Case in point, Rogue and aLive are playing right now in the Ballistix Brawl. At 11 minutes into the game, we have Rogue on 6 bases with complete map control, covering 2/3 to 3/4 of the map in creep, and already on Hive tech building out Broodlords and Ultralisks. I find many of the games nowadays don't have much of the early and mid game anymore due to the worker change, thus putting the game more into the late game territory. Late game is nice and all because it is taxing on a player's ability to multitask, micro, and macro, but at the same time, we seem to have lost some of the early and mid game strategies I personally enjoyed as a player and viewer.
Is The Game Too Fast?
Forum Index > SC2 General |
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
Case in point, Rogue and aLive are playing right now in the Ballistix Brawl. At 11 minutes into the game, we have Rogue on 6 bases with complete map control, covering 2/3 to 3/4 of the map in creep, and already on Hive tech building out Broodlords and Ultralisks. I find many of the games nowadays don't have much of the early and mid game anymore due to the worker change, thus putting the game more into the late game territory. Late game is nice and all because it is taxing on a player's ability to multitask, micro, and macro, but at the same time, we seem to have lost some of the early and mid game strategies I personally enjoyed as a player and viewer. | ||
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
| ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
geokilla
Canada8161 Posts
On October 10 2018 12:51 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Blizzard should revert the clock change so it goes back to display Blizzard time. If it displayed 16 minutes rather than 11 minutes there would be a lot less complaining. Lol I don't think the clock time has anything to do with it. It's just the pace of the game increased dramatically. | ||
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 10 2018 12:54 geokilla wrote: Lol I don't think the clock time has anything to do with it. It's just the pace of the game increased dramatically. Eh, I was only kinda joking. The 12 worker change only accelerated the game in of itself by like 90 seconds, and if you count the fact that it disincentives early aggression maybe by 2-3 minutes. Consider this (slightly cherry-picked) game from HotS: At 11 minutes (which is in Blizzard time is roughly 15:30) both players are maxed out, INno has a huge mech army, and creep covers DRG's corner of Deadwing which is probably the equivalent of 3/4 of a normal map. I do consider the two minutes that we lost to the 12 worker change to be a significant loss, since those minutes had very different characteristics from the rest of the game, but the pace of the game hasn't changed as dramatically as the clock makes it seem and not solely due to the 12 worker change. | ||
halomonian
Brazil255 Posts
| ||
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On October 10 2018 13:19 halomonian wrote: The thing is, its not too fast. It is too definitive. In broodwar, it takes ages to finish off an opponent when you both go for macro games. In SC2, once the pendulum swings one way, its not coming back so easily, since you have perfect control and at the top level its rare for players to commit fuckups that would add up to costing someone the game. My simple balance idea would be to introduce the miss % from low to high ground. I would also like to see how sc2 behaves with limited unit selection and building, since managing a ton of stuff and having it go wrong constantly is one of the major comeback mechanics in BW for example Well, it is too fast too Oracles, medevacs with boosts, muta regen, phoenix speed buffs(to counter muta/medevacs speed buffs). Some of these were actually slightly touched(e.g. Oracle is still fast, but doesn't 2-shot SCVs anymore)). And nowadays you have more ways how to end up battles even faster(lurkers, disruptors). While it may not affect hugely top level lower level players may feel overwhelmed. I am a diamond player and I guarantee you that even HotS was way too fast for my taste and LotV is even faster. I don't like it at all. | ||
dummy1
420 Posts
| ||
nanaoei
3358 Posts
the early game that is pretty much removed was something unique to starcraft 2 and starcraft 1, but i didn't find myself missing it after i put in enough effort into learning the new pacing. pretty much, the early game was spamming and was merely ritualistic. what's really missing from the game now is some well crafted cheese. even then i don't miss it. it made ZvZ and nearly all those builds a coinflip. | ||
Creager
Germany1827 Posts
And instead of getting this right once and for all, we get major balance updates annually (despite the devs stating otherwise) to keep the game "fresh" and players interested. | ||
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
| ||
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
however i like this speed. There have been more and more people asking for sc2 "slower" so that speed skill is not a requirement in the adn of the game and i completely agree with that need/reality check. But sc2 cannot be several games, if you are talking about a ladder experience. You can play the same game on slow and enjoy it on customs (if you managed to find people who want to play it like that that is...) and the market for that is hugely untapped. i personally would play both but i like the "no time" part so i would invest more time in that version or "appreciate it more". Life is not "this" and "nothing else", far from it.. someone could start a thing and then it would explode into a new ladder / game being prominent too*. A slower rts (just like sc2 or something completely different but with the same rts in it) could become big, just a lack of community happenstance. So (tldr) if i have to choose i say NO, don't reduce speed now for everyone, but YES do make up your own ladder with sc2 on slow <3 both will be great to play then! | ||
SCHRECKEN111
13 Posts
So cheer up and practice | ||
seom
South Africa491 Posts
it sounds like op is referring to the overall flow of the game (early + mid game being played out too quickly) rather than apm. | ||
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
| ||
Dingodile
4121 Posts
1) change the speed from faster to fast. 2) remove 2 patch mineral nodes at each base. Each building cost reduced about 75 minerals and each drone/probe/scv about 25. I prefer this one. | ||
SCHRECKEN111
13 Posts
| ||
Creager
Germany1827 Posts
On October 10 2018 20:27 seom wrote: to avoid confusion it is important to differentiate between the mechanical game speed required for multitasking, controlling units etc and the game speed referred to in the op. it sounds like op is referring to the overall flow of the game (early + mid game being played out too quickly) rather than apm. Important and good point you've made just there, although one could say there is some correlation between the two, especially when you consider that the economy ramps up way faster, which translates to the player having to do more multitasking early on and thus demands an improved mechanical skill. | ||
Creager
Germany1827 Posts
On October 10 2018 20:59 SCHRECKEN111 wrote: and what if fun means fast game which gives you adrenaline ? If you prefer slow games, play civilisation. I know it`s hard and challenging game but If you achieve sth in SC2 you feel that this is an achievement .I remember when I went to platin few months ago - It really boost my self-confidence - it improved my self-image - i felt better in real life exactly because it`s fast and demanding and not for everyone - it`s exclusive game for smart people who like competition and excitement. Well, it's not like SC2 was a walk in the park during WOL or HOTS, sure, less units and abilities to use, but don't get the wrong impression that the game was 'easy' and chill back then. Still I prefer the old versions of the game over the actual one and had more fun playing them. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
On October 10 2018 20:27 seom wrote: to avoid confusion it is important to differentiate between the mechanical game speed required for multitasking, controlling units etc and the game speed referred to in the op. it sounds like op is referring to the overall flow of the game (early + mid game being played out too quickly) rather than apm. this is an excellent point. and i like the overall flow of the game. in general i like the flow of C&C games better than the flow of a Brood War game. i think SC2 has more of a "fast and fluid" feel to it like C&C. On October 10 2018 20:21 SCHRECKEN111 wrote: Dude, i`m 39 (probably one of the oldest sc2 player ) and I manage without a problem with the current speed. I find the game more exciting now than it was in the time of Hots. If I can have 160 average apm in my age you can reach this level also - and it allows me to play platin league - even if I can play 5-6 matches a week because of the work. So cheer up and practice i play 2v2s with a woman who is 48. her most advanced video game experience before taking on SC2 was Intellivision Sea Battle. She showed me the game and it is surprising the RTS elements in a game made around 1980. Any how, she is in GOLD in 1v1s. So she is a middle of the pack 1v1 player. if a 48 year old woman with zero modern video game experience can deal with the pace of play i think i can too. Also, the pace/flow of play in LotV is more fun than HotS or WoL. | ||
