's the reason I hate SC2 multiplayer, because it killed the multiplayer outside of koreans with the "Chance to make it big" as a progamer with it's newness and ease of play. That's what everyone hear reminded me of and the bullshit I call shenanigans on.You're coming off as quite elitist here.

You don't like it because its easy for other players to get in. Players who don't deserve to do well because they've not spent the last decade practicing SC1.

[Leonix]

Mainly this whole SC2 is all holy and great when they are just jumping into the story after not playing the game for years while some of us have lived and breathed Brood War for years. It's the reason I hate SC2 multiplayer, because it killed the multiplayer outside of koreans with the "Chance to make it big" as a progamer with it's newness and ease of play. That's what everyone hear reminded me of and the bullshit I call shenanigans on.You're coming off as quite elitist here.

You don't like it because its easy for other players to get in. Players who don't deserve to do well because they've not spent the last decade practicing SC1.

Theres and "e-z" mode?

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

That's what I told him in the debate we got into about it on chat.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen SC2 go a little farther in evolving the gameplay. Maybe e if the game was a step further away from the original, we wouldn't have fans hating it because it isn't the original. I love SC1, and was excited to see the growth of the system after 12 years. I didn't really want SC2 to be SC1 with better graphics, and it's not. So I'm happy.
It really was stuck though. If it had gone further, even more fans would have been outraged. Players want it to be exactly the same, and yet add something new.

I have to agree with both of these points, and my original one that SC 1 was never a complex game. As much as you try to point out how it became complex the nature of game meant it was the players who made it complex. Yes the genre is more open than it was previously, and the balance has shifted from what it was in first to roughly where it sat in the beta, to where it is now. Not to mention where it will be in a year or so when Blizzard have a few more patches under their belts.

Is it a departure from what Brood Wars is? Certainly, but as said by Tarion, the fans wanted Starcraft, but shinier. What they got is still Starcraft, but it is the next generation of it. I think most of us in the forum may be first generation Starcraft players, getting either the original game or expansion on release, but I don't think that makes it easy for those us who played it alot back then to get our heads around the new one.

On the other hand I believe that this game is designed as much for the fans as it is for people who have not had the time with Brood Wars that we have had. Through the cut scenes you get all of the back story that Brood Wars and Starcraft told, but it was done in a way that makes me think of the 'the last time on SG1' at the first ep of a new season.

My point here is that the game is serving many different groups, and it appears to be doing that quite well. Now while some people feel strongly about what the players made Starcraft 1 for MP, you have to remember that it was Warcraft in space, and that the more you learn how the system works, the less you're playing the game, you start to manage the game instead. I can guarantee that more than 80% want to just play the game, and have fun. In some ways I applaud Blizzard for invalidating some of the so called skills developed by the pro-gamer scene because they have no place in anything but.

If there was a group that missed out on Starcraft it was the pro-gamer, because I don't believe that Blizzard really intended Brood Wars or Starcraft to become one of the national sports of an Asian country.

I would also like a justification of why intensive micro-management constitutes skill. In any of the games I say took skill to progress in, it's not about how you micro manage your forces, its in the formation of a flexible order of battle and assessment of risks. While games like Nexus: The Jupiter Incident and Joint Task Force show this better than some other titles, it's clear that completing them is a test of skill. Sure you can micro some parts of the game, but following a singular build order or any of the other elements that people online identify as would get you into trouble, and very quickly in some cases.

Now while I'm the first to say those games aren't perfect, I think they're much better tests of skill, than Starcraft 1 could ever be. Let alone actively working out a way to use a fully 3D environment as presented by Ground Control 1 or Homeworld 1 against your opponent.

[shotcoder]

Mainly this whole SC2 is all holy and great when they are just jumping into the story after not playing the game for years while some of us have lived and breathed Brood War for years. It's the reason I hate SC2 multiplayer, because it killed the multiplayer outside of koreans with the "Chance to make it big" as a progamer with it's newness and ease of play. That's what everyone hear reminded me of and the bullshit I call shenanigans on.You're coming off as quite elitist here.

You don't like it because its easy for other players to get in. Players who don't deserve to do well because they've not spent the last decade practicing SC1.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying that people shouldn't go to a different game. But it's the reasoning behind it. I know many hear never frequent Teamliquid.net but I spend more time there than I ever have here. And really everyone not a Korean have switched to SC2, not because they think the game play is better or even just because its a new game. But because they want a chance to be an MLG progamer.

Play on ICCup, majority of people I play in Brood War are koreans. Before beta was released I was playing mainly Europeans because of the hours I was awake and what time I got off work. None of my friends currently play the game like they used to, but more time on SC2 I see people converting back. Like Chaos, Roffles, Lokim, Shauni, Response, And even KawaiiRice is switching back to BW. Sorry if you don't know these people but they are influential to the Foreigner community of Brood War such as the Whole Team EG who have now switched to SC2 in attempt to "hit it big".

Really this all leads down to it being STARCRAFT 2 and not another game.

I also like how Brood War is singled out as a skill of micro management only. The skill is in the multitasking which is why SC2 is failing for me. You don't need to multitask and there's too many "hard counters". How many progames have you actually watched? By the sound of your comments I can guess about Zero. What about army control? Positioning? Hotkey usage? Spell usage? macro management? knowledge of timing windows? knowledge on how to open a timing window? map control? And no one follows a single build order. If they did that the games would always end the same way.

Lemme try a different way. How many times have you actually been excited in SC2? How many times have you see something that made you nearly fall out of your chair in excitement or make mutter under breath at the sheer awesomeness of it?

Flash vs HyuN

Background: Flash is the number one ranked player and is on a 15 game win streak(19 if you count WCG korea) vs Zerg. HyuN is a mediocre Zerg player. HyuN opens 2 hatch Muta and Flash opens 1 rax Fast Expand like any normal game. Flash tries cutting turrets so he can speed up his push timing and because of it is punished severely and end up losing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... ZTtQTx98w# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tWZTtQTx98w&eurl=http://www.youtube.com/embed/tWZTtQTx98w#)!

Bisu vs Pure
Yellow Protoss at bottom is Bisu, Red Protoss at top left is Pure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC7rjGjjVkc


compare the action in these games to

WhiteRa vs DIMAGA
Two very prestigious foreign Brood War players who have moved from Brood War to pursue possibilities in SC2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq5g6XUU ... playnext=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq5g6XUUqJU&feature=PlayList&p=9CC163F396D399AA&index=0&playnext=1)

Artosis vs Idra
Idra is the only foreigner who is currently a progamer in korea for SC1. Artosis is one of the top foreigners in SC1 from the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrkykhtfqxE

I'm not looking at this game from the same point of view any of you are. Which is why our opinions differ. I saw SC2 as a chance for Europe and the United States to finally catch up with the Koreans in their Progaming. But the game just doesnt provide the ease of viewing that SC1 did. The way the unit group together make it difficult to see exactly what's what and how the battle is being played out. the graphics also make it hard to see these things as well.

Sure as "another RTS game" it'll be a success. But it won't even live up to the legacy Brood War and Counter Strike have created because it's those little things that are holding it back. And it all begins with the lack of excitement which stems from the lack of true crowd potential.

So I'm sorry I don't think the game is currently up to par with the original. I held it to much higher standards than any of you ever did because it was STARCRAFT 2 not because it's "another RTS" or a "Modern RTS". The sad fact is right now the game isn't ready to be part of MLG like it is and most likely won't be the game that unites the gamers to finally bring progaming up as an option to make a career. Sure, Halo 3 and MW2 started that a little bit but those don't offer spectating options like Computer games can. In MW2 and H3 you are stuck watching a 1st person view of each individual player which limits the things you can see and each teams plan which is the beauty of RTS games as progames.

So now hopefully my reasoning for bashing a game you consider high and mighty is now sufficient for you. It's not because I'm stuck on the original but because the game isn't what I imagined and isn't what we all planned it to be. And because of the restrictions I've listed won't help the growth of Progaming, which is what I was hoping this particular game would achieve.

edit: editted win streak of flash for accuracy.

[Tarion]

I... I don't understand where you're coming from here. Since you started with a quote from me, I'm forced to assume you're talking to me.

I'm going to quote the bits that don't really make sense...

How many progames have you actually watched? By the sound of your comments I can guess about Zero.
How many times have you actually been excited in SC2? How many times have you see something that made you nearly fall out of your chair in excitement or make mutter under breath at the sheer awesomeness of it?
So now hopefully my reasoning for bashing a game you consider high and mighty is now sufficient for you.

My post earlier in the thread:
I'll probably pick this up in a few months. I've never been one for competitive RTSs. I'll probably play through the campaign, go online once or twice to enjoy a crushing humiliation and then not bother again :P

I've not played SC2. At all. I've barely played SC. I don't particularly like RTS's. However, I am interested in the competitive gaming scene, as a whole. That's where my comments were coming from. A good competitive game has, in my opinion, a low skill threshold for new players, without having a low skill ceiling.

Your complaints seem to be that SC2 has both a low skill threshold for new players and a low skill ceiling. What I'm unsure of is what you believe to distinguish a Copper* player from a Platinum* one. You've already implied that its not a case of multitasking, or the other whole list of things that you attribute skill in SC to.

* Had to google the name of the rankings >_<

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

Shot, simple question : what should SC2 have been, gameplay wise?

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

A question for you Tarion, do you believe it's the gamers who make the games complex, or the games themselves?

[shotcoder]

I... I don't understand where you're coming from here. Since you started with a quote from me, I'm forced to assume you're talking to me.

I'm going to quote the bits that don't really make sense...
[quote]How many progames have you actually watched? By the sound of your comments I can guess about Zero.
How many times have you actually been excited in SC2? How many times have you see something that made you nearly fall out of your chair in excitement or make mutter under breath at the sheer awesomeness of it?
So now hopefully my reasoning for bashing a game you consider high and mighty is now sufficient for you.

My post earlier in the thread:
I'll probably pick this up in a few months. I've never been one for competitive RTSs. I'll probably play through the campaign, go online once or twice to enjoy a crushing humiliation and then not bother again :P

I've not played SC2. At all. I've barely played SC. I don't particularly like RTS's. However, I am interested in the competitive gaming scene, as a whole. That's where my comments were coming from. A good competitive game has, in my opinion, a low skill threshold for new players, without having a low skill ceiling.

Your complaints seem to be that SC2 has both a low skill threshold for new players and a low skill ceiling. What I'm unsure of is what you believe to distinguish a Copper* player from a Platinum* one. You've already implied that its not a case of multitasking, or the other whole list of things that you attribute skill in SC to.

* Had to google the name of the rankings >_<[/quote:1v08b5cm]

Tarion, I made it into Diamond/Platinum league in Beta throughout the whole thing and I'm only a C/C- Rank on ICCup for Brood War. I was playing people who were also D/D+ on ICCup and losing to them not because they were better but just because the game favors the lower skill sets because of the easy casting system Auto mining and all other things that make the game "better" to everyone. The game evened the playing field, even for those who were expected to shine as Pros in the game have since been made mediocre because of the units and the way the game is played.

Also my post was to multiple people here in this topic not just you, I just forgot to quote everyone where necessary.


Shot, simple question : what should SC2 have been, gameplay wise?

Because its Starcraft 2, using Starcraft 1 style units, basic game play and maps, it should play like that. But understanding this is a new game and not just a sequel like Brood War it should play like a different game completely. Like RA2 vs RA1 or AoE vs AoE2. The concepts were there but the gameplay was completely different. Now SC1 vs SC2 the concepts are the same and the mechanics and gameplay are almost identical but like I said the little things are lowing the skill threshold and killing it as a competitive game. Hell it'll be a good "Standard Modern RTS" but it won't be anything special. IT'll fizzle out just like the original did in most places but I doubt anyone would pick it up as a progame simply based on the reason you casual gamers, I use that term lightly, think SC2 will be a great game for years to come.

[The Infernal Penguin]

Pretty shocking that there isn't a cover or morale system in this game series yet. Feels like Blizzard are a few years behind, really. Not that I played the first one, of course.

[Novasry]

Shot, you seem to be int he mindset that anyone who was good at SC1 should automatically be good at SC2, but that surely isn't the case, I haven't played either game yet but I assume from what I've read, that making the basic operations easier (like the Auto-Mining you mentioned) makes it easier for new players to get into the game, but would also free up time for the top players to do more in the game, since they no longer have to keep clicking to mine stuff...

to put it another way, by amking the basic game simpler, you lower the sill threshold, but you also raise the bar on the skill ceiling, because you will be able to do more...

[Tarion]

A question for you Tarion, do you believe it's the gamers who make the games complex, or the games themselves?The gamers make a game complex, but the game needs to be able to support complexity.

It doesn't matter how good you are at Tic-Tac-Toe, that game is never going to get any more complex.
Shot, you seem to be int he mindset that anyone who was good at SC1 should automatically be good at SC2, but that surely isn't the case, I haven't played either game yet but I assume from what I've read, that making the basic operations easier (like the Auto-Mining you mentioned) makes it easier for new players to get into the game, but would also free up time for the top players to do more in the game, since they no longer have to keep clicking to mine stuff...

to put it another way, by amking the basic game simpler, you lower the sill threshold, but you also raise the bar on the skill ceiling, because you will be able to do more...That's what I was saying. Much <3.

