Starcraft - Yay or Nay

[DampCat]

Because you haven't played it properly.

No offence intended, but starcraft is the national sport of an entire country for a reason. Youtube the world championship games and see for yourself.

Game winning strategy comes down to ludicrously pedantic variables such as "when you spend the first 50 minerals" or "build a pylon before or after the 7th probe". High ranking players never build a mass force of one unit or even two, it comes down to strategically placed groups of units all containing a specific strategy of their own.

Macro movements are adopted to ensure longevity of a units life, because in those games even 1 less hit recieved can turn the game around. moving individual units round corners or behind bunkers or placing a turret in the right place to make the path of the enemy longer, thus increasing it's exposure to your units.

Build unit, click attack, select other side of map is the lowest form of gameplay possible in SC, and its not fun.

Heres the World Championship final of SC in 2009

Game starts at 7:00 but you need to appreicate the awesome 80's theme tune.
Ofc this isnt SC2, but there havent been any world championships yet.
Example of micromanagement: Entire game given away because he moved his zerglings too far left.

 

[Gashman]

Isnt that the point... you build another unit to counter the rush, or place your units in such a way that only one of theirs can attack one of yours at a time.... use the terrain..

wasn't implying i had trouble dealing with pesky rush tactics, quite the opposite, years of playing the original i guess. its just the fact that thats all anyone ever does being the point, sure its a legit tactic and works a lot of the time, but man does it make for a boring multiplayer. doesn't scratch supreme commander on multiplayer, since the maps can be so enormous rushing doesn't really work said this in a lot of threads, i think RTS developers need to come up with more ways for the tactical minded player to play, rather than the mad-rusher