DSK
England1106 Posts
Now, honestly everything is a blur. However, I will say that the speed increase has in my opinion has aided on the growth spurt in foreigners to improve, as mechanically a lot of them were not as crisp and efficient as their Korean counterparts, which is and has been a good thing. | ||
jeputera
30 Posts
| ||
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 10 2018 23:38 jeputera wrote: There was a great TL post when they changed the starting working count about how the build diversity decreased with 12 workers. I couldn't find it, but its a great read if someone can link. Point being, i think that in some way the game plays faster because they are few opening moves. We know everything that happens in the first 7 minutes of any PvZ right now, and i think that makes the game a lot less enjoyable. As the possibilities for countering what your opponent is doing have decreased in the early game, the early game becomes streamlined and repetitive. You probably mean this article | ||
Hannibaal
41 Posts
And I forgot, macromechanic (mules, injects, chrono) are also part of the problem, they trigger the economy and take players to the late game too early, and that with so many design flaws is a problem, the late game of SC2 is the worst of this game, deathball against deathball, zergs with vision of more than half of the map.... is stupid, trash. | ||
jeputera
30 Posts
| ||
SCHWARZENEGGER
206 Posts
| ||
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On October 11 2018 00:19 Hannibaal wrote: It is, but it needs to be very fast, SC2 offers too many facilities to the player, I mean the automining, multiple building selection, the ease of using spells, a move units, armies that can be put into a single control group, F2 key, etc. , etc. If you want a more leisurely game, without so much Terrible Damage and with longer battles and with more micro battles, it would be necessary to eliminate the automining and maybe also the MBS, that will not happen at this point, it would be like taking out a new game, but It's sad, that's what Blizzard should have done in 2010. And I forgot, macromechanic (mules, injects, chrono) are also part of the problem, they trigger the economy and take players to the late game too early, and that with so many design flaws is a problem, the late game of SC2 is the worst of this game, deathball against deathball, zergs with vision of more than half of the map.... is stupid, trash. I strongly disagree with this! A game should be about battling your opponent, movement, tactics and not about battling a clunky interface! Is there really no way to slow down the ramping up of the game without making the game interface harder to use? Reduce starting worker count? Reduce mining speed? Maybe introduce the, now probably forgotten, idea of decreasing mining efficiency in saturated bases? Maybe give units overall more HP? Reduce overall their movement speed? | ||
blunderfulguy
United States1412 Posts
But, I imagine trying to do that and keep the game balanced in any way would be a nightmarish gauntlet to go through even for a team of designers/developers and might not yield any results worth that effort. For now I'll only seriously ask for Auto Turret to be removed once and for all, that'd be good enough for me. | ||
Haukinger
Germany131 Posts
| ||
RandomOnlyTheHumanLf
58 Posts
| ||
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
On October 10 2018 20:21 SCHRECKEN111 wrote: Dude, i`m 39 (probably one of the oldest sc2 player ) and I manage without a problem with the current speed. I find the game more exciting now than it was in the time of Hots. If I can have 160 average apm in my age you can reach this level also - and it allows me to play platin league - even if I can play 5-6 matches a week because of the work. So cheer up and practice 44 <3 and again, i like that speed, just think i'd like the slow version too edit: just in case that was addressed to me somehow | ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
I wish we could somehow extend the midgame a bit because ultra late game tends to result in big boring air deathballs in all matchups right now. One thought I had is what if expansions cost 100 more minerals for evrey race, this might slow the game down in that players would have a harder time reaching full 2 base saturation and third bases would come slower. But we still don't have the mostly useless wait time in hots and wol. It might encourage more tech heavy openings. But maybe such a change would just tip the game to far to one base builds. And we would get wol 2.0. Honestly although I do have some gripes about the effects of 12 worker start I think it's overall good for the game since waiting 4-5 minutes pointlessly in most of my games was always a sore point for me. | ||
blanca12
3 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
Rodya
546 Posts
| ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
On October 10 2018 12:51 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Blizzard should revert the clock change so it goes back to display Blizzard time. If it displayed 16 minutes rather than 11 minutes there would be a lot less complaining. On October 11 2018 10:01 blanca12 wrote: Blizzard should revert the clock change so it goes back to display Blizzard time. If it displayed 16 minutes rather than 11 minutes there would be a lot less complaining. Hmmmm... Bot that copies posts or unobservant user who coincidentally used the exact same wording... All their posts are copies | ||
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
On October 10 2018 12:41 geokilla wrote: Case in point, Rogue and aLive are playing right now in the Ballistix Brawl. At 11 minutes into the game, we have Rogue on 6 bases with complete map control, covering 2/3 to 3/4 of the map in creep, and already on Hive tech building out Broodlords and Ultralisks. Found nothing wrong. | ||
nanaoei
3358 Posts
the reason why they are able to abuse and dominate games against lesser players is because they see wide holes in base defense, meanwhile you should have more units to threaten with. pretty much their mechanical skill and knowhow (macro) and their readiness to pounce on holes and positioning equates to a really lopsided game which in turn forces you to play a particular way with your skillset. the creativity you're describing in hots midgame still exists, but it requires more of you in LotV because you have more income to spend and money do things with your units. you are required to expand and the game is centered around taking and holding 3 bases, then onto the transition to higher tech with a fresh 4th base. this phase of the game takes at least 7 minutes which in the past used to take more than 11, or it never occurred due to circumstances like having to attack or defend and not worrying about mining out for the vast majority of the game. i understand that with less experiences or with more stubborn players that the smallest harass can detract heavily from what they need to do throughout the game. the oracle for example seems like a terrible unit because it does so much damage for such little commitment. it just seems annoying; in some ways it is like a form of cheese. yet if you watch someone better handle the same controls, they will take little to no damage from that same unit---because they are ready and they understand the timing of it. in this example, that would be around 3:30. there is counter play to it, and it's rather easy. it would prevent what would be an easy loss to being unprepared, or being overly prepared. one of those things is scouting. would you rather lose an overlord (100 minerals) to scout whether they start stargate or not, or to lose 3 drones in opportunity cost (+225 minerals) automatically because you don't want to learn the timing of using that scouting overlord? or because you accept that it's simply something you can't control? same with terran, potentially lose 50/50 in the reaper as you control and milk use out of it (while doing everything back at home), or see exactly the starting tech of the protoss or if there are missing pylons that could otherwise hide it? the way you play now may seem stale and set in stone, but it is pretty negligent to say it was any better in any other version of the game, including in SCBW. there are invariables to the