Tarion, I made it into Diamond/Platinum league in Beta throughout the whole thing and I'm only a C/C- Rank on ICCup for Brood War. I was playing people who were also D/D+ on ICCup and losing to them not because they were better but just because the game favors the lower skill sets because of the easy casting system Auto mining and all other things that make the game "better" to everyone. The game evened the playing field, even for those who were expected to shine as Pros in the game have since been made mediocre because of the units and the way the game is played.You have to remember two things.

1 - Being good at SC1 =/= not being good at SC. If they adapt to new strategies quicker, then they should win.

2 - The game is still ridiculously young. If I remember my gaming history, it wasn't until BW was about to release that micro became a popular strategy in SC. This (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=37334) article backs me up. Comparing how the game is now, to how it'll be in 6 months, or a year, is a mistake. Yeah, its been in beta. But now that its in the wild, it'll develop much more.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Pretty shocking that there isn't a cover or morale system in this game series yet. Feels like Blizzard are a few years behind, really. Not that I played the first one, of course.

I'm not sure you could, due to the nature of the game. It would be a shift into the territory of single squads of Marines etc, rather than the singular units being produced. While it could fit into the SC universe, it would be a serious paradigm shift, and would produce much greater complaints than those already seen.

To answer Tarion's point, I don't believe Starcraft was ever capable of being complex. Excessive ammounts of tactical pigeon holing, which evens seeps down into the methodology of the tactics in MP made the game complex, players built formulas that used what already present in the game to add further layers to it, rather than the game offering the complexity in the first place.

Starcraft 1 is a simple 2.5D game, with the illusion that height is a tangible factor in the game. That's how I see, when in comparison to Homeworld 1 or Ground Control 1, true 3D environments present more options, and offer just as many bonuses as weaknesses.

Now I will admit a bias towards true 3D games, as I find them better experiences, but Starcraft still did not start as, or could ever be a complex game until it was made so by the players. The players were the variable for the game that made it complex, and only the players, the game does not support it, or actively contribute towards making it complex.

[shotcoder]

Ok I guess I'll quit arguing my piece since people are dodging my argument of it being a failure for a spectator game like SC1 was so I'll dodge the whole gameplay issues.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Ok I guess I'll quit arguing my piece since people are dodging my argument of it being a failure for a spectator game like SC1 was so I'll dodge the whole gameplay issues.

I don't believe they are dodging the question, it is merely the fact you focus on such a narrow issue, which is really never part of their question in the first place. Pro-gaming has only really come out in the last five years or so, which means that games were never really intended for it, until 2007 or so, allowing for a full development cycle. This applies to Starcraft as much as it did some of their earlier titles.

If SC 2 is so flawed on the MP side, provide justification and case studies from a range of levels, rather than the supposed elite top. Using the 5% of the 5% is not a good way to go about winning a debate.

[Sexyrice]

Who plays competitive games competitively, though? Its the top 5%. Not even that, more like the top 1%. That goes for any sport, electronic or otherwise. The difference between a computer game and a physical game is how the games restrict the players. A traditional physical game limits the athlete, examples being intentional and even unintentional harm to an opponent is against the rules. Other rules dictate how the game is structured and played- for example, in football/soccer, there is a limit on the size of the field, how many players are on each team, what the purpose of each player is (defensive, offensive), and it goes on. But thats not enough, you also have to cover other aspects of the game, such as what is legal and illegal according to the rules (such as how to handle the ball) and the consequences for the players if they break the rules.

To be a professional athlete, playing any sport, you have to know these rules like the back of your hand, or at least understand them. You also have train your body to perform your task in the game to the best of its abilities. You have to take care of it, and practice hours at a time for years to get good at your game of choice. If anybody could play the game with a relatively equal chance of winning, you'd be better off watching people flip coins, roll dice or guess what the next card is at random with a deck. There HAS to be a skill difference between the professional players and the viewers/casual players.

But for the sport to become worth playing professionally, you also need a game that is entertaining and easy to follow. Something that fans enjoy watching, and can play with their friends. Maybe not on the same level as professional athletes, but at least with friends. And not just capable to play with their friends, but fun to play with their friends.

And all of these things apply to e-sports as well. Before talking about SC2, lets go SC:BW first. The game honestly isn't THAT fantastic. It isn't the best thing since the wheel, but it was a pretty fucking sweet game. It had the following- South Korea made it its national sport, and was played internationally. It was also enjoyable to play with your friends. It was fair (after a couple years of balance) and once map makers learned how to do their jobs the game became that much more fun to play. What really set it apart from other games though was the skill difference. I think this is what Shotcoder is most peeved about. You can tell the difference between a casual player, a competitive player, and a top pro player by how each person plays their race and interacts with their opponents. A game between casual players might last until the mid or late game before any conflicts break out- and its because neither player has learned how to maximize his/her build order, how to macro/micro their base/army successful and how to discern what needs attention at any given moment and what doesn't. A competitive player would be somebody who understands these concepts and has at least a grasp on how to use them in game. You would probably see some early game skirmishes followed by a midgame killing blow. There might be some tricky play the player uses- like using a dropship to pick up and drop siege tanks to avoid dragoon shots, some impressive reaver micro or perhaps some mutalisk harass. But what really made starcraft stand out was the game in the hands of the pros.

The top korean pros turned the game into an art. And that is what professionals are supposed to do. They turn their job into an art form. Watching a skilled football player masterfully evade his opponents and score a goal- that is awesome to watch. And Starcraft had those sorts of features unintentionally built into it. It was a brilliant accident.

Starcraft 2, so far, only has the fans. There are at least tens of thousands of people playing the game. They are waiting for the pros to turn it into something amazing. There isn't anything to see, though. Sure, one player might win. And yes, if you pit somebody who has never played the game against somebody who has been playing for the past 6 months- you can probably predict the outcome. But even watching two pros face off against each other doesn't really hold any joy in watching.

I think the problem lies in the fact that two things are missing-
1) we don't have any real familiarity with the game yet. Its a young game, so little quirks haven't been found. And we are impatient as ever- its not more impressive than SC1 except for graphics and interface. The game play is extremely simplified. Proof can be found in two points- a) players who switch from SC1 to SC2 and back to SC1 have a noticeably shittier ability to micro and to macro and to coordinate their strategy even after only a couple weeks or in some cases even days; and b) comparatively, the mechanics in SC1 require so much attention that many players who are used to newer games wont even touch SC1. Admittedly, the comparison between a screwdriver and an electric screwdriver can be easily made in the case of SC1 to SC2. But that leads into point two...
2) The game is built on a well tested engine. Why is that bad? It sounds like an excellent thing at first glance, but it also means that the game doesn't have any room for a player to show off. Players aren't using their bodies to play the game so much as using the game engine and their mind. So instead of seeing players make a 100 yard dash for a touch down in American Football or an amazing play in Soccer (excuse my ignorance of soccer, I live in the states), we see skills like mutalisk harass, reaver micro, in game battle micro where players have to move injured units towards the back and let healthier units take more damage, shield battery micro... and the list goes on. While some of the more concentration intensive skills like unit control on the battlefield and in base mechanics still exist, they function at a fraction of the level that they did in SC1.

All of the ingredients to make a good game are in place, and will definitely be fixed in the future when Blizzard figures out what needs to be fixed and how to fix it (void rays, I'm looking at you), but Starcraft 2 is missing one key element- the ability to abuse the game engine and make it work for you. I think SC2 is and will be a fun game to play in the future, especially once the expansions start getting released, the game is learned more by the players, and the meta game evolves. Even better, Blizzard is almost certainly going to do everything they can to make sure the game evolves into a better product and will work with the players to ensure that SC2 remains balanced. But there isn't anything fun to watch in Starcraft 2 that really shows the artistic abilities of the player like there was in Starcraft: Broodwar. And that is what makes a game go down in the memories of the fans as something amazing- the players who become artists. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu and even players like Jangbi and the almost star that is Baby- those are names that are remembered. I came into the pro-scene as a fan very late into the lifetime of Starcraft, but I know there are dozens of other amazing players that really invented the way Starcraft is played today.

[shotcoder]

Who plays competitive games competitively, though? Its the top 5%. Not even that, more like the top 1%. That goes for any sport, electronic or otherwise. The difference between a computer game and a physical game is how the games restrict the players. A traditional physical game limits the athlete, examples being intentional and even unintentional harm to an opponent is against the rules. Other rules dictate how the game is structured and played- for example, in football/soccer, there is a limit on the size of the field, how many players are on each team, what the purpose of each player is (defensive, offensive), and it goes on. But thats not enough, you also have to cover other aspects of the game, such as what is legal and illegal according to the rules (such as how to handle the ball) and the consequences for the players if they break the rules.

Progamers play competitively and isn't Blizzard the one negotiating with OGN and MBC in korea to get a league set-up for SC2 in korea? Why hasn't that deal been settled yet? Because the game isn't what we all thought it would be. It was born to replace SC1 in korea and spread world wide but if it can't stick in the biggest SC1 playing country in the world why would it anywhere else?


To be a professional athlete, playing any sport, you have to know these rules like the back of your hand, or at least understand them. You also have train your body to perform your task in the game to the best of its abilities. You have to take care of it, and practice hours at a time for years to get good at your game of choice. If anybody could play the game with a relatively equal chance of winning, you'd be better off watching people flip coins, roll dice or guess what the next card is at random with a deck. There HAS to be a skill difference between the professional players and the viewers/casual players.

But for the sport to become worth playing professionally, you also need a game that is entertaining and easy to follow. Something that fans enjoy watching, and can play with their friends. Maybe not on the same level as professional athletes, but at least with friends. And not just capable to play with their friends, but fun to play with their friends.

And all of these things apply to e-sports as well. Before talking about SC2, lets go SC:BW first. The game honestly isn't THAT fantastic. It isn't the best thing since the wheel, but it was a pretty fucking sweet game. It had the following- South Korea made it its national sport, and was played internationally. It was also enjoyable to play with your friends. It was fair (after a couple years of balance) and once map makers learned how to do their jobs the game became that much more fun to play. What really set it apart from other games though was the skill difference. I think this is what Shotcoder is most peeved about. You can tell the difference between a casual player, a competitive player, and a top pro player by how each person plays their race and interacts with their opponents. A game between casual players might last until the mid or late game before any conflicts break out- and its because neither player has learned how to maximize his/her build order, how to macro/micro their base/army successful and how to discern what needs attention at any given moment and what doesn't. A competitive player would be somebody who understands these concepts and has at least a grasp on how to use them in game. You would probably see some early game skirmishes followed by a midgame killing blow. There might be some tricky play the player uses- like using a dropship to pick up and drop siege tanks to avoid dragoon shots, some impressive reaver micro or perhaps some mutalisk harass. But what really made starcraft stand out was the game in the hands of the pros.

The game is honestly fantastic. Look at the glitches each unit has and the game itself has. these are the things Blizzard removed on purpose to mak a "perfect game" yet these things are not only what made BW unique but also made the game balanced. How else would Mutas have been viable without the use of overlord clumping and how about vulture usage without mines?


The top korean pros turned the game into an art. And that is what professionals are supposed to do. They turn their job into an art form. Watching a skilled football player masterfully evade his opponents and score a goal- that is awesome to watch. And Starcraft had those sorts of features unintentionally built into it. It was a brilliant accident.

That's why I see SC2 failing as a Pro game. BW was an accident and they are forcing SC2 into a progaming arena. Two different situation where I see SC2 losing out because of all the pressure on the game and it's developers.


Starcraft 2, so far, only has the fans. There are at least tens of thousands of people playing the game. They are waiting for the pros to turn it into something amazing. There isn't anything to see, though. Sure, one player might win. And yes, if you pit somebody who has never played the game against somebody who has been playing for the past 6 months- you can probably predict the outcome. But even watching two pros face off against each other doesn't really hold any joy in watching.

I agree with the above statements.


I think the problem lies in the fact that two things are missing-
1) we don't have any real familiarity with the game yet. Its a young game, so little quirks haven't been found. And we are impatient as ever- its not more impressive than SC1 except for graphics and interface. The game play is extremely simplified. Proof can be found in two points- a) players who switch from SC1 to SC2 and back to SC1 have a noticeably shittier ability to micro and to macro and to coordinate their strategy even after only a couple weeks or in some cases even days; and b) comparatively, the mechanics in SC1 require so much attention that many players who are used to newer games wont even touch SC1. Admittedly, the comparison between a screwdriver and an electric screwdriver can be easily made in the case of SC1 to SC2. But that leads into point two...
2) The game is built on a well tested engine. Why is that bad? It sounds like an excellent thing at first glance, but it also means that the game doesn't have any room for a player to show off. Players aren't using their bodies to play the game so much as using the game engine and their mind. So instead of seeing players make a 100 yard dash for a touch down in American Football or an amazing play in Soccer (excuse my ignorance of soccer, I live in the states), we see skills like mutalisk harass, reaver micro, in game battle micro where players have to move injured units towards the back and let healthier units take more damage, shield battery micro... and the list goes on. While some of the more concentration intensive skills like unit control on the battlefield and in base mechanics still exist, they function at a fraction of the level that they did in SC1.