early game for those versions that you're simply not being honest about. i'm talking about the way lower level players tend to play. if you're the type that doesn't cheese, the early game goes the exact same way every game. i say that being someone who did this over the course of thousands of games, feeling safe to do so. 2-rax with stim opening, for example, every single game. sometimes it outright killed because the guy had less stuff than you and they have no reprieve. that is not an additional option the game is missing. that responsibility of doing game-ending damage is now shifted into later build order timings or multiple unit harassment (all while macroing the necessary amount of units to end the game with). the way the game was being played for the most part was simply a robot check, and going through the motions. that's not a dynamic early game. that was a quo in the game where your scouting worker could see everything it needed to see, basically for free. the risk of dying to a game-ending unit without having played at least 3m of the game was very low. the same exists now with the above examples in scouting, except they are still optional so long as you respect the early game options from the other player (proxies included). a lot of the situations described in this thread simply shouldn't happen in a real game with other people. either there is a huge skill disparity (pro and complete amateur, high master to diamond) that allows it to happen, or a lack of knowhow. teching straight to broodlord and ultras without taking any damage to slow it down? what? maxing at 9-11m without once again slowing each other down or taking engagements? this simply doesn't happen unless both players decide to NR10 or some shit; both players are happy with just letting the other player sit and mutually do what they want. in short, it's the playstyle that they chose to have, not what they try to expand with having more than one set of units in a control group, scouting, and abusing one another. i think this is why most people prefer to watch than to play. and while the OP did initially start with the idea that the speed of the game has to do with pacing and losing early game portions of being slow, it does end up having to do with a player's speed and adeptness to do everything they need to do. going through a game not touching anyone, not doing meaningful harass or doing sharp builds is like going years throughout adulthood never touching another person emotionally and physically, then settling on the first person you share those experiences with and complaining when they were not the one. | ||
Less_Du_Et
United States18 Posts
Take for example the good old 2 rax - In WOL and HOTS; a failed 2 rax meant you were behind (as it should be). The aggressor took a risk, and it did not pay off (either due to good defence or poor execution of the aggression). In LOTV; a failed 2 rax, as Maru and a few others have shown time and time again, can transition into a macro game. The aggressor in this case is NOT punished of the failed aggression. This is because the window to punish is smaller in LOTV. In some cases, less than 30 seconds or a minute - barely enough time to get across the map. Having to go from doing an all-in off 6 workers is a lot more "all-in" than doing it off 12 workers. ie. The 7th worker increase resource collection by ~17% whereas the 13th worker increase resource collection by 8%. This is huge. So the advantage a defending player has from defending a rush in LOTV is a LOT less than what they would have had in HOTS or WOL. | ||
Aunvilgodess
954 Posts
| ||
fronkschnonk
Germany622 Posts
On October 11 2018 12:53 Less_Du_Et wrote: The "speed" of the game has nothing to do with APM or how fast units move or how quick you can max out. Let me try to explain my point with an example. Take for example the good old 2 rax - In WOL and HOTS; a failed 2 rax meant you were behind (as it should be). The aggressor took a risk, and it did not pay off (either due to good defence or poor execution of the aggression). In LOTV; a failed 2 rax, as Maru and a few others have shown time and time again, can transition into a macro game. The aggressor in this case is NOT punished of the failed aggression. This is because the window to punish is smaller in LOTV. In some cases, less than 30 seconds or a minute - barely enough time to get across the map. Having to go from doing an all-in off 6 workers is a lot more "all-in" than doing it off 12 workers. ie. The 7th worker increase resource collection by ~17% whereas the 13th worker increase resource collection by 8%. This is huge. So the advantage a defending player has from defending a rush in LOTV is a LOT less than what they would have had in HOTS or WOL. You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers. | ||
Plopus
Switzerland112 Posts
It's sad because this rendered the units of the early game almost useless so no one makes stalker, adepts except the first 2 at the begining. | ||
Less_Du_Et
United States18 Posts
On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote: You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers. So there is something fundamentally wrong with being able to be the aggressor and yet being on par and some fringe cases (like you pointed out) being ahead in economy. RTS game is a game of choice. A choice to do an all-in should be have a risk and reward associated with it. In the present state of the game, I only see reward. | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
| ||
Charoisaur
Germany15601 Posts
On October 12 2018 21:54 SHODAN wrote: there's only so many actions Maru can do during a battle. and yet nobody else can come close to the number actions he does in a battle which gives him an advantage, I don't see the problem | ||
fronkschnonk
Germany622 Posts
On October 12 2018 21:36 Less_Du_Et wrote: So there is something fundamentally wrong with being able to be the aggressor and yet being on par and some fringe cases (like you pointed out) being ahead in economy. RTS game is a game of choice. A choice to do an all-in should be have a risk and reward associated with it. In the present state of the game, I only see reward. But where comes the notion from that 2 proxy rax has to be seen as an all-in? You're confusing being agressive with doing an all-in. It's not that Maru does outright win his games with his proxies. They give him an advantage and therefore they aren't allins but harassment. | ||
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
| ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote: You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers. i think this is a great aspect of the game. i love how ... 45 seconds into the game one can be fighting for one's life. | ||
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
this is just another in a long line of reachy "grass is greener..." ideas people come up with because they're anxious about how challenging this game is. the real solution to that is for people to behave in a more civilized way on ladder | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
On October 12 2018 21:59 Charoisaur wrote: and yet nobody else can come close to the number actions he does in a battle which gives him an advantage, first, you completely missed my point. second, there is nothing special about Maru's APM (~300-330). it's what he does with his actions that set him apart from the rest. my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast. if the game was slowed down 5%, Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics. here's an example of an imaginary game: Zest somehow survives Maru's early and mid-game aggression. Zest defends with robo units and is slightly ahead of Maru in terms of army quality. Maru has lots of MMM, but no high-tech units like liberators / ghosts. Zest has colossus, disruptors, storm, etc etc. on the current game speed, Maru is 100% dead. slow the game down 5%, maybe... just maybe there would be enough delay between all those splash attacks that Maru could out-micro Zest. the battle would last a few more seconds than usual. in that time, he could split his bio better, kite bio better, dodge stalker shots with hot pick-ups. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
On October 12 2018 23:02 brickrd wrote: making the game slower would just weaken harassment and revert the spirit of the game to heart of the swarm where even people who LIKED the game made fun of every macro game being a long deathball buildup this is just another in a long line of reachy "grass is greener..." ideas people come up with because they're anxious about how challenging this game is. the real solution to that is for people to behave in a more civilized way on ladder these are some good points. there is nothing wrong with a 10 minute game that is a brutal battle starting from the first 70 seconds. | ||
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On October 12 2018 23:40 SHODAN wrote: skill at doing task X in Y span of time doesn't translate proportionally when you slow something down. some people perform proportionally better than others in fast-paced environments, which is probably why maru and serral are so good. the idea that if everything became slower the best players would automatically become even more dominant is completely insane and i think you should recheck your logicfirst, you completely missed my point. second, there is nothing special about Maru's APM (~300-330). it's what he does with his actions that set him apart from the rest. my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast. if the game was slowed down 5%, Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics. here's an example of an imaginary game: Zest somehow survives Maru's early and mid-game aggression. Zest defends with robo units and is slightly ahead of Maru in terms of army quality. Maru has lots of MMM, but no high-tech units like liberators / ghosts. Zest has colossus, disruptors, storm, etc etc. on the current game speed, Maru is 100% dead. slow the game down 5%, maybe... just maybe there would be enough delay between all those splash attacks that Maru could out-micro Zest. the battle would last a few more seconds than usual. in that time, he could split his bio better, kite bio better, dodge stalker shots with hot pick-ups. | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
On October 12 2018 23:52 brickrd wrote:the idea that if everything became slower the best players would automatically become even more dominant is completely insane and i think you should recheck your logic I didn't write that Maru would automatically become even more dominant. obviously he would have to relearn how to play sc2 on a slower speed. Maru would become even more dominant in terms of tournament results or win-rate? I didn't write that either. my entire post was written in the context of micro potential. read this sentence again: "Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics" now read the rest of my post and you can probably figure out that I'm measuring his "godlike" ability in terms of micro potential. I'm measuring a -5% game speed Maru against a current game speed Maru. the -5% game speed Maru would have superior micro mechanics. it follows logically that there would be more micro potential if the game was slowed down 5%. so... players would be able to squeeze more advantages by microing their units on -5% game speed. understand now? which part of that logic should I recheck? by the way, I honestly don't know if Maru has the best micro in the world. I'm just using him as an example of a terran player with exceptional micro. replace his name with GuMiho, TY, aLive, Innovation... On October 12 2018 23:52 brickrd wrote:some people perform proportionally better than others in fast-paced environments, which is probably why maru and serral are so good. it's a factor among many factors. I don't think Serral's ling control is that much better than, say... Reynor or Scarlett or any other top 10 zerg in the world. I don't think Maru's bio control is that much better than GuMiho. Maru wins games because he plays smarter, multi-tasks better, makes better decisions. if you put Maru and aLive in a micro arena custom game, I honest don't know who would win. on the current game speed, a standard 1v1 match between Maru and aLive is hardly decided by micro and micro alone. I think slowing the game down would make micro a much more important factor than it is presently. | ||
Less_Du_Et
United States18 Posts
On October 12 2018 22:31 fronkschnonk wrote: But where comes the notion from that 2 proxy rax has to be seen as an all-in? You're confusing being agressive with doing an all-in. It's not that Maru does outright win his games with his proxies. They give him an advantage and therefore they aren't allins but harassment. The notion that 2 rax is an all-in has come from 6 years of the game being played. LOTV changed that definition. Its no longer an all-in BUT... you have the opportunity to kill the defender. Therefore...my point about no consequences to failed aggressive openings. In LOTV, an all-in in true definition of the term is probably left to going balls-to-walls agro by pulling all workers and sticking to 1 base. And ofcourse, there will be people who like this because their aggressive options are not punished. | ||
Elentos
55454 Posts
On October 13 2018 01:25 Less_Du_Et wrote: The notion that 2 rax is an all-in has come from 6 years of the game being played. LOTV changed that definition. Its no longer an all-in BUT... you have the opportunity to kill the defender. Therefore...my point about no consequences to failed aggressive openings. In LOTV, an all-in in true definition of the term is probably left to going balls-to-walls agro by pulling all workers and sticking to 1 base. And ofcourse, there will be people who like this because their aggressive options are not punished. 2-rax wasn't as good for a macro game in HotS as it is now, but it was also less all-in than proxy 4-rax is now. Players like Maru macro'd out of it many times. | ||
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8747 Posts
On October 12 2018 22:34 StarscreamG1 wrote: If they change the pathing, the game speed would not be a problem. It would decrease de "one hit" gg. What's the problem with the pathing? | ||
Charoisaur
Germany15601 Posts
On October 12 2018 23:40 SHODAN wrote: first, you completely missed my point. second, there is nothing special about Maru's APM (~300-330). it's what he does with his actions that set him apart from the rest. my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast. if the game was slowed down 5%, Maru would be even more godlike than he already is, because of his superior micro mechanics. here's an example of an imaginary game: Zest somehow survives Maru's early and mid-game aggression. Zest defends with robo units and is slightly ahead of Maru in terms of army quality. Maru has lots of MMM, but no high-tech units like liberators / ghosts. Zest has colossus, disruptors, storm, etc etc. on the current game speed, Maru is 100% dead. slow the game down 5%, maybe... just maybe there would be enough delay between all those splash attacks that Maru could out-micro Zest. the battle would last a few more seconds than usual. in that time, he could split his bio better, kite bio better, dodge stalker shots with hot pick-ups. None of this makes sense - if the game speed is slowed down players would be able to do a few more actions during battles but then they would just hit a new skill-ceiling. and since all players would be able to squeek in more actions it would do absolutely zero difference to the importance of micro. | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
On October 13 2018 04:05 Charoisaur wrote: None of this makes sense - if the game speed is slowed down players would be able to do a few more actions during battles but then they would just hit a new skill-ceiling. and since all players would be able to squeek in more actions it would do absolutely zero difference to the importance of micro. game slowed down = importance of micro increased for all players = no difference to the importance of micro??? THAT makes no sense. if players are able to squeeze more actions during battles, that means there is more opportunities for a player to outskill their opponent. if the dps + splash comes so hard and fast, there is less opportunity for the superior player to outskill their opponent. slowing down the game would make battles less cut-throat, help tame the lucky elements of sc2, and make sure the best player always wins. maybe it would make the game more fun to play and spectate... maybe it would make micro more complex and interesting like wc3. but yeah, again, I guess you missed the point I was making | ||
insitelol
845 Posts
| ||
Charoisaur
Germany15601 Posts
On October 13 2018 04:16 SHODAN wrote: game slowed down = importance of micro increased for all players = no difference to the importance of micro??? I don't see why lower game speed would increase the importance of micro. Players would be able to do more actions during a battle. That doesn't increase the importance of micro, just makes it easier / less punishing. | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