I agree with point 1 but point 2 I don't. I mean you don't see the hands of progamers when they play, you only see the results of said hand movements.


All of the ingredients to make a good game are in place, and will definitely be fixed in the future when Blizzard figures out what needs to be fixed and how to fix it (void rays, I'm looking at you), but Starcraft 2 is missing one key element- the ability to abuse the game engine and make it work for you. I think SC2 is and will be a fun game to play in the future, especially once the expansions start getting released, the game is learned more by the players, and the meta game evolves. Even better, Blizzard is almost certainly going to do everything they can to make sure the game evolves into a better product and will work with the players to ensure that SC2 remains balanced. But there isn't anything fun to watch in Starcraft 2 that really shows the artistic abilities of the player like there was in Starcraft: Broodwar. And that is what makes a game go down in the memories of the fans as something amazing- the players who become artists. Jaedong, Flash, Bisu and even players like Jangbi and the almost star that is Baby- those are names that are remembered. I came into the pro-scene as a fan very late into the lifetime of Starcraft, but I know there are dozens of other amazing players that really invented the way Starcraft is played today.
:D who can forget Savior(even though he fixed his matches) Upmagic, July, Choejja, Boxer, NaDa, Ilovoov, Kingdom, Reach, and Yellow? Such brilliant minds in a game.

[Tarion]

Progamers play competitively and isn't Blizzard the one negotiating with OGN and MBC in korea to get a league set-up for SC2 in korea? Why hasn't that deal been settled yet? Because the game isn't what we all thought it would be. It was born to replace SC1 in korea and spread world wide but if it can't stick in the biggest SC1 playing country in the world why would it anywhere else?I'm just going to leap in to say I disagree with that. Korea is probably SC2's biggest challenge, precisely because SC1 has such a following there. Simple fact - Most people don't like change. They're really going to have to convince them that SC2 is better, because if they're even close, people are going to stick with the familiar.


The game is honestly fantastic. Look at the glitches each unit has and the game itself has. these are the things Blizzard removed on purpose to mak a "perfect game" yet these things are not only what made BW unique but also made the game balanced. How else would Mutas have been viable without the use of overlord clumping and how about vulture usage without mines? I also disagree with this. You shouldn't preserve bugs, purely to pander to players of the prequel. All it does is hurt new players, who don't understand why certain units behave counter-intuitively.

When you're doing a new game, getting rid of things like that is the right decision, IMO. Anyway, their role in balance should be irrelevant, because a new game is a fresh chance to rebalance. If you needed a bug to make something good, or stop it from being overpowered, odds are you cocked up somewhere in the design.

EDIT: Oh, I also think that you're overestimating the importance of the SC1 competitive scene. IMO, the casual scene is the more important. Every single competitive SC1 player could vow never to play SC2, but if there was a big enough following, a competitive scene would develop. All-new players would rise to the top.

Blizzard are trying to establish SC2 as a competitive game, but all they're doing is smoothing the way. WarIII, SC, WoW... Blizzard's game tend to lead to competition.

[shotcoder]

[quote]Progamers play competitively and isn't Blizzard the one negotiating with OGN and MBC in korea to get a league set-up for SC2 in korea? Why hasn't that deal been settled yet? Because the game isn't what we all thought it would be. It was born to replace SC1 in korea and spread world wide but if it can't stick in the biggest SC1 playing country in the world why would it anywhere else?I'm just going to leap in to say I disagree with that. Korea is probably SC2's biggest challenge, precisely because SC1 has such a following there. Simple fact - Most people don't like change. They're really going to have to convince them that SC2 is better, because if they're even close, people are going to stick with the familiar.
I guess that makes sense since Blizzard did target the underdog broadcasting company in Korea first(GOMTV) to sign a deal with them for SC2.



The game is honestly fantastic. Look at the glitches each unit has and the game itself has. these are the things Blizzard removed on purpose to mak a "perfect game" yet these things are not only what made BW unique but also made the game balanced. How else would Mutas have been viable without the use of overlord clumping and how about vulture usage without mines? I also disagree with this. You shouldn't preserve bugs, purely to pander to players of the prequel. All it does is hurt new players, who don't understand why certain units behave counter-intuitively.

When you're doing a new game, getting rid of things like that is the right decision, IMO. Anyway, their role in balance should be irrelevant, because a new game is a fresh chance to rebalance. If you needed a bug to make something good, or stop it from being overpowered, odds are you cocked up somewhere in the design.

I have to disagree with this because glitches are part of the game. Part of every game in fact. If they make the game severely imbalanced then yes they should be fixed. But like Muta stacking they are easily countered by good turret placement and a decent force of Marine Medic. Vultures are easily stopped but dragoons, or speedlings. Now if it was something like the old reaver bug where you can drop it and pick it up instantly and it would still fire, that is something that deserves to be removed because it makes the reaver invincible with a shuttle. Also, if the glitches were so bad why did Blizzard go out of the way to include stacking of air units like the original?
[/quote:utdoyx9w]

[Tarion]

My point is not that glitches are bad, because you're right. They're a fact of life.

My point is that you shouldn't arbitrarily preserve a glitch from one game to another. If it adds something special to the game, then you can justify turning it into a feature, rather than leaving it as a bug. By this, I mean that it should be intuitive and work within the game. Preserving it purely because "that's how it was done in Starcraft" isn't great. I think it is important to remember that SC2 is a new game.

Also, I edited my post just as you were posting. Any thoughts on my last paragraph?

[shotcoder]

I agree with you a bit, I just don't think they are doing it in a uniting fashion. Like I said I was looking at this as an oppritunity for many countries to finally start their own leagues because of this game. Because We all knew the following would be huge. But right now the game is seriously lacking in the regards I've spoken about. There are two expansions coming out for it so I guess we'll see when we get there.

[']['Ritha][]

Leon, you say SC1 wasn't complex, that it was the players that made it so. How does that not apply to absolutely any game? I mean, look at the two best known and longest lasting games of all time: Chess and Go.

Both are not very complex, but the incredible depth of strategy and psychology are what makes them great. The eternally shifting meta game, the eternally changing methods. The sudden returns to an oldschool style of play that catches people off guard with a move that hasn't been seen in years because it is 'out dated' yet catches the opponent with their pants down. Complex games are BAD games, simple games that allow for a huge strategic and tactical depth are good games.



And Shot, you need to stay out of this thread till you play more SC2. It is way, way better than you like to make it out. It is exactly how SC1 was back in the day, people that have no idea what they are talking about think the game is based on spamming units and zergling rushing. A good player will laugh at your unit spam and laugh at your zergling rush. While perfect counters to build haven't been found yet, the meta is progressing. I can only really speak for Terran, but the meta has totally changed from M&M&M in all matchups to the 'standard' fast Hellion Mech vs Zerg, M&M&M+ghosts vs Protoss, and marine/tank vs Terran. Just like SC1 has M&M vs Zerg, mech vs Protoss and mech vs Terran as the standards. TheLittleOne is constantly showing how SC2 is actually potentially a BETTER competitive game than SC1 is because of the diversity of potential. SC1 TvZ will 95% of the time go M&M vs muta+ling, M&M+tank vs lurker+muta+ling, M&M+tank+vessel vs lurker+ling+defiler, mass tank+mass vessel with some M&M vs ultra+ling+defiler in that exact order. In every SC1 matchup you can expect a similar experience. ZvZ is always ling+muta with queens and defilers in the tiny amount of games that get that far. ZvZ in SC2 is an incredibly mixed bag, IdrA often favors hydra/roach, most others go ling/muta as their core. Add in banelings for busting the enemy lings and your spell casters and you have almost every Zerg unit viable in the Matchup.

Just because SC2 hasn't yet been figured out as well as SC1 doesn't make it the worse game.

[shotcoder]

['Ritha][]Leon, you say SC1 wasn't complex, that it was the players that made it so. How does that not apply to absolutely any game? I mean, look at the two best known and longest lasting games of all time: Chess and Go.

Both are not very complex, but the incredible depth of strategy and psychology are what makes them great. The eternally shifting meta game, the eternally changing methods. The sudden returns to an oldschool style of play that catches people off guard with a move that hasn't been seen in years because it is 'out dated' yet catches the opponent with their pants down. Complex games are BAD games, simple games that allow for a huge strategic and tactical depth are good games.



And Shot, you need to stay out of this thread till you play more SC2. It is way, way better than you like to make it out. It is exactly how SC1 was back in the day, people that have no idea what they are talking about think the game is based on spamming units and zergling rushing. A good player will laugh at your unit spam and laugh at your zergling rush. While perfect counters to build haven't been found yet, the meta is progressing. I can only really speak for Terran, but the meta has totally changed from M&M&M in all matchups to the 'standard' fast Hellion Mech vs Zerg, M&M&M+ghosts vs Protoss, and marine/tank vs Terran. Just like SC1 has M&M vs Zerg, mech vs Protoss and mech vs Terran as the standards. TheLittleOne is constantly showing how SC2 is actually potentially a BETTER competitive game than SC1 is because of the diversity of potential. SC1 TvZ will 95% of the time go M&M vs muta+ling, M&M+tank vs lurker+muta+ling, M&M+tank+vessel vs lurker+ling+defiler, mass tank+mass vessel with some M&M vs ultra+ling+defiler in that exact order. In every SC1 matchup you can expect a similar experience. ZvZ is always ling+muta with queens and defilers in the tiny amount of games that get that far. ZvZ in SC2 is an incredibly mixed bag, IdrA often favors hydra/roach, most others go ling/muta as their core. Add in banelings for busting the enemy lings and your spell casters and you have almost every Zerg unit viable in the Matchup.

Just because SC2 hasn't yet been figured out as well as SC1 doesn't make it the worse game.

But it's not EXCITING. There's no climatic units that can change the a game by itself. Dts? too far down the tech tree now. Reavers? gone. MnM vs Lurker? gone. There aren't those super tense moments where you wonder if one scarab will change the game. Sure you have banelings and that about the only unit I seriously go OMGWTF HOLY SHIT THAT WAS AWESOME when they explode in mineral lines or unburrow right in the middle of the enemy army.

I don't think it will ever be as good as SC1 under Wings of Liberty or even Heart of the Swarm. The last expansion maybe. But by that time they'll know they don't have the awe creating unit and make it.

EDIT: I know its easy to do but you must remember spectators. They MAKE progaming and really they only way this would work is if SC2 gamers showed up to see the game because the game is to visually focussed on pretty units and terrain. I mean when you move your army as terran what can you make out while they're moving? Hellions, Tanks and a mass of foot troops?

[Leonix]

Hey guys, check this out. http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/ ... g-bug.aspx (http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/28/blizzard-confirms-starcraft-ii-overheating-bug.aspx)

[shotcoder]

Hey guys, check this out. http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/ ... g-bug.aspx (http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/28/blizzard-confirms-starcraft-ii-overheating-bug.aspx)

Yea I heard about that, I think it had something to do with the FPS cap on the menu screen.

[Lord Niron]

But it's not EXCITING. There's no climatic units that can change the a game by itself. Dts? too far down the tech tree now. Reavers? gone. MnM vs Lurker? gone. There aren't those super tense moments where you wonder if one scarab will change the game. Sure you have banelings and that about the only unit I seriously go OMGWTF HOLY SHIT THAT WAS AWESOME when they explode in mineral lines or unburrow right in the middle of the enemy army.



Why do you think there should be a unit that can change the game by itself. That's what I would consider unbalanced and I am glad they don't have anything like that.

[shotcoder]

But it's not EXCITING. There's no climatic units that can change the a game by itself. Dts? too far down the tech tree now. Reavers? gone. MnM vs Lurker? gone. There aren't those super tense moments where you wonder if one scarab will change the game. Sure you have banelings and that about the only unit I seriously go OMGWTF HOLY SHIT THAT WAS AWESOME when they explode in mineral lines or unburrow right in the middle of the enemy army.



Why do you think there should be a unit that can change the game by itself. That's what I would consider unbalanced and I am glad they don't have anything like that.

yea except Broodlord, Colossus, Banelings, and Psyonic Storm? Except the only one that provides Exciting results is the Baneling. Thanks to the auto clumping of units the colossus and Psyonic Storm are much stronger than they should be.

And they aren't one unit that can change the game by itself. It's not like you make a Reaver and it's automatically in a shuttle and automatically dodging turrets and tanks to get that scarab into the mineral line. It's not like the Science Vessel D-matrices the marine by itself and send it through the lurker field to attract fire while you send the rest to clean them up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3FyL47uTfM
does that look imbalanced?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12BZjrGJ ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12BZjrGJxH8&feature=related)
That?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blMeBywz ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blMeBywzb50&feature=related)
That?

Just thing that could have been prevented by awareness, game sense and execution.

[Zawicki]

Ok, I have only skimmed the last page or so, but I feel I know the arguments.