On October 13 2018 04:24 Charoisaur wrote: I don't see why lower game speed would increase the importance of micro. Players would be able to do more actions during a battle. That doesn't increase the importance of micro, just makes it easier / less punishing. I edited my previous post to explain what I mean. is sc2 the only rts you watch / play? the player with the best micro almost always wins in wc3. the player with the best micro very often wins in brood war. the player with the best micro only sometimes wins in sc2. that's the way it is. I think players with superior micro should win more often, and slowing the game down might be a good way of doing that. if you go from playing sc2 to wc3, it seems sluggish at first... but once you get into the swing of things, your apm picks up to sc2 levels. you will be microing like crazy. every grunt has a different command, not just A-move. every unit needs babysitting. that's what I mean by squeezing more out of sc2 units. if the game is slower, it would become realistic to stim / shuffle forward 1 marine to eat a tank shot... more realistic to perform show-stopping unit control. with the current game speed, this "sick micro" unit interaction is kinda rare... even at pro korean level. it's sad because micro is the one thing that makes the crowd go crazy. easier / less punishing? I don't agree. slower game speed, more micro potential = more difficult, more punishing for the less skilled player. sometimes the less skilled player can win the game through sheer numbers... how many times have you heard "wellllllllllll, it's just a number game at this point. yep, just waiting for him to tap out." why do you think there is never any incredible comebacks in sc2? because the game is too fast for that! in wc3 / brood war, you can take more damage and still have a chance to win if you have patience and superior micro. I'm not saying to slow the game down to wc3 levels, but even a slight decrease might improve the game. | ||
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Both bw and sc2 are macro focused because there is no hero unit which has top priority, building more army usually just wins you the game. Now is bw more micro focused than sc2? No i don't think so, it's rather more macro focused. Why? Because you need more input and focus to macro compared to sc2, you need to spend more time macroing. You might prefer the micro you do in bw though, that's another topic entirely | ||
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
On October 11 2018 17:38 fronkschnonk wrote: You're missing the point. A really failed proxyrax will also let you be behind but in LOTV a scouted proxy isn't automatically failed proxy anymore. Look at Maru's Games vs TY: he was mostly scouted quite early but he managed to deal damage to TY while still macroing behind his harassment. He almost always had more workers than TY after his harassment - not because of killing so much workers but because TY had to produce army units instead of workers. If you can do it and force defensive army units and get ahead, it stops being an allin and starts to be a pressure build. Like going 1 gate expand and sending over all your zealots and retaining them so they build lings instead of drones. Or that Bisu vs Flash game with the single proxy gate. That's just what a better player can do to you. | ||
Die4Ever
United States17421 Posts
On October 13 2018 04:31 SHODAN wrote: I edited my previous post to explain what I mean. is sc2 the only rts you watch / play? the player with the best micro almost always wins in wc3. the player with the best micro very often wins in brood war. the player with the best micro only sometimes wins in sc2. that's the way it is. I think players with superior micro should win more often, and slowing the game down might be a good way of doing that. if you go from playing sc2 to wc3, it seems sluggish at first... but once you get into the swing of things, your apm picks up to sc2 levels. you will be microing like crazy. every grunt has a different command, not just A-move. every unit needs babysitting. that's what I mean by squeezing more out of sc2 units. if the game is slower, it would become realistic to stim / shuffle forward 1 marine to eat a tank shot... more realistic to perform show-stopping unit control. with the current game speed, this "sick micro" unit interaction is kinda rare... even at pro korean level. it's sad because micro is the one thing that makes the crowd go crazy. easier / less punishing? I don't agree. slower game speed, more micro potential = more difficult, more punishing for the less skilled player. sometimes the less skilled player can win the game through sheer numbers... how many times have you heard "wellllllllllll, it's just a number game at this point. yep, just waiting for him to tap out." why do you think there is never any incredible comebacks in sc2? because the game is too fast for that! in wc3 / brood war, you can take more damage and still have a chance to win if you have patience and superior micro. I'm not saying to slow the game down to wc3 levels, but even a slight decrease might improve the game. I can agree with this, making the game slower means A-Move is still at the same effectiveness, but micro is able to have increased effectiveness which means it's a nerf to A-Move relative to actually microing, and that microing is buffed | ||
loft
United States344 Posts
| ||
Fedorabro69
2 Posts
| ||
inermis
352 Posts
| ||
Ej_
47656 Posts
On October 12 2018 23:40 SHODAN wrote: my point is this: Maru has reached the micro skill ceiling. we are never going to see next-level splits or next level marine shuffling on the current game speed. there is only so much fine unit movements a human can do when the game is this fast. Remember when people said it first about MarineKing and then about INnoVation? Who's the next Terran bonjwa? | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
On October 13 2018 21:39 Ej_ wrote: Remember when people said it first about MarineKing and then about INnoVation? Who's the next Terran bonjwa? no, I don't remember that. I don't remember anyone saying that MKP / INnoVation had reached the micro skill ceiling. that would be a stupid thing to say, even back in 2010. MKP and INno merely poked their heads through the clouds to see how high the ceiling goes. pretty soon, every korean terran learned how to split like MKP. pretty soon, sC and GuMiho were parade pushing with just as much finesse as INno. Maru, on the other hand... he's a different story. yes, there are some terran players who could beat him in a micro arena custom game, but there are no players who could micro as well as him during the turbulence of a real 1v1 match. are you familiar with "Maru's beautiful engagement vs Jaedong"? it is a good representation of Maru's micro ability from 2014 / 2015. I don't think Maru's raw micro ability has improved much beyond that point. why? because the game speed doesn't allow him to improve fine unit movements beyond that point. Maru has improved in many other ways... multi-tasking, game-sense, strategy, positioning... but not much in terms of micro ability. if you slowed the game down -5%, it is a whole new world of opportunity for players like Maru. there is a sweet spot for game speed I'm sure. wc3 found it. brood war found it. sc2 completely lost it. that's why 90% of code s lategame battles end up being A-move. that's why you have deathballs. the care and attention to micro individual units during big battles is often not worth the reward, so pro players use their attention on more important things. they could try to utilize more fine unit movements, but the battle would already be over. imagine a situation where Maru is fighting a maxed protoss army. on the current game speed, the most efficient use of micro apm would be to box 8 units and split them. on a -5% game speed, maybe the most efficient use of micro apm would be to box 3 or 4 units. slower game = more time devoted to finer unit movements, and this can only be a good thing! | ||
virpi
Germany3598 Posts
On October 13 2018 12:35 Fedorabro69 wrote: The game is definitely too fast for me. I just can't enjoy it at the pace it currently goes and that's why I never even bothered with LoTV. I enjoy slower gameplay that allows for more strategic thinking and less reliance on muscle memory. As it is, starcraft 2 is barely watchable without a third party observing the match. Even mid-tier Players jump their screens around and change ui menus so rapidly that it's borderline seizure inducing. Different people enjoy different things. Personally, I really love playing and watching LOTV. It is a very deep strategic game, but of course you need the ability to execute a lot of commands in a short span of time. Watching high level BW is even more seizure inducing than SC2, because players have to be even faster to keep up. | ||
Charoisaur
Germany15601 Posts
On October 13 2018 09:55 Die4Ever wrote: I can agree with this, making the game slower means A-Move is still at the same effectiveness, but micro is able to have increased effectiveness which means it's a nerf to A-Move relative to actually microing, and that microing is buffed Only that at he pro level nobody ever just amoves during a fight. | ||
Dav1oN
Ukraine3159 Posts
On October 14 2018 00:13 Charoisaur wrote: Only that at he pro level nobody ever just amoves during a fight. I'd like to add. When it comes to zerg multitask, pro actually amoves with lings on minumap, simply because no time to micro and there are dozen of things more important at the same time. Lings are too cheap to babysit them mostly. Although it's an exception. | ||