Shotcoder - Have you watched any pro games of SC2? HDstarcraft did a cast of Lzgamer vs. Machine. In the game LZ gamer goes mass reaper and machine is attempting to hold it off. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time wondering how machine would pull out of it, and if he did, how would LZ respond. Everytime I watch TLO play I am in awe of how his crazy builds still end up winning him games. There are on the edge of your seat moments, they are just different.

Also, as day9 points out, counters aren't real. There is a force, which is getting unit x so that unit y is not effective. And a repsonse, which is getting unit b because your opponent has lots of unit a. Day9 explains it much better http://day9tv.blip.tv/file/3873603/

I'll probably post more later. I'm really, really, really tired right now.

[yWizePapaSmurfy]

Shot, watch some HuskyStarCraft (Which I think Ritha is watching too since he knows LittleOne?)

Excellent progress I'd say, Toss just taught LittleOne a good lesson in mobility :)

[Sexyrice]

Guys, just go to teamliquid.net and watch the featured livestreams. We know TLO because he's the biggest name in SC2 and has been since he forged a name for himself as an SC2 strategy innovator. Not the greatest player, but intelligent.

Even in good games so far in SC2, I'm not really amazed by anything. Its an extremely fun game to play, but not so much to watch. At least, yet.

[']['Ritha][]

Holy shit, I happened to click your second link Shot. That Flash vs Bisu micro-off is craaazzzyyy.

Also, I just finished watching the Stork vs Kal OSL game live. holy crap man, Stork's micro/macro vs Kal's multitask leads to there being 3 probes left on the entire map at the end of the game. :O


Also, Psi-Storm isn't over powered in SC2 because they massively nerfed its damage since thing clump so much. Every race now adds a few of their splash damage dealers into their armies. There are plenty of 'oh shit!' units, its just that they tend to be a little risky to use.

Though I must say, what I miss more than anything else is the siege tank noises. The big loud siege mode sound and the KABOOOMM of the shots going off...

-Edit- Oh GOD, watched your other links there Shot. Poor EffOrt, the dmatrix marine run micro is always sick, but a little bit of lurker micro counters it. And poor poor BeSt (That is BeSt right?) getting nuked by Stork. 27 kill reaver? D:

I must admit, there is nothing quite like a 27 kill reaver in SC2 as of yet.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

['Ritha][]Leon, you say SC1 wasn't complex, that it was the players that made it so. How does that not apply to absolutely any game? I mean, look at the two best known and longest lasting games of all time: Chess and Go.

Both are not very complex, but the incredible depth of strategy and psychology are what makes them great. The eternally shifting meta game, the eternally changing methods. The sudden returns to an oldschool style of play that catches people off guard with a move that hasn't been seen in years because it is 'out dated' yet catches the opponent with their pants down. Complex games are BAD games, simple games that allow for a huge strategic and tactical depth are good games.

Complex games are not bad, complex games can be actually be very simple, it's the fact that the math that drives everything is not available to easy inspection. Therefore you get people who actively seek to try different methodologies. Instead with the obvious paper, rock, scissors methodology as used by Blizzard in most of it's titles, you have obvious solutions to most tactics. There is a rare tactic where you are left with a 'I don't know' moment.

Simple games have limited options present, until a system of complexity is either added in by the community, or introduced into the game through expansion packs. In this current case it's obvious the player base, in full knowledge of the math unpinning the system, developed a methodology, or tactic, or whatever you want to call it, to maximise their ability to play the game. That's all they're doing, and in my mind it's damned close to cheating.

A complex game I love, Blitzkreig 2, gave you armour and armour penetration values, which is required knowledge, but the exact way the computer pathfinds and exact cost values for structures and units does not constitute game playing, it's closer to economic modelling than anything else. It so happens that I think some of the pro-gamers are actually better at the cost benefit analysis than many economists.

I stand by my point that there are no 'oh shite' units in the Starcraft universe due to the nature of the balance involved. If you know the units, then you know the counters. End of story.

Joint Task Force, Ground Control series, Homeworld series, all of these are quite complex games, but they're not hard to play. In fact they are very easy to play, but in the design of your force you are given a challenge an order or two of magnitude above what Starcraft could ever offer.

[']['Ritha][]

Leon, you're really just stumbling around in the dark here. You obviously have NO IDEA WHAT SO EVER about this. It seems like you mixed up Dawn of War and Starcraft. The reason Starcraft is great is because it has no rock paper scissors. You have to scout and build against your opponent, but there is no 'hard counter' to anything. You are flat out wrong.

Lets look at examples. The normal early-mid game army a Zerg will be fighting against from a Terran is a ball of Marines and Medics. Now, if you were right, I would know exactly what 'hard counters' an M&M ball. Do tell me, what is the hard counter?

Lurkers? Well, lurkers can work until they scan and then just form an arc and kill your lurkers.

Mutas? Well, if you have perfect muta micro and a good ridge to work with you might be able to snipe off a few marines, but in a forced fight (When the marines are you know, killing your shit) the mutas will get dominated

Zerglings? Well, if you have a lot of them with speed and you get a great surround you can do an ok job, but once there get to be too many M&M you will just melt before anything happens.

Uhm, SUPER fast tech to Defilers? They can just walk away from Dark Swarm or heal from plague (Plus, Plague and consume take forever to research).



Starcraft is absurdly much more complex than you are making it out to be. You obviously don't know anything at all about Starcraft, so stop trying to make generalizations.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

['Ritha][]Leon, you're really just stumbling around in the dark here. You obviously have NO IDEA WHAT SO EVER about this. It seems like you mixed up Dawn of War and Starcraft. The reason Starcraft is great is because it has no rock paper scissors. You have to scout and build against your opponent, but there is no 'hard counter' to anything. You are flat out wrong.

Lets look at examples. The normal early-mid game army a Zerg will be fighting against from a Terran is a ball of Marines and Medics. Now, if you were right, I would know exactly what 'hard counters' an M&M ball. Do tell me, what is the hard counter?

Lurkers? Well, lurkers can work until they scan and then just form an arc and kill your lurkers.

Mutas? Well, if you have perfect muta micro and a good ridge to work with you might be able to snipe off a few marines, but in a forced fight (When the marines are you know, killing your shit) the mutas will get dominated

Zerglings? Well, if you have a lot of them with speed and you get a great surround you can do an ok job, but once there get to be too many M&M you will just melt before anything happens.

Uhm, SUPER fast tech to Defilers? They can just walk away from Dark Swarm or heal from plague (Plus, Plague and consume take forever to research).



Starcraft is absurdly much more complex than you are making it out to be. You obviously don't know anything at all about Starcraft, so stop trying to make generalizations.

Either in the unit methodology behind their use, or in the units as far as themselves, there are only hard counters in Starcraft and Starcraft 2. It's the way Blizzard designs. End of story, and proven fact. You scout and build the counter, which only raised the importance of scouting in the game, not changed the balance methodology.

Either troll for the sake of trolling, or please bring evidence not from any form of pro-gaming match and prove me otherwise. Show that a combined arms approach will work in the game. Show that there are options that you can use to make non-standard counter units effective counters against other units, such as what you can do in Joint Task Force, and to a degree, the Ground Control series.

Even Blizzard themsevles advertise this on their web page, with which units are good counters against other units.

[BadArmies]

That is a pretty good point Leon, the challenge beginner series of achievements is exactly about hard counters.

[shotcoder]

['Ritha][]Leon, you're really just stumbling around in the dark here. You obviously have NO IDEA WHAT SO EVER about this. It seems like you mixed up Dawn of War and Starcraft. The reason Starcraft is great is because it has no rock paper scissors. You have to scout and build against your opponent, but there is no 'hard counter' to anything. You are flat out wrong.

Lets look at examples. The normal early-mid game army a Zerg will be fighting against from a Terran is a ball of Marines and Medics. Now, if you were right, I would know exactly what 'hard counters' an M&M ball. Do tell me, what is the hard counter?

Lurkers? Well, lurkers can work until they scan and then just form an arc and kill your lurkers.

Mutas? Well, if you have perfect muta micro and a good ridge to work with you might be able to snipe off a few marines, but in a forced fight (When the marines are you know, killing your shit) the mutas will get dominated

Zerglings? Well, if you have a lot of them with speed and you get a great surround you can do an ok job, but once there get to be too many M&M you will just melt before anything happens.

Uhm, SUPER fast tech to Defilers? They can just walk away from Dark Swarm or heal from plague (Plus, Plague and consume take forever to research).



Starcraft is absurdly much more complex than you are making it out to be. You obviously don't know anything at all about Starcraft, so stop trying to make generalizations.

Either in the unit methodology behind their use, or in the units as far as themselves, there are only hard counters in Starcraft and Starcraft 2. It's the way Blizzard designs. End of story, and proven fact. You scout and build the counter, which only raised the importance of scouting in the game, not changed the balance methodology.

Either troll for the sake of trolling, or please bring evidence not from any form of pro-gaming match and prove me otherwise. Show that a combined arms approach will work in the game. Show that there are options that you can use to make non-standard counter units effective counters against other units, such as what you can do in Joint Task Force, and to a degree, the Ground Control series.

Even Blizzard themsevles advertise this on their web page, with which units are good counters against other units.

ROFL LMAO WOW. I would just like to point out that Progamers are the BEST evidence for ANY game. They know the extent of every unit and its strengths and weaknesses, it's range, size, etc.

Please this is a discussion on SC/SC2 I don't care about the game you consider amazing and I have never heard of until you spoke of them.

Have you ever played SC out side of your newb spam mode? I guess not seeing as your assumption of skill is Micro and Hard counters in a game where the only true hard counter is an air unit vs a ground melee unit.

Here since you know so much about games you know that the "hard" counter to Marines is the lurker. Here's an example from a non progamer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQtPMLOctBg

3 marines, 150 minerals and a vessel 100 minerals 225 gas
beat
2 lurkers (hydra 75/25 + 25/100) 200 minerals vs 250 gas

So for the sake of the discussion please quit talking about these games that weren't even in the discussion until you brought up how awesome they were. This is an SC2 thread for a reason, not a RTS thread that just happens to mostly deal with SC2

And what Ritha said wasn't trolling. It's only trolling to you because your grasp on Starcraft is SO MINUTE that you don't understand the complexity of the game, by your chat I'm sure you haven't left the campaign.

[']['Ritha][]

That is a pretty good point Leon, the challenge beginner series of achievements is exactly about hard counters.

No, its about abusing the AI. I golded every single one of those on the first try. And we are arguing SC1 right now, though SC2 fits the same bill.

Actually, I suppose if you consider 'make splash damage units to kill swarms of low hp units' or 'make units with single target, high damage attacks to counter single large targets' a hard counter, I'll agree with you. But that is in every game.


And now, about Leon's comment about showing him any pro game that doesn't just spam one particular unit... Here are some of my personal favorite recently played games! But really, you can watch any pro game.

Stork vs Fantasy harassment style PvT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vktGvHdFMjQ
Jaedong vs Bisu 'normal' style ZvP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26-YW4Qcj-o
And Jaedong vs Flash for some good ol' TvZ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31uF47cviKc

[BadArmies]

I goldded the Zerg and Terran first time, fuck if I can figure out the toss. The seige tank v immortal one always fucks me. I have watched it on youtube several times, I can't see what they are doing different than me. I can silver it around 13 lost and its always the immortals v tank that screw me, all the other ones go easy for me. Eventually I will figure it out or get lucky.

[']['Ritha][]

What are you doing for your splits? I perfect the third round of Protoss with lulzably easy times by sending just my archons top, my collosus and one sentry agaisnt the hellion/reaper and then zealots/stalkers/immortals/templar/phoenixes to the tanks. I don't even need the templar or Zealots. Phoenixes lift the tanks up, Immortals kill everything, stalkers kill the lifted guys, gg.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Ritha, I believe I said not from any form of pro-gaming. This is purely about the average to amatuer player of Starcraft or Starcraft 2. Due to the nature of the game I believe you'll see modified forms of the old Titan or tank rush, where the unit is the one with the best counter. Sure, they might have different groups of units, but that still does not constitute combined arms methodology in my mind.

Perhaps to make myself clear I will explain what I mean by combined arms methodology. This is a force composed of multiple types of units, in a single cohesive entity, that is able to deal with most threats that can be thrown at it, without obvious difficulty against any particular threat. Even when facing the specific counters to the method (artillery, mining, air power etc) it can still maintain force integrity due to a high staying power.

Pardon me if I start sounding too technical, too much naval warfare doctrine again.

shotcoder, first thing, seriously chill out. If you can't hold your temper on this issue, then don't reply to my post.

I wasn't aware providing a point of refence in what I hoped could be a reasonable discussion was an act of pure evil. At this stage, reading into the choice of words and intent of the language presented, I have been insulted. That's how I read it, because at least in the post you refer to, my opinion on the matter was treated with the same level of respect as one would give a raving lunatic.

The design of both Starcraft and Starcraft 2 follows a scissors, paper, rock principle, at least in terms of units vs units, over anything else. I have X, which kills Y, but I have to worry about Z, which does bad things to my X. Starcraft was like that, Brood Wars was like that, Starcraft 2 in all its forms is like that. End of story. Other games have much better balance, and either have significantly less obvious counters, or allow you through weapons or items in game to make counters. In my opinion that's better for the competative scene, as it provides a much greater freedom to players and their forces. Starcraft etc follow particular patterns and builds, it's the first MMORTS where the community has such a strong idea as to what works that there is little room to explore. These people will pigeon hole every little detail, so much so that a person who is not aware of the distinctions they make are at such an extreme disadvantage it is not worth the time for them to play in any form of league because quite simply, it's a five deck shoe, they're dealt dueces and the opposition has aces in equal numbers.

The sheer fact that you attached numbers to your reply for relative value of the forces shows that your exposure to the genre is, not to be insulting and struggling to not be, limited in comparison to mine. I have seen better systems than Starcraft and its type, yet they are not popular because in my opinion they are less obvious.

I will refer to my point about the pro-gamers in this field being better economists and managers than anything else. The numbers should not matter, nor should the math behind it, or even the AI under ideal circumstances. It should player skill and method vs another player skill and method. Sure people will get known for styles, but when you can look at a person's base and guess with a great deal (in this case over 60%) of accuracy what they are going to do, then in my opinion the game has failed.

People will look for the system that they can understand the easiest and look for absolutes. If anyone feels this is not accurate, please leave a reply and discuss.

Some individuals such as myself will look for less obvious solutions to any problems presented. It's the challenge of using real tactics, rather than following what another person told you works. Games like the ones previously mentioned openly encouraged speculation and experimentation. Starcraft etc does not, because there is a preconceived notion of what works, and what does not. In the end it doesn't matter how good your economy is, or the number of units you have, because the person that knows the math best is going to win. That's how this game will end up on any form of competetive level. It doesn't matter the league, or the level of the players. It's a twisted version of a numbers game, and to a degree who can abuse them the most(either AI or the math).

[']['Ritha][]

Look, Leon. Stop with the high and mighty trying to cover your being wrong with technical talk. You're flailing aimlessly so much your arms are going to break off.

Point out some hard counter. Give evidence. Right now you are saying 'Starcraft is this way, it's SO OBVIOUS how can you not see it? I mean, there is like, EVERYTHING I SAY in it. In fact it is so obvious I wont give you an example!"

Me and Shot have given you hard evidence to refute your claims. You say there are hard counters, we say there aren't and give examples of common game situations and how the 'hard counter' can be easily beaten by the thing it is supposed to counter. That the only way to succeed at Starcraft or SC2 is exactly what you are saying: Combined arms. Massing any one unit in SC or SC2 is just idiocy, but building a mixed force of line units, range and support is the only way to succeed. Every unit is weak in its own way, and when combined with other units forms an effective force. Tanks provide long range artillery, Vultures provide cheap meatshields and minefields to stop the initial wave of enemy troops, Goliaths help repel the enemy air force force to which the tanks and vultures are weak while still adding to the massed firepower of the army. Toss in a few science vessels for scouting and EMP and detection and you have a basic Terran mech army. Massing any single one of those units is poor play, yet you can still freely cut your force to further its effectiveness: Did your gambit of spending resources to get a scouting wraith reveal that the Protoss does not in fact have shuttles/your wraith sniped them? Cut the Goliaths from your force to better customize your army for what you are going to face.

Go on, you have yet to mention a single unit in Starcraft or SC2 in any of your posts for at least 2 pages. Get down off your pedestal and talk about the details of the game, the nitty gritty. Right now, its blatantly obvious that you have played about as much Starcraft as I have Supreme Commander (Which is to say, I played it once at a friends house). Your posts have repeatedly failed at showing anything other then your own ignorance of and lack of experience with game. Your posts are filled with "I believe you'll see ______" and ignore the fact that the majority of people in this thread aren't sitting in a chair philosophizing about how the game is played, we are playing it. And we are not seeing what you claim is there. You say the game will devolve into rushing one unit, yet everyone who plays SC2 sees it getting more and more complicated as players discover that instead of just massing Marines and Marauders, you can cut your Marauders to get a handful of tanks-- And that handful of tanks in the right position can do a great deal more damage than the marauders could have.

And then players remember the Ghost, and they drop a tank to add a ghost against Protoss, so that he can EMP the shields of the army or the energy of the High Templar. Suddenly your Terran army has gone from rush M&M to a tech explosion where you are carefully timing your tech so that you can fend off your opponents early aggression and yet move out of your base with a combined force that when used correctly is strong vs anything the opponent can throw at you, putting your opponent into a position where they must adapt and add new tech in, or slash in units he had not been using previously. This progression is clear to anyone actively playing SC2 at the moment, and is still progressing after 10 years in original Starcraft. Queens are making their appearance in more and more games as players learn to make use of her AoE slow to give themselves a big enough positional advantage to be worth her cost.



Oh, if you want, I can make a few videos of replays of my playing SC2. I'm hardly a professional (Heck, I'm not even diamond league quality) and I use a mixed force. I can't think of a game that I've played since SC2 came out that hasn't had at the very least marines, marauders, hellion and tanks and a lot of them have ghosts and medivacs and thors. I've yet to develop the multitasking ability to make good use of banshees or vikings properly, but I'll get there eventually. Same goes for SC1, but with zerglings, hydras, lurkers and scourge appearing in pretty much every game, with mutalisks, delifers, and ultralisks appearing in a lot of them.

[Zawicki]

Leon, I shall give you a few examples of how hard counters are false.

Collosi counter marines/zerglings:

The way the collosus attack works is that it fires a beam that does damage to everyone in a line perpendicular to the collosus. This allows it to easily kill lots of light units after a few shots. So how is a bg ball of marines supposed to kill a collosus when 10 marines die after a few shots? Easy, they form an arc and spread out, that way the collosus is not getting any of it's splash damage. Zerglings (with speed) can easily surround a collosus and make it so it is only hitting a few lings. So marines and zerglings can easily kill a collosus... with proper control. But the collosus can easily kill the marines/lings if it gets the high ground.

Marines counter void rays:

A new technique is being developed for the void ray called fazing. Fazing is when the void ray rapidly switches between targets. Because the VR does a constant stream of damage, if you rapidly switch between targets you can kill 2 units just as fast as you can kill one. Normally it takes about 4 marines to kill a VR. With fazing the VR can easily take out them out. If the VR is fully charged it could take out 6, maybe 8. So now marines, which supposedly hard counter void rays, can easily be killed with a unit that is meant to kill heavy armor.

I can list many more examples if you wish. But there are no "hard counters". Yes, some units are better against others, but if they weren't the game would only have one unit.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Most of the so called counters are nothing more than people abusing the system, or working to maximise the results, within the system. On the pen and paper role playing side it's call being a munchkin, on the tabletop it's called being a cheese lord, yet online it is openly encouraged. Most of the combinations I have seen show vunerabilities that could be easily exploited, and often specifically seem to work against single target types.

Since it appears that you can't divorce yourself from the system, I'll make this my last post on the topic because you are not able to discuss this on the level I thought you could.

[']['Ritha][]

Enter Leon again not making any defenses of his argument and doing the most immature thing you can do in an argument: Claim you still won no matter what the other guys says because hes just not mature enough and walk away.

Also, maybe its just my game store, but when you are playing a game competitively (In a ladder, in a tournament etc) you are insulting your opponent if you don't bring your A-game. If you purposefully limit yourself outside of the system, you are a 'scrub'. That is the technical term for it, a person who creates artificial rules to limit the game into their own narrow parameters, then insults anyone who doesn't follow their special limited rules.



ANYWAYS, how many of us are on the US server and how many are on the EU or AU servers? And those of you on the US server, do any of you want to play some 1v1s? I really feel like I need some practice partners to get my skill up before I start laddering.

[MGRockwell]

Hey guys... tone it down a notch. I'm not a pro-gamer and I have no intention of analyzing this game to the nitty gritty but I still like it.

Getting this worked up about it looks bad from an outsider perspective. It is just a game after all.

[Zawicki]

Leon, you said give an example of how a unit can overcome it's "counter". I did. It is not abusing the system, it is knowing how to control a unit to make them better.

Ritha, I'm on the US server and I'd love to play against you. I main as zerg but I also want to get good with terran. My character code is 666 (I know, lol) and my nickname is Sigz.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I'm a silver/gold lever player. I havn't done placement for 1v1 yet, but I was silver at the end of beta, and in 2v2/3v3/4v4 I'm gold. When I first started I was copper level.

[yWizePapaSmurfy]

I am interested in this Fazing Zawicki, am following Protoss techniques and I don't even own the game yet. XD

[BadArmies]

I am interested in this Fazing Zawicki, am following Protoss techniques and I don't even own the game yet. XD

terran up the night !!!!

[Zawicki]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=137990 (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=137990)

This article explains how it works (it's purpose is to say how the game can be tweaked to have "wow" units, but it explains fazing.)

[BadArmies]

holy shit fazing is cool, I am probably to retarded to do it but cool for sure.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

['Ritha][]Enter Leon again not making any defenses of his argument and doing the most immature thing you can do in an argument: Claim you still won no matter what the other guys says because hes just not mature enough and walk away.

I left because it was clear that you would not respond to my questions in a reasonable matter, or keep to the level of the debate I wished to see. I'd say it's the opposite, rather than being forced to endure your constant nitpicks to insults because I don't see your point of view, I left because it was clear I would not get any satisfaction from your constant diatribe on what Starcraft is.

I also believe that the fact I can take a step back means whatever I say in counter to your points you will not understand because as I said previously you can't divorce yourself from the system. I have taken a stance outside what you appear to be able to deal with. For you everything can be proven from a pro-gamer point of view, which is not true. I am yet to see here a solid counter point that pro-gamers are not just simply better economists and managers than anything else.

In fact some of the comments go to prove that you're not playing the game, you're managing the game. That itself is a failure of the game and it's design in my opinion. That is why I consider the pro-gaming scene to be the problem with your cases.

Now if you don't agree with that, fine, but prove that on an amateur to average level people engage in the same level of stat remembering and management. Prove that there is not only the pigeon holed 'known' way to play the game that the pro-gamers do, not because they play it and others try the rigid strategy, but there are people in the amateur and average level who inovate and not just rely on variants of more widely known or used methods.

If you would care for a proper debate, which has two mature people making counter points, and acknowledging the other has a point, which I will say neither of us has done that well so far, then I will return to make my point. Until then I will not post anything further because it is clear that we both have too strong views for us to agree on any middle ground.

[']['Ritha][]

You are still not making any points, Leon. You are either hideously bad at debate, or trolling to the point you should get a warning. If you aren't going to provide any evidence what so ever for anything you say, leave the thread for good. You say Starcraft is being 'managed' not 'played.' Define managed, then provide an example of the game being managed not played. What race in what situation, what units, how does this management concept appear in game and how is it different than playing?

I feel that when you 'play' a game there should be a diverse range of control. In Starcraft and Stracraft 2 (And most RTS titles) you have two major things to control: Your economy and your army. These two tend to be called 'macro' and 'micro.' Macro also goes by the title of management- The idea that you need to watch your resources and your opponents movements so you can find safe openings to take expansions and further your economy. You need to be watching where your units are and constantly sending out scouts to keep track of your enemies positions so you won't be surprised.

The other side of the RTS coin is the 'control' or 'micro' side. When you shift your units to meet your opponent, how do you line them up? Are they in a big indefensible blob, or have you carefully broken your units into smaller groups, artillery in the back, skirmishers in the front with line and support units in the middle. When a battle begins, are you watching it? Are you carefully pulling back whatever units come under fire so they will merely be hurt and not killed and can return to the fight once the enemies target has shifted? Are your support units and spell casters dropping their spells exactly where you want them?

Both of these aspects are incredibly important to the game- Without enough macro, your army and economy will be smaller. Without enough micro, your army will fight inefficiently. Individual players have strengths and weaknesses in these fields- Personally, I'm a very micro oriented player. In SC2 I live for the carefully orchestrated battle, where I use long ranged fast moving units (Like Hellions or Reapers) to carefully kite my opponents melee units, wearing them down till I can make a sudden push with my heavy support (M&M ball or tanks), breaking through the opposing line. Yet I realize that I must balance myself, and also take my attention away from the battle to requeue my buildings and build more workers so that I can take advantage of my new battlefield position. I also acknowledge that against a player with superior macro management I will have to play incredibly carefully because, while my force is smaller, it is capable of beating a much larger force if controlled properly. Both micro and macro play have their advantages, and both styles are very potent in the right hands.


For me in SC2, my favorite army to control is a mech Terran ball. Hellions and tanks with a few ghosts and thors and other support units. The Hellions can be microed fiercely against most things and their kiting abilities lets me set up beautiful tank lines and ambushes where they act as a buffer to stop the enemy force from reaching close enough to my artillery to kill it. Watching a well played mech army is truly a beautiful sight.

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

Thanks for the link about fazing, BadArmies. That was a really cool read, and a damn cool tactic. I like that. I also found it interesting how close that article was to what Shot has been saying. I think they proposed some really good fixes that could make the game more exciting to watch and increase the skill ceiling.

About the debate: avoid flaming please.

Post edited after a PM from a member. Go ahead and keep debating.

[BadArmies]

my buddy and I practiced fazing last night it was we got fairly decent at it, requires a pretty big focus on micro. Zawiki actually provided the link BCS. I am not sure how often I will get to faz, I don't play toss much, I love the bunch ball MM, and getting to void rays in the tech tree is pretty far in terms of how fast our games have been going recently. It is a great tactic though.

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

Whoops, you're right. Correction: thanks Zawicki.

That demonstration of how effective fazing with pre-charging is was pretty cool. I mean the guy admitted he didn't have the best micro in the world, but he was able to decimate those marines pretty well. Seems like something worth knowing, especially if the unit continues to be under-used, as it will take people by surprise.

Is it known whether or not you could get fazing to work on 3 enemies like it does on 2 with really crazy micro?

[BadArmies]

not sure, I am thinking the counter to fazing is medic's, however with a charged ray fazing a medic couldn't keep up woth the healing.

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

It looked like the kill was almost instant with the fully charged beam. So I doubt the medic would have anytime to heal, as you suspected. So I really think you'd really have to out-micro it to beat it, though maybe high pow, slow shot weapons would do better than marines. (Off-hand guess, as I haven't been able to play much).

[Sexyrice]

They've actually straight up removed fazing in the latest patch, if I remember correctly. Void rays are so ridiculous anyways- giving them an ability to counter one of terran's few counters to them (marines) was finally decided to be OP.

We might see a return of fazing if they ever figure out just how the void ray needs to be balanced so it doesn't have the potential destructive damage of a high speed, flying siege tank that doesn't need siege mode to deal ridiculous amounts of damage against a base. Wow, that was a long sentence.

[Zawicki]

The counter to fazing is microing your units. If you spread them out it makes it much harder to faze them properly.

Also, for those who don't know you can use neural parasite and fungal growth while burrowed. Do do it you have to press the burrow hotkey (r) and then immediately press e or f. You can then choose your target and safely fungal/neural parasite from underground. If the target is out of range the infestor will move to the target while burrowed.

Although when you fungal growth while burrowed, the infestor pops out for about 1 second, so this is really only useful with neural parasite.

[Sexyrice]

Well, whatever the case, its gone. General consent says void rays are one of the most game breaking units still in the game, and its rather frustrating for non-protoss players to be winning a game, only for 4 or 5 void rays (not horribly expensive) to run into your base and destroy expansions/your main while straight up avoiding your army. Yes, its possible to counter attack, but the units are simply too effective without phazing to make a truly logical argument to keep phazing. Unless you want to suggest a fix that wont break pro-level play to blizzard.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

The discussion on fazing, and every single pro-game you've put in your post is proof that the game is no longer being played. It's no longer about the game, but maximising what you can do in the game. They do not play the game, they manage the units in their position according to policies (ie build orders and supposed tactics) they know work. There is no incentive within the scope of competitive games to experiment or attempt new methodologies.

They do not play the game any more, they look for ways to work within the system, and control it. When you move from thinking within the system to actively controlling you are no longer playing the game. That's all I see out of the Silver league or higher games, let alone the other vids. They are working to abuse the system as much as possible. If it was in economics.... oh wait, that did happen, it's called the Global Financial Crisis.

The other element is the mass behaviour that accompanies such games. The justification of it is weak, because someone, somewhere decided to abuse the system, rather rely on skill alone. As the definition of skill started to include this skill abuse it only became more prevalent. It's now so overwhelming that it's the only definition of skill. That's my problem with all of this.

People accept the values so much that they don't ask questions why, or how. There is a much better set of games out there for MP because the system of checks and balances is not so easy to decypher. They work because, ideally they could be purely on player skill at tactics, rather than clicks, numbers and behaviour that is being a total munchkin.

The other element is that the community takes absolute authority over this behaviour as well. If you don't fit in, then you don't get to play games, then you don't get to try out ideas, then you don't play the game at all. Is that not a flaw?

The environment that this game helped, if not outright gave birth to, is the issue, on a sociological, psychological, and design(game) level.

[Tarion]

The discussion on fazing, and every single pro-game you've put in your post is proof that the game is no longer being played. It's no longer about the game, but maximising what you can do in the game. They do not play the game, they manage the units in their position according to policies (ie build orders and supposed tactics) they know work. There is no incentive within the scope of competitive games to experiment or attempt new methodologies. I have to disagree completely. That's exactly where things like fazing come from - People experimenting, finding new methods.


They do not play the game any more, they look for ways to work within the system, and control it. When you move from thinking within the system to actively controlling you are no longer playing the game. That's all I see out of the Silver league or higher games, let alone the other vids. They are working to abuse the system as much as possible. If it was in economics.... oh wait, that did happen, it's called the Global Financial Crisis.

The other element is the mass behaviour that accompanies such games. The justification of it is weak, because someone, somewhere decided to abuse the system, rather rely on skill alone. As the definition of skill started to include this skill abuse it only became more prevalent. It's now so overwhelming that it's the only definition of skill. That's my problem with all of this.Again, I have to disagree. Its generally when people start doing anything possible that the game moves on. This (http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html) author explains it pretty well. Anyway, you're trying to apply your own understanding of skill as if it were the "true" one, the same as the people you're complaining about. How are you any better? How is your understanding of skill any better?

Things like fazing are the perfect example of this. Someone finds a new way to use a unit, it increases in popularity. Then someone has to find a new counter to this unit and the original player has to rethink fazing.

Have you considered that the complexity you're looking for is already in the game, but you refuse to use it because of your own moral hangups?

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Have you considered that the complexity you're looking for is already in the game, but you refuse to use it because of your own moral hangups?

There is a difference in playing to win, which everyone does, and playing to abuse the system as much as possible. That's how I see Starcraft players at the higher levels player. Every single advantage is used, and abused, as it is clear by the fact Blizzard went and patched to deal with fazing. Experimenting as I see would be doing the opposite of some the absolute builds that get promoted in the communities, and testing effectiveness against others.

A community which is not static, rather than educating players in how to use and abuse the system, teaches them to think about what they are facing, and how to deal with it, short of the obvious counters as presented in the game.

By counter, to be clear on this, I don't mean units, I don't mean micro-ing, I don't mean marco-ing, I mean a method used against another method. Blizzard does not make less than obvious counters. It's not their design methodology.

Also, having thought about it after reading an article or two, I believe the community, as demonstrated through the using of fazing while it existed, will do anything to win, including abusing the system. Winners are those who seem to have the most knowledge of the system, information that should not be required to win.

[BadArmies]

Got to be honest Leon, the more i am reading your stuff the more you seem to be saying exceptional skill is akin to cheating. Its not cheating its just being good, its thinking outside the box. Its finding a mechanic that exists but is simply not well known.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Got to be honest Leon, the more i am reading your stuff the more you seem to be saying exceptional skill is akin to cheating. Its not cheating its just being good, its thinking outside the box. Its finding a mechanic that exists but is simply not well known.

The mechanic should not, and never should be, the sole factor in determining the victory.

[tone.tran]

Have you considered that the complexity you're looking for is already in the game, but you refuse to use it because of your own moral hangups?

There is a difference in playing to win, which everyone does, and playing to abuse the system as much as possible. That's how I see Starcraft players at the higher levels player. Every single advantage is used, and abused, as it is clear by the fact Blizzard went and patched to deal with fazing.


I don't play SC so I can't really comment on the game itself, but this post seems to reinforce what Tarion said. Higher level players are at a higher level because they are competitive. To be competitive, you should be playing to win. To play to win, you make use of any advantage you can. Why is playing to one's advantages wrong? The fact that blizzard patched fazing seems to me more of a balance issue. The game is young and still being worked on to get better balance out of the game.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Have you considered that the complexity you're looking for is already in the game, but you refuse to use it because of your own moral hangups?

There is a difference in playing to win, which everyone does, and playing to abuse the system as much as possible. That's how I see Starcraft players at the higher levels player. Every single advantage is used, and abused, as it is clear by the fact Blizzard went and patched to deal with fazing.


I don't play SC so I can't really comment on the game itself, but this post seems to reinforce what Tarion said. Higher level players are at a higher level because they are competitive. To be competitive, you should be playing to win. To play to win, you make use of any advantage you can. Why is playing to one's advantages wrong? The fact that blizzard patched fazing seems to me more of a balance issue. The game is young and still being worked on to get better balance out of the game.

The desire win in this case seems to justify actions I can only describe as cheating. That's my problem in a game, played to win that openly encourages people to abuse the system and cheat, then it's no longer a test of skill.

[tone.tran]

May I ask how cheating occurs? If it's within the rules/game mechanics, how can it be cheating? It's like saying (I know, I only know 40k) that using torrent of fire to snipe off ICs is cheating. Not sure if that is a relavent example given that I don't really know SC as I said earlier.

[Zawicki]

To those saying sc2 would not get big, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmes ... _id=141496 (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=141496) A monthly tournament is being setup. Every month has a prize pool of about $170,000. Korea is already preparing for the switch to sc2.

Leon, I can't see how you think it is cheating. Cheating would be hacking the game so you can see what your opponent is doing at all times. Finding a new tactic that takes more concentration to use constitutes more skill. If you try fazing with a void ray you are focused on constantly switching between the two targets. But because you are doing this you are now not warping in units and chrono boosting your upgrades. A player that could do both of these would have more skill because they can multitask that much better.

Maybe you could give us some examples from Joint Task Force to try to better prove your better. A video would probably help since I (and many others) have never played the game.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

May I ask how cheating occurs? If it's within the rules/game mechanics, how can it be cheating? It's like saying (I know, I only know 40k) that using torrent of fire to snipe off ICs is cheating. Not sure if that is a relavent example given that I don't really know SC as I said earlier.

It's the fact that players actively exploit bugs in the system to gain unfair advantages over other players. It would be as you explained, but specifically doing it until the problem has been fixed.

Zawicki, if you can recommend a program, I'll set it up and demonstrate what that game does right in terms of Joint Task Force. You'll have to give me a week or so.

On the example, I still consider it cheating, because it was using a flaw within the system to deliberately maximise damage, and in doing so, have an unfair advantage over other players.

[Tarion]

How is it an unfair advantage? Other players of the same race can do exactly the same thing.

If its so powerful that other races can't match it, odds are it'll get balanced. But, as far as I know, all 3 sides are pretty evenly matched.

EDIT: The only ones you have an unfair advantage over are those who are unwilling to learn new tactics.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

If its so powerful that other races can't match it, odds are it'll get balanced. But, as far as I know, all 3 sides are pretty evenly matched.

Ah, no. You might be able to balance two factions, but not three. All three sides have a focus, and each focus works against the others well enough. Certain elements will be of greater effect against the other races. That's how the game ends up, and as anyone who worked on a game will say, balance is a goal, but a real struiggle to get a semblance of.

[Sexyrice]

But thats the whole point, Leon. Games are as much about winning as they are about having fun. You get into a game because you enjoy it, but losing all of the time really isn't very fun. Except for the masochistic few, people like to win and feel like they are good at something, especially if they are using their free time playing a game that they most likely wont be making money on.

So it becomes more of a race to try to win. And how do you win? You have to out think, out smart, and out play your opponent. If your opponent is obviously the superior player, you have to use underhanded tactics. Sneak attacks, aim for the mineral line, pick off stray units, abuse the AI in the game. When your opponent is doing this to you, you have to do it back. Just because your ability to mass an army and you have good expansion timings doesn't mean you wont lose to an opponent who knows how to micro his units and knows when to attack. Its part of the game.

But you still have to get ahead. You have to find tricks the game allows to be just that more of a nuisance to your opponent- its in the name of winning and in the name of having fun and in the name of competition. The thing is, once you find an advantage, whether deliberately built into the game or unintentional, people learn about it. They see what you did- and they imitate. Korea is the god scene of this, for Starcraft. Somebody invents a new style of play, and suddenly EVERYBODY is copycatting the style. And after extensive testing, the data is bounced around and the new advantage is either fixed or more permanently implemented into the game.

If you don't like competition, why the fuck are you arguing? If you just want to play for fun, then play for fun. Don't argue that the game is imbalanced- we all know that it is, at least for now. The whole point is to implement your race's strengths and try to win. Its fun for us. When something is obviously imbalanced, then people pick up on it and it becomes more and more obvious. But there are certain things that simply wont change. Charging as zerg with a ground army into a choke guarded by siege tanks is suicide, duh. Zerg has nothing like that, but they have mobility to get around the entire map and if used right can make it extremely difficult for a terran to expand. Its the early days of the game, strategies are still being built and new exploits will be found over the next year or two.

You are the only person who seems to have a serious problem with the game. All I think I can say at this point is sorry that more people don't play these games like you play them. This is how WE play the game, and if you don't like it, don't play with us.

::EDIT::
about balance though- Starcraft: Broodwar is widely considered one of the most balanced RTS games released. Not at first, but after extensive play and abuse of the AI and the abilities of various units, it became more and more balanced. If you look at the win rates, every race has approximately a 50% win rate against every other race, within a couple points. It comes down more to the map design than any other point now days. A poorly made map will favor one race more than another, and will then be removed from competitive play. How many games can say that? That the in game races are so well developed that its entirely up to the map designers to balance the game? And that their map designers actually figured out how to make balanced maps.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

But thats the whole point, Leon. Games are as much about winning as they are about having fun. You get into a game because you enjoy it, but losing all of the time really isn't very fun. Except for the masochistic few, people like to win and feel like they are good at something, especially if they are using their free time playing a game that they most likely wont be making money on.

How long did it take for them to balance Brood Wars?

The point being that the widest community exposure is amongst a narrow group. You are in a group with a similar set of rules. On the other hand for a person who has a wider experience, the group and its rules and values are not the same. This is not purely meant for one group. This is a game meant for all people, and those interested in online play should not automatically be at a disadvantage because they don't play the game the same way you do, or the group in general, online does.

[Tarion]

No, they're automatically at a disadvantage because they way they play is worse, provided that they are playing to win (Which you have already admitted that everyone does).

Essentially, they're playing to win, they're just not doing it as well as everyone else.

[']['Ritha][]

If its so powerful that other races can't match it, odds are it'll get balanced. But, as far as I know, all 3 sides are pretty evenly matched.

Ah, no. You might be able to balance two factions, but not three. All three sides have a focus, and each focus works against the others well enough. Certain elements will be of greater effect against the other races. That's how the game ends up, and as anyone who worked on a game will say, balance is a goal, but a real struiggle to get a semblance of.
Tell that to Starcraft! The statistics support the idea that Starcraft is as close to balanced as any game can get.

Among high level players, the statistics break down to this:
T>Z with a 52% winrate
Z>P with a 53% win rate (Was 52, but zergs had a REALLY good last season against Protoss)
P>T with a 52% winrate
-quick edit- Chess is 52-54% in favor of white, for the record.

In fact, it is very well known that by far larger than any racial balances, map balances are more important to original Starcraft. If the bases are closer together and have three easy to get and defend gas, the map favors Zerg. If the map has lots of hills and valleys, it favors Terran. If the map has more open space and a narrow choke, it favors Protoss.



And on the topic of 'exploiting the game to an unfair advantage,' you can just look at tournament and ladder results to see that there is no clear imbalance in SC2 either. If you look at the recent Razer King of the Beta invitational tournament has two Zerg players, three Protoss players, two Terran players and one random player. The players who advanced out of the group stages into the final 4? two Terran, one Zerg, one Protoss. The games were all very close, and every player had a very good showing. All players used the game mechanics to their own advantage, and the games were all close. The races were all balanced. Using what makes one race special, or one unit to the best of its abilities is hardly cheating, it is what allows the game to be dynamic and exciting without disrupting its balance.



-Edit- Posts keep being made as I typpeee @.@ It took them 2 years to balance Broodwars, if I remember correctly. And how can you argue that people who only play from within their own narrow scope shouldn't be at a disadvantage to those who has seen and experienced more varied play? If every single person at your game store plays the same 40k games over and over, why should they be able to play the game in the exact same way against anyone from another game store and win? Every person has their own individual skill and their own playstyle- But the most important aspect of any game, and life in general, is the ability to adapt. If someone only wants to build marines in Starcraft, it is his choice, but every single strategy should not be viable. What makes these games truly amazing is that there are multiple effective strategies that are radically different from one another. To just name a few of the highly varied strategies that are all effective in a single matchup: M&M, hellion/tank, fast reapers, banshee rush, viking harass, thor drop, fast battle cruisers... All of those were seen in the Razer tournament against Zerg opponents, all are radically different, and all are effective.

[Sexyrice]

But thats the whole point, Leon. Games are as much about winning as they are about having fun. You get into a game because you enjoy it, but losing all of the time really isn't very fun. Except for the masochistic few, people like to win and feel like they are good at something, especially if they are using their free time playing a game that they most likely wont be making money on.

How long did it take for them to balance Brood Wars?

The point being that the widest community exposure is amongst a narrow group. You are in a group with a similar set of rules. On the other hand for a person who has a wider experience, the group and its rules and values are not the same. This is not purely meant for one group. This is a game meant for all people, and those interested in online play should not automatically be at a disadvantage because they don't play the game the same way you do, or the group in general, online does.

Patch 1.05 was the last balance patch they released. Less than a year. But thats after Broodwar was released.

The problem is- this is how competitive gaming works. Its how competitive anything works. The game appeals to a large audience by providing single player story mode, competitive gaming, custom games, and gaming with friends. There is a lot of wiggle room in the game, but it still comes down to the fact that if you don't like to play the game the way everybody else plays it, then you probably need to play a different game... or find a group of people to play the game the way you want to play it. I'm sure that there are plenty of players out there that would love to play the game with a similar style to you- but you have to find them. Your style isn't very common.

::EDIT:: Patch information can be found here-
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCra ... on_history (http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_version_history)

and release dates of patches can be found here-
http://www.mobygames.com/game/starcraft/release-info

[']['Ritha][]

1.08 was the last balance patch, and it came out in 2001, so it took 3 years to get it perfect. I was off by a year, but pretty close. :D

[Zawicki]

Leon, you can use fraps (you gotta pay, but if you want to make movies it's the best out there) http://www.fraps.com/

You could also use xfire. It produces a decent quality and it's free. http://www.xfire.com/about_video/

[Sexyrice]

My bad, Ritha has it correct.

but in other news, we should post our names so that we can have some 40kforumers playing sc2. It will be awesome.

List in the form of NAME.IDENTIFIER

FFaWay.662

::EDIT::
lol :lol: wrong thread zawicki?

[']['Ritha][]

I'm Rawr.961

And always in need of people to play against, and always willing to give advice. :D

[shotcoder]

Shotcoder.232

[The Tommunist]

TheTommunist.178 but i'm in Australia.

[Sexyrice]

doesn't australia get to pick their server?

[Zawicki]

::EDIT::
lol :lol: wrong thread zawicki?

I had asked leon to give some video to better present his argument. He had asked for recording programs. Those are the two that I know of.

Im Sigz.666

[shotcoder]

doesn't australia get to pick their server?

I thought AU and Oceania were moved to the US server.

EDIT:

Also

http://sc2sig.com/

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Zawicki, thanks, may have one ready tonight, or for next week. Hopefully the thread is still going.

Rice, and what incentive is there for people in my position to play online if we see what I see? There's none, meaning that I will not get a game I like, in effect.

[DeathForce]

I beat the campaign on hard today and I have to say the ending cinematic was rather meh.

[BadArmies]

I beat the campaign on hard today and I have to say the ending cinematic was rather meh.

Just a setup for the sequel. There are some awesome cinematics IMO. I loved the one after you help Nova in Ghost of a Chance, also the one after Havens Fall is good.

[DeathForce]

Yes I agree but honestly for the end of the campaign that video was fairly weak, I was expecting a 5-10 minuter.

[Sexyrice]

I've been having a problem lately vs 1 base plays, especially as Zerg against Terran at the Platinum level. How do you distinguish a marine/marauder timing push from a hellion harass from a tank attack?? Its always easy to get burrow and throw a couple zerglings in their entrance, but that reveals nothing about their build order and by the time you see the units come out of the base its generally too late.

[Zawicki]

Try sending a drone to scout. If you see the tech lab you know that it's either reapers (which some speedlings and a queen can easily kill) or their getting marauders. If it's a reactor, they are problem going to swap it onto the factor and hellion harass. If it's double gas they are most likely getting lots of tanks.

Also, you can sacrifice an overlord to see what they have (I'd suggest getting overlord speed) Or you could send in a changling. Drop it at the edge of their base. Even if it gets killed instantly you should be able to see their tech/units.

[Sexyrice]

Changling is a good idea, I always forget about overseers.

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

As for the vids, I'd like to point out that the titles are somewhat obvious, and you should be able to see the difference in play style. While the one which is about not microing involves me arsing around with unit placement, it's a case of trying to get a nice firing line from the M1A2 and T-72 for more co-ordinated firepower. Also I believe there is an infantry section involved, you should be able the rockets from them.

The rest should be visible and self explanitory.

In comparison the one in which I control a single unit and let others run their course, so to speak, the results were very different. I would also like to add that the intensive micro was the best outcome I had out of the intensive micro-ing attempts, if you can understand that.

I also believe that it is worth noting, JTF is a pretty lethal system, you should see what happens to the enemy tanks, and how quickly they go down. While not exactly top of the line equipment, they're still very effective fighting machines. Let alone what happens to the Apache if I don't take down the mobile SAM.

Finally, pardon the mike, I didn't realise it was so damned sensative.

http://www.xfire.com/video/32c5af/
http://www.xfire.com/video/32c5a7/

[shotcoder]

Is it sad that I'm disappointed NonY isnt going to Korea to play SC2? I mean I know he as a life here and everything but he plans on focusing his attention to USA e-sports. Really I think an American player possibly winning the GSL would be a huge step forward for SC2 as an international Pro-game and Progaming in the US.

[Zawicki]

I'm a bit puzzled by the videos leon. All I really see is that when you try to micro, you do much worse. Whereas when you let the ai play the game for you, you do much better. shouldn't it be the other way around. As using your time to focus on controlling units should allow you to beat your opponent, even if you have an inferior force.

Also, if you do another video, could you explain a little bit of what is going on.

[shotcoder]

As for the vids, I'd like to point out that the titles are somewhat obvious, and you should be able to see the difference in play style. While the one which is about not microing involves me arsing around with unit placement, it's a case of trying to get a nice firing line from the M1A2 and T-72 for more co-ordinated firepower. Also I believe there is an infantry section involved, you should be able the rockets from them.

Army positioning...also known as Micro.


The rest should be visible and self explanitory.

In comparison the one in which I control a single unit and let others run their course, so to speak, the results were very different. I would also like to add that the intensive micro was the best outcome I had out of the intensive micro-ing attempts, if you can understand that.

Microing isn't controlling a single unit. It's controlling you units in a more efficient manner. Taking one unit and moving it around a lot isnt microing, it's lack of micro.


I also believe that it is worth noting, JTF is a pretty lethal system, you should see what happens to the enemy tanks, and how quickly they go down. While not exactly top of the line equipment, they're still very effective fighting machines. Let alone what happens to the Apache if I don't take down the mobile SAM.

The game doesn't look "lethal" at all, it looks like any modern RTS where tanks shoot at tanks and kill each other. The game requires no speed to play, you just positioned you tanks and waited pretty much then moved to your artillery pieces and positioned them knowing the Comp AI was horrible and ran right into your wall of tanks.

Finally, pardon the mike, I didn't realise it was so damned sensative.

http://www.xfire.com/video/32c5af/
http://www.xfire.com/video/32c5a7/

[The Tommunist]

I've joined My Clans SC2 tornie, so i should have some videos of my crap playing up soon. (With commentary)

[shotcoder]

I've played a total of 32 games iirc with Zerg. I can feel how weak the race is as a whole. To compete with Terran and Protoss macro you need 2 bases compared to their one yet when you expand you are extremely vulnerable to a 1 base push. Yet if you dont expand your opponent slowly gets further ahead the longer you're on 1 base.

ZvT, This Match up is seriously laughable. The only way I've won is with a 10pool opening into mass lings when they dont wall or to mass hydras off 2 bases skipping roaches and hoping my macro is better than theirs.

ZvZ, This Match up is almost as bad. There's no way to scout your opponent without saccing an ovie or a drone . So it's pretty much a coinflip between lings<Banelings<Roaches<Hydras<lings+banelings<mutas. Take your pick and hope you're lucky.

ZvP only issue I have with this MU is Void Rays.

That's from a Zerg PoV though.

[BadArmies]

Yeah, I am not enchanted with zerg in this one. I finally found a brutal mission that kicks my ass. Utter darkness brutal. it lives up to its name.

[Zawicki]

Zerg are not as bad as you say shotcoder.

IMO zerg has two ways to play, super aggressive or reactionary.

By playing aggressive you can easily contain your enemy. You get enough lings/roaches to stop your opponent from moving out. Then you go lair and get either mutas or hydras (naturally). Continue upgrading ground armor/melee attacks. By having all map control you effectively keep your opponent to 1 base. They may get to 2 base, by if they do you should easily be at 4 base. If you haven't been able to win by now, bust them down with ultras/broodlords.

By playing with a reactionary force you need good scouting. Place a few lings outside the enemy base. As soon as they move out train as many of the correct "counter" units as possible. Once you've killed their force go in for a counterattack. This can usually end a game as terran/toss macro is much worse than a zergs.

I will admit I have trouble with turtling terrans. But I've been able to bust down quite a few platinum players with ultras.

Toss is extremely easy to defeat. zergling muta is almost unbeatable against them since they have nothing that can effectively beat the mutalisk. Stalkers and phoenix are decent, but zerglings own stalkers and you can easily get more mutalisk than they can phoenix.

ZvZ Is pretty boring IMO. I generally go roaches since other zergs stick with ling/bling mostly. mid game I'll get some hydras or mutas and end it.