Die4Ever
United States17421 Posts
On October 14 2018 00:13 Charoisaur wrote: Only that at he pro level nobody ever just amoves during a fight. is this thread only about pro players? | ||
A.Alm
Sweden494 Posts
| ||
Achamian
82 Posts
On October 14 2018 06:32 A.Alm wrote: I think the battles are too fast. Everything dies so fast and the come-back potential is very small. We've gotten to a much better place than we were even a few years ago battle wise. Players have been fighting in multiple fronts and over different bases much more often. I think the mappool and LotV has helped quite a bit. But I agree to the basic sentiment, If the units health were doubled (and still balanced somehow), the battles would be more organic. | ||
JimmyJRaynor
Canada15524 Posts
On October 13 2018 06:29 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am no wc3 expert, but afaik wc3 is more micro focused mainly due to the hero system and them actively punishing you if you go above a certain supply. Both bw and sc2 are macro focused because there is no hero unit which has top priority, building more army usually just wins you the game. Now is bw more micro focused than sc2? No i don't think so, it's rather more macro focused. Why? Because you need more input and focus to macro compared to sc2, you need to spend more time macroing. You might prefer the micro you do in bw though, that's another topic entirely SC2 has fewer "economic household chores" to do than Brood War. In this aspect I like SC2 over Brood War. I really liked SC64's auto-mining feature. I like how little "economic chores" Red Alert 3 has. I want an economy and I want economic decisions to be an important part of the game without all the "housework chores" involved in Brood War and other RTS games of the mid 90s. | ||
DarthSidious_BR
8 Posts
| ||
Vindicare605
United States15614 Posts
On October 10 2018 13:19 halomonian wrote: The thing is, its not too fast. It is too definitive. In broodwar, it takes ages to finish off an opponent when you both go for macro games. In SC2, once the pendulum swings one way, its not coming back so easily, since you have perfect control and at the top level its rare for players to commit fuckups that would add up to costing someone the game. My simple balance idea would be to introduce the miss % from low to high ground. I would also like to see how sc2 behaves with limited unit selection and building, since managing a ton of stuff and having it go wrong constantly is one of the major comeback mechanics in BW for example SC2 has had metas where games would go on for a long time, sometimes even hours, precisely because it was difficult to finish off an opponent. People hated it. Like EVERYONE basically hated it. I'm not saying that I agree nor do I disagree with the idea that the game is too fast right now, but I'm just pointing out that LoTV is a lot more successful in both balance and overall enjoyment of gameplay than HoTS was BECAUSE the game got sped up, BECAUSE the bases mine out so much faster. We're just in an odd place in the meta currently where midgame tactics aren't favored in a couple of the match ups, so extreme early game cheese and late game macro plays are the norm. It'll level out. No one wants to see every game be a 5 minute cheese fest, just like no one likes to see tournament be delayed indefinitely because a single Bo3 is taking 3 hours. | ||
Vindicare605
United States15614 Posts
On October 14 2018 14:25 DarthSidious_BR wrote: i think the topic has some key issue: i always been around the website, not much of posting, but this... i truly believe within the fact that broodwars(and warcraft III aoe2 also) is only what he IS (they) because of the game-paced also. sc2 its almost timming and macroing, and i think the speed applied to the game is insane, i mean, like someone post here said that within 12minutes we have 6 bases been controling and the battles lasts 6 seconds? wtf? which space i would have to micro and enjoy the whole battle, like boxer did in 2002 and hauted the whole esports generation? If you're losing a game in 6 seconds it's your own fault. It means you either didn't see a blind side attack coming, or you overcommitted your entire army into a slaughter. SC2 as it is right now is played best with many skirmishes and many battles occuring all over the map. It's a low level way to play to just have 2 armies meet in the middle and be decisively over at that point, very few pro games end like that. | ||
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On October 14 2018 14:47 Vindicare605 wrote: I'm not saying that I agree nor do I disagree with the idea that the game is too fast right now, but I'm just pointing out that LoTV is a lot more successful in both balance and overall enjoyment of gameplay than HoTS was BECAUSE the game got sped up, BECAUSE the bases mine out so much faster. Oh, I do like the fact that bases mine out faster. I would also like if expanding more with fewer worker per base gave you an edge (I was proposing some mods to achieve just that in the past). But in LotV this is not the only change. You also tech up faster, get your army faster, etc... I would prefer if the overall income and unit speed (maybe also dps) was toned down just a bit. I would like to see more positional play and more low and mid-tier skirmishes. I would like to see teching up to be a bigger decision, with a bigger impact and a bigger risk involved. | ||
nanaoei
3358 Posts
you'll see very quickly players--unless they are training to become the very best--adapt themselves to play at the slower speed, rather than to increase the effectiveness of their skills on faster. in other words, they become lazy and take the relative ease for granted. you should know that in all walks of life, people are like this. a slower speed allows for multitasking with lesser skill rather than to directly expand upon it. believe it or not if you trained enough you could control the hellion runby with reaper, and the banshee harass, while adding 2 rax and expo+depots+workers+engi bays, all to the degree that you wish and without missing an essential beat. because most people will never do this, it's assumed the strategy or overall maneuver is overall bad (until proven otherwise in televised games) or the game is too fast to allow you to do it adeptly. when does the player take direct responsibility for something like that? because it's easier than you think. no skill is obtained by stumbling into it. you could organically achieve something close by keeping an open mind and practicing the motions, but until you work at it, why is it the game's flaw and not your own? why is it not worth your time to change how you essentially play, for the better? because all it takes is an integer switch to completely alter your view on something, or to make it more enjoyable, more easy for you? maybe the game is much harder than it needs to be and focuses less on the nature of strategy than you would like. but the game is fast and you can also play fast. there are so many opportunities where you make mistakes and easily make up for them by focusing on the strategy aspect of the game. so many of these situations occur during a game and you probably don't even notice or give that credit. a huge problem with starcraft communities at the beginning was that they were so focused on discussing the nitty gritty of why balance is so bad currently, instead of figuring out how to play it out. in other words, complaining more than just playing and understanding that a few little opinions voiced on a forum isn't going to change a single thing with how you'll play tomorrow. when all it really came down to--and the only thing you can truly depend on happening--is using your head. practice. | ||
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On October 14 2018 19:11 nanaoei wrote: play your games in fast speed as opposed to faster. you'll see very quickly players--unless they are training to become the very best--adapt themselves to play at the slower speed, rather than to increase the effectiveness of their skills on faster. in other words, they become lazy and take the relative ease for granted. you should know that in all walks of life, people are like this. a slower speed allows for multitasking with lesser skill rather than to directly expand upon it. believe it or not if you trained enough you could control the hellion runby with reaper, and the banshee harass, while adding 2 rax and expo+depots+workers+engi bays, all to the degree that you wish and without missing an essential beat. because most people will never do this, it's assumed the strategy or overall maneuver is overall bad (until proven otherwise in televised games) or the game is too fast to allow you to do it adeptly. when does the player take direct responsibility for something like that? because it's easier than you think. no skill is obtained by stumbling into it. you could organically achieve something close by keeping an open mind and practicing the motions, but until you work at it, why is it the game's flaw and not your own? why is it not worth your time to change how you essentially play, for the better? because all it takes is an integer switch to completely alter your view on something, or to make it more enjoyable, more easy for you? maybe the game is much harder than it needs to be and focuses less on the nature of strategy than you would like. but the game is fast and you can also play fast. there are so many opportunities where you make mistakes and easily make up for them by focusing on the strategy aspect of the game. so many of these situations occur during a game and you probably don't even notice or give that credit. a huge problem with starcraft communities at the beginning was that they were so focused on discussing the nitty gritty of why balance is so bad currently, instead of figuring out how to play it out. in other words, complaining more than just playing and understanding that a few little opinions voiced on a forum isn't going to change a single thing with how you'll play tomorrow. when all it really came down to--and the only thing you can truly depend on happening--is using your head. practice. While a lot of what you are saying is reasonable, it isn't quite true. Any player that make a living of playing well will not get lazy. The professionals will not lower their APM because the speed of the game slows down. You said this as well. Average Joe would initially enjoy the slower speed, but will also aim to win. This will also keep the APM of average Joe up. This is opposed to what you said. The only players that will play lazily are the ones who find joy in the game without the need to win. I believe they are a minority. They will ahppily accept the lower game speed. This agrees with what you said. The vast majority of the players will still keep their APM and play quickly with the reduced game speed. Regarding your other point, the possibility to improve, I can say that I am physically inhibited from playing faster. My body is unable to use movements that are distinct enough while being faster. I have tried improving for about 15 years, playing different games. The only improvement is my understanding and what my priorities are. This limitation has nothing to do with me using my off hand, since I'm ambidextrious. I have no neurological issues. I am an average human. I am playing in platinum league, the "above average league", and I often face diamond players. I would very much like to be able to do more multitasking, but the game is too fast for me. If the game were to be slower on ladder, I would find more joy in playing the ladder. I assume that I am not alone in this. | ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
On October 14 2018 20:30 Drfilip wrote: While a lot of what you are saying is reasonable, it isn't quite true. Any player that make a living of playing well will not get lazy. The professionals will not lower their APM because the speed of the game slows down. You said this as well. Average Joe would initially enjoy the slower speed, but will also aim to win. This will also keep the APM of average Joe up. This is opposed to what you said. The only players that will play lazily are the ones who find joy in the game without the need to win. I believe they are a minority. They will ahppily accept the lower game speed. This agrees with what you said. The vast majority of the players will still keep their APM and play quickly with the reduced game speed. Regarding your other point, the possibility to improve, I can say that I am physically inhibited from playing faster. My body is unable to use movements that are distinct enough while being faster. I have tried improving for about 15 years, playing different games. The only improvement is my understanding and what my priorities are. This limitation has nothing to do with me using my off hand, since I'm ambidextrious. I have no neurological issues. I am an average human. I am playing in platinum league, the "above average league", and I often face diamond players. I would very much like to be able to do more multitasking, but the game is too fast for me. If the game were to be slower on ladder, I would find more joy in playing the ladder. I assume that I am not alone in this. I'm almost certain that if you really wanted to you could bring up your apm, from the time I started playing this game at 90 apm I have improved to playing around 220 apm in the past from playing more and focusing more on it I've gotten as high as 245. It's not really a question of can you get faster but if you have the time to comit to becoming faster. I started playing the game when I was a highschool student and could spend time in my summer breack grinding out games, now that I'm much older and have had things like college and work I can't commit the same kind of time any more but I still am able to squeeze out improvement in my play by watching replays seeing at what points in my games my multitasking faltered and pushing myself to play better at those specific times. Improvement is not beyond any one it just a question of how much you can or will put into the game to get that improvement. I dropped the game awhile back and only started playing agian about 2 months ago during that time I brought my apm up from 180 to 220 from practice and replay analysis. I believe any one could do the same if they want to put in the work. | ||
Fedorabro69
2 Posts
On October 14 2018 00:03 virpi wrote: Different people enjoy different things. Personally, I really love playing and watching LOTV. It is a very deep strategic game, but of course you need the ability to execute a lot of commands in a short span of time. Watching high level BW is even more seizure inducing than SC2, because players have to be even faster to keep up. Oh don't get me wrong. I think that the fast pace of the game is great for spectating. I just can't stand playing it this way. It's way too fast for me. I did consider trying to make a custom map geared towards slow paced gameplay but balancing things is a lot harder than it looks. A lot of things would have to be re-designed or tweaked to make the concept into an actually fun, playable game. I never got around to it. | ||
Kaz1
35 Posts
I do not play regularly enough any more to know the maps by heart. I feel like I have no time to even look around the map before my attention is required to not bork the beginning. The later stages of the game are fine in speed. This hasn't changed much in a long time. I played broodwar, and both previous iterations of SC2. I have played like 50 games total of LotV simply due to the worker change. The enjoyment of starcraft, in particular, was that you start from virtually nothing, and built up to very high degrees of complexity in decision making and execution. Now you start with a fire under your ass, with no time to consider anything. It feels like there is virtually no early to mid game at all. You get a cannon rush or a 12 pool now and then, but they are much more manageable with less scouting. Scouting seems to mainly be for what the brief midgame will be. But still, there seems to be much less variance over time of what is sucessful (that is probably just me). This is the 3rd? total rebalance, and they have done virtually nothing with the economy. Just farted around with whether or not the mineral stacks are the same size to force more expansion, or to slightly mediate it. It is simply not enjoyable to me. | ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
On October 15 2018 03:46 Kaz1 wrote: The change in the starting worker count made the beginning extremely uncomfortable to play. I do not play regularly enough any more to know the maps by heart. I feel like I have no time to even look around the map before my attention is required to not bork the beginning. The later stages of the game are fine in speed. This hasn't changed much in a long time. I played broodwar, and both previous iterations of SC2. I have played like 50 games total of LotV simply due to the worker change. The enjoyment of starcraft, in particular, was that you start from virtually nothing, and built up to very high degrees of complexity in decision making and execution. Now you start with a fire under your ass, with no time to consider anything. It feels like there is virtually no early to mid game at all. You get a cannon rush or a 12 pool now and then, but they are much more manageable with less scouting. Scouting seems to mainly be for what the brief midgame will be. But still, there seems to be much less variance over time of what is sucessful (that is probably just me). This is the 3rd? total rebalance, and they have done virtually nothing with the economy. Just farted around with whether or not the mineral stacks are the same size to force more expansion, or to slightly mediate it. It is simply not enjoyable to me. It's at least not my experience that games are to samey with little variety when i get on ladder i see a huge range of builds being used. Allot more than several periods back in hots. I see a huge variety in proxy builds out of terran and them playing both mech and bio in tvt and tvz. I see protoss experimenting with allot of different mid game compositions in tvp and pvp and different opening builds in pvz. I guess zerg tends to have a little less variation but I think allot of that has to do with the queen being such a catch all unit that most macro games tend to leave zerg with a similar kind of setup just more or less developed depending on what kind of dmg there opponent did. Still I see alot of variety in zerg cheese, and alot of variety in zvz right now. I do also see some zergs going for mutas instead of hydra in tvz and even a few experimenting with lurkers. At least in low masters right now the game has a good deal of variety where alot of different styles of play are seeing at least moderate use. Its nothing like eras of the game where we saw match ups that all looked the same, like tvp blink era, bl infestor era, mmm vs ling bane era (although I loved this era any way due to the mechanical skill required out of both terran and zerg.) I do think that zerg might feel a bit samey but zerg has other things about the way they play that at least for me keep them interesting despite low build diversity, primarily how every game is a bit different because you are the reactionary player and your play is dictated by what your opponent does. | ||
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10089 Posts
It sounds like they're saying that early game transitions to midgame, and then to lategame too quickly? (Each phase is shorter than it used to be?) I would disagree with that if true. Early game is bigger than ever, minus the arbitrary -90 seconds removed at the beginning thanks to the worker change. Early game is a big deal and is very exciting and involves a lot of creativity and variety compared to back then. Thanks to the micro that you can do with early game units, there are a lot of ways it can turn out, and mid game is entered in very different ways compared to WoL/HotS style where you just macro up to 3 bases before fighting. There is also less ways to be BO countered and instant lose early game. Mid game definitely CAN enter pretty quickly if nothing happens much early game and players decide to macro, but that's fine. We're not seeing that as the dominant way games are played, and when it does happen, it is fine to have some variance. If both players want to macro fast, they'll get to 3 bases fast. Now, mid game is usually the rest of the game... unless if someone wins. Games end during early game or during early of mid game much more than back then, again thanks to all the stuff you can do early game now to get an advantage instead of just 10 minute no rush. I think players generally like the midgame anyway as it is a comfortable spot to be in, so it's fine to be the longest phase of a game (as long as no one loses before that I mean). Now TRUE late game happens very rarely. Several bases, armies are easily at max with enough mining to get a bank, transitioning to very high tier units. I think this is actually great, lategame should be intense and rare. The pacing of the game is almost perfect IMO. Many games end early game or mid game, very few games reach late game. | ||
VHbb
688 Posts
On October 15 2018 03:46 Kaz1 wrote: The change in the starting worker count made the beginning extremely uncomfortable to play. I do not play regularly enough any more to know the maps by heart. I feel like I have no time to even look around the map before my attention is required to not bork the beginning. The later stages of the game are fine in speed. This hasn't changed much in a long time. I played broodwar, and both previous iterations of SC2. I have played like 50 games total of LotV simply due to the worker change. The enjoyment of starcraft, in particular, was that you start from virtually nothing, and built up to very high degrees of complexity in decision making and execution. Now you start with a fire under your ass, with no time to consider anything. It feels like there is virtually no early to mid game at all. You get a cannon rush or a 12 pool now and then, but they are much more manageable with less scouting. Scouting seems to mainly be for what the brief midgame will be. But still, there seems to be much less variance over time of what is sucessful (that is probably just me). This is the 3rd? total rebalance, and they have done virtually nothing with the economy. Just farted around with whether or not the mineral stacks are the same size to force more expansion, or to slightly mediate it. It is simply not enjoyable to me. This was a problem for me when getting back to sc2 again some months ago, but honestly it's enough to quickly look at the maps offline before starting the game to avoid the issue. In my personal experience, game speed and pace are just right as they are in lotv, I prefer to have the game getting to its core more rapidly without having to go through the same first 1-2-3min every time (personal preference ofc). | ||
Malinor
Germany4700 Posts
Aside from that, what has always been my biggest "regret" with SC2: Any tournament has a huge amount of maps and games played. And despite that there are a lot of nuances to strategy, most games are over pretty fast and look very similar to each other. What I am trying to say: To this very day, I easily remember 30 different BroodWar games very distinctively, because they were unique, crazy or just amazing. And these games have been played a decade ago. SC2 games on the other hand are just not very memorable to me... there is game after game after game, with little to no breaks in between and most do not last very long (despite reaching late game). If I tried really hard, I would probably remember 5 SC2 games as vividly as I do BroodWar games. BroodWar had less maps, less games, and much deeper preparation for certain occasions. In SC2, players have to prepare a Bo7 with 7 different maps, when their last Bo5/Bo7 was maybe 5 days earlier. I do not expect that most people share my point of view, but this is how I always felt about the two games and what I missed most about SC2, despite really liking the game. This has, in my mind, also to do with speed (and frequency). | ||
iopq
United States716 Posts
In AoE2 you can't both tech and make workers from the same hall. Teching is extremely expensive and it's hard to hold off a strong tier 2 pressure if you're trying to fast tech to tier 3. Games are often won at tier 2 by a strong flush. In SC2 everyone just jumps up to 65+ workers immediately and gets units and techs and everything all at the same time. | ||
Veriol
Czech Republic502 Posts
Used to be GM/high masters player in WoL and HotS and stopped playing with LotV. Recently we had "oldschool" tournament where we played mainly LotV and some WoL/HotS. I hopped onto ladder for a week or two got back into mid-high-ish master. The game didn't feel too fast then - all the choices and scouting I didn't do I just disregarded as I'm way too bad to understand right now so why bother. In the tournament when I had the opportunity to compare game to game from WoL or HotS to LotV the pace seemed insanely fast. But in a way where all the decisons and scouting I could do in WoL/HotS is basically not relevant in LotV. In the older expansions stuff like how much gas opponent mined, what exact timing is this building, faking out gases, how much immortals does immortal allin have all that mattered. All that you had TIME to think about and scout that properly and react properly. Now the game feels so fast you just zoomzoom trough everything because you just get so much shit so fast it ultimately (to certain degree) doesn't matter what you scout or decide to do. All that matters is get as much stuff as possible as soon as possible. In older expansions I did know exact timings on so many things and what it ment. In the "new one" I feel like I know couple of general timings and thats all rest is just "zoom-zoom, macro up, dont stop" | ||
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
It gives you more money, but the building time is still the same. So, unlike in HotS and WoL, if you focus on tech, you still have a surplus of money to spend in other areas. This makes the game less diversive. You just do everything fast, with the build/construction times being a bigger bottleneck than the money itself. I wonder how the game would play if the cost of all buildings and research was increased by, say, 50%. I would expect more low-tier army fights with a meaningful tech choices rather than get-everything approach. | ||
| ||