[yWizePapaSmurfy]

I've seen some battles of Zerg, seems expanding the creep web is pretty lucrative, what with increased movement speed on it and since the creep is even covering the map signalling "you're there" one can't rely on just looking at the mini map to tell what units are sprawling on the creep.

Or was the BR video quality just so bad I couldn't tell that? Donno.

[The Tommunist]

Allright. had the first match of my Clans SC2 Tornie. One it :D
http://www.tehplanet.net/bloodpack/demos/Blistering%20Sands%20hamzter%20vs%20tommunist.SC2R eplay_Sun,%2015%20Aug%202010%2002:59:23%20-0400GMT_1281855563.zip

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

Army placement and the use of choke points is not tactics, nor is covering a unit to preserve it. You will note that I did my uptmost to keep units alive. You do not play Starcraft that way. If you look at the one which I was much more active, you should see that I suffered more casualities, and because of it, lost a significant part of my force.

The difference between the two games is that to play effectively in Spamcraft, sorry, Starcraft, you need to control as much as you can, where as in Joint Task Force, you guide the units into the best place, and let the AI handle the rest because it's well thought out. The whole reason people initially micro'ed in SC 1 was the failure of the AI and/or pathfinding.

[shotcoder]

Army placement and the use of choke points is not tactics, nor is covering a unit to preserve it. You will note that I did my uptmost to keep units alive. You do not play Starcraft that way. If you look at the one which I was much more active, you should see that I suffered more casualities, and because of it, lost a significant part of my force.

The difference between the two games is that to play effectively in Spamcraft, sorry, Starcraft, you need to control as much as you can, where as in Joint Task Force, you guide the units into the best place, and let the AI handle the rest because it's well thought out. The whole reason people initially micro'ed in SC 1 was the failure of the AI and/or pathfinding.

Have you ever fucking played an RTS or are you spewing shit out of your ass? I seriously think you're trolling this topic so hardcore you actually believe yourself.

MIcroing is controlling units to their optimal efficiency which involves placement. If that doesn't make sense then I will gladly show you some video of microing. You're just too fucking stupid to understand that microing isn't just controlling one unit. It's controlling all of them. Get that through your fucking head. It's not a hard concept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3FyL47uTfM

THAT is all micro. Not just the d matrix on the marine. ALL OF IT. seiging his tank, creating the arc. WAS IT THAT HARD TO COMPREHEND? if it is then you're an idiot.

PS. I accept the eventual warning that comes with this post but stubbornness and ignorance are only tolerable to such an extent.

EDIT: If you would kindly look up the definition of tactics you would find yourself completely incorrect calling Army placement and use of choke points devoid of tactics.

+1 warning for flaming/trolling.
-Tone-

[BadArmies]

Army placement and the use of choke points is not tactics, nor is covering a unit to preserve it.

If you don't call that tactics, I am not sure this discussion could be classified as rational.

[Zawicki]

Alright Leon. You are seriously just making things up now. You say army placement and use of chokes is not tactics. Let's look at the dicitonary.com definition of tactics shall we.

1.
(usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2.
(used with a plural verb) the maneuvers themselves.
3.
(used with a singular verb) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.
4.
(usually used with a singular verb) Linguistics.
a.
the patterns in which the elements of a given level or stratum in a language may combine to form larger constructions.
b.
the study and description of such patterns.

I'm pretty sure maneuvirng your army (aka placing them in a good position around a choke point) is tactics. If it is not tactics then please, tell me what is.

Also, you just admitted that you let the AI do all the work for you. How does that make the game require more skill?

As far as I know JTF only requires you to get a good unit composition. That's it. after that you just click to move and let the AI do everything for you. In starcraft you need a good units composition, then you need to continue to adapt your unit composition to your opponents. You need to maintain a strong economy (macro). You also need to micro (pulling back a dying units, getting a good concave etc.). Starcraft constitutes skill because you need to balance micro and macro. If you go heavily into macro, at 5 minutes in the game you are killed by a cloaked banshee because all you have is workers. If you go heavily into micro you are killed 10 minutes into the game because your perfectly microed units eventually died and now you don't have any resources to make a new army. Knowing how to time things in starcraft is key. Do you really need 4 zerglings right now because if you don't get them you'll die, or could you use them to make drones?

Maybe you call it spamcraft because it actually allows you to use more than 10 units at a time. I've read the reviews for JTf. It's score is always mediocre. Why? Because the gameplay is choppy and just not fun. You have to constantly stop to wait for repairs. You have to give you units specialized upgrades. If you enter an engagement with the wrong unit unit you must instantly start over. Because that unit will instantly die.

[Andy]

Just a suggestion to calm things down in this topic, ta! :P

[CaptLeonof153rdElysains]

The problem with Starcraft, aka Spamcraft, is that it encourages a specific type of play, and on top of that, it's not a style of play I like. The system used in the game, is simplistic, and obvious. Joint Task Force is about what type of force you have, as much as how you manage it. Yes, you repair alot, but it's cheaper than replacing a unit. What to fork out another 350,000 or greater for the unit you just lost?

I think the score its given reflects a different preference in gaming. It is not an obvious game, and it is not a simple game. It punishes you for bad decisions. Sure you can have alot of room to work, and it lets your work, but on the other hand it also gives you plenty of rope to strangle yourself with. You guys get a demo and try completing missions with less than a dozen casualties. You don't build a base, and you don't easily get new units. It encourages a use of units, as well as weapons, that is not simply point and click. You need to develop a plan, and execute it, but still leave enough room in the operational plan to adapt it. Do the build orders or other methods that have been developed in the online system allow such freedom of action? As far as I can see, no. Everyone finds the most streamlined method, rather than experimenting as I would ideally expect to see in the system.

Compare to other games, in which it was just a simple matter of tank rush, or specific other method. In this case it is a managed approach to the game, with little room for flexibility. That is not tactics, that's not even a strategic method. It's a case of economic approach to warfare. That's all I see in Starcraft and it's following titles. It's all about the economic approach, supply and demand, and of having the greater resources in the mid to later phases for technology and/or units and their abilities.

JTF works on a different model, and because of the model difference, it scored differently, and in this case negatively.

Look at Ground Control 1, Battlezone, Homeworld 1, all of which will always be to me superior titles because you have more options and less obvious approaches. You have many more possibilities, Starcraft has set patterns, which even I fall into when playing. To me, any game that denies you freedom, under the guise of so called strategy is frankly insulting to the genre. Titles such as Acts of War are superior, due to faction design and again, less than obvious tactics available to a careful thinker and planner.

The Starcraft model is flawed from the get go due to the nature that the game has. It works the same way WoW does, just as any previous or future Blizzard game does. It's a simple A beats B beats C approach. That is not flexible, and that is not how to design a RTS. Instead of having a flexible, adaptable system with vaguely intelligent AI, it works on cheap tricks and economic principles that belong on the stock market. Risk management is of higher apparent value than tactical co-ordination and planning.

I'm trying to be as unbiased on the games as I possibly can, and I try to present a case. You say it's the game that is complex, I say the players made it complex. Simple games can have complex methods, and complex games can have simple methods, but I believe that you need to look at the source of that complexity. Some games develop it naturally, such as the previous examples (chess and goh) due to their history. Other games are developed with it, other develop it through the player base. I believe this player base is both the strongest asset and greatest weakness of Starcraft. It's so set in its way there is no room for anything but.

I'm not perfect, and I could have done with presenting a better case, but then that applies to both sides, which means more than dictionary definitions of tactics and claims that a game simple in nature is really complex, when if you look at how people play it, it shows similar basical modelling across the board. Force optimisation for minimal cost. I suppose another way to think about this, he who bids the lowest, and gets the most value for income wins.

If you guys want a challenge, try dealing with upwards of......... I'm trying to think of the best game to use as an example. We'll stick with one I know so well I still know the finer details of the story. Ground Control 1 often left... assuming the use of a primary armoured force, upwards of twenty to thirty odd vehicles, with at least three different functions. Now add on infantry, in the form of heavy armoured and a scout unit. Artillery as a second asset. Now co-ordinate that, in a totally 3D environment, in which friendly fire is a factor. Complex? Yes, Satisfying? absolutely.

While on the subject, I tend to play a particular way, due to a preference for a certain set of values, in firepower and mobility. I tend to use a primarily armoured force. It's mobile, has a high coherence and staying power. That does not immediately preclude me from using another method, should I so choose. In comparison let's look at the math behind Starcraft. It's obvious what works and how it works. You need to kill it fast, Terrans use X, countered by unit and/or method Y, which in turns is why you have Z.

Ground Control 1 allows you a greater freedom to counter methodology and units. You have infantry, take on tanks from the flanks and rear. I don't see Starcraft increasing basic marine damage in the rear section. Nor do I see Stracraft really representing any sort of tactics, as it's about at the higher levels who runs the cheaper force, in terms of upkeep and incoming resources. In the games that remove this(harvesting as primary income) as a requirement I feel that you are better able to work on the tactical use of your units. The problem here is that the deeper into the community you go, the greater the hold on you they have. End of statement, and well supported psychologically speaking.

Joint Task Force is similar in some ways. You have a set number of tricks, but in the end the number of combinations of the tricks will always be significantly higher than what Starcraft could ever provide. While even I admit to performing basic cost benefit analysis, because quite simply, that is a feature of every game, the previously mentioned titles hide the system behind as many layers as they could. Starcraft does not. You see every variable, every value. I don't want to know the exact specifics.

While you may claim that one game I like by the name of Blitzkreig 2 does give you specifics, it still leaves you plenty of space to work in terms of long term options, and short engagements. The problem is that you have defined tactics(consider paints to numbers versus free hand in painting terms) to mean a specific set of actions, one after the other, that is an immutable until proven inferior or ineffective. There are particular paths that when taken allow you to predict certain actions with what I feel is too much accuracy. This is stifling to players, at any level. If I play Terran you expect a certain approach do you not? You will counter the tricks, and if I was using the tricks as they exist in the current version it boils down to the math in who has the most effective source of damage. While all games run on some sort of math, or rule, that doesn't mean that the person who knows the best use of, or interpretation should be the winner. The rules should only ever be the guidelines within which players test their ability to think, not memorise and find loopholes to use and/or abuse, ie fazing.

I may have added in, or left out, a word in my previous post, I'll have to reread it. I believe what I might have been refering to was that alone, army placement and engagement location is not tactics. It's a combination of many factors, often not seen except by the person in charge, including forces present, application of the force, methodology behind the force or doctrine, as well as the supporting factors behind the force. JTF and Ground Control 1 show this by unit selection and the weapons present, Starcraft does this in a similar manner, with less required planning, as the patterns that are in the game are built in by the players, rather than the game itself. Yet those patterns would not exist if the game did not provide some sort of foundation, which is why the balance system is so obvious. This game was made to pander to the fans, and the fans alone really. Look at the process of development and the beta, while the balance is not to the standard seen in Brood Wars, it still is the child of the lesson learned there, and there was at least some, if not significant pressure to produce a game that could be easily adapted to from a particular section of the playing audience.

Let's take out all the talk about games and their specifics, and use a hypothetical situation.

You have a city block to secure as a platoon leader. You have a support base in the area and it is under attack by a opposing force. As I see Starcraft tactics, you get your sniper section to deal with them picking them off as it has the highest cost to benefit ratio(minimal deployment vs maximum return). On the other hand other systems would encourage options as mounting regular patrols to catch them out as part of a combined arms approach. You would use your snipers to provide cover for the patrols, as well as fortifying important, or strategic if you like the word used in this manner, locations in the environment. I believe one that which says there is no correct approach is a superior title to one that either through the system or the player base says there is an absolute, set number of methods.

Call it personal taste, but I just feel that each time the industry produces a Nexus, Ground Control, or JTF, it has to go five years minimum backwards.

[Locke Carnelia]

.... What if we don't wanna worry about all the crazy variables and stuff, and just wanna play BOOM BOOM EXPLOSIONS?

It's personal taste. *shrug* No sense arguing about it.

[']['Ritha][]

Leon, you have obviously never played nor watched Starcraft or Starcraft 2. This is obvious by your shifting comments about how Starcraft is all about spamming units and that it lacks in hard counters like your precious Joint Task Force, then your attacks on counters in Starcraft. On top of this, you have added comments about how Starcraft lacks in control- yet that is one of the major aspects of the game. it is commonly noted by commentators and players alike that the loss of a single unit can shift the game. That slightly worse control, slightly worse positioning is enough of a disadvantage to make the larger force lose. Crisp positioning and control of a properly balanced army in the proper place is what good Starcraft play is all about, not spamming anything.

Can you please stop trolling the thread with misinformation and utter lies about something we are passionate please? And, just as last time, I ask that if you are going to badmouth the game, use real evidence. What unit is spammed? How, specifically, does the game limit whatever it is you feel it has limited (I can't tell anymore, due to your argument changing halfway through every sentence).

[Brother-Captain Sharp]

Okay, guys, I think this thread has run its course. We've approached a place where there's no sense in leaving it open. It's doing more harm than good. If you guys would like to discuss a specific topic in a new thread, feel free (such as the SC Campaign thread).

Thread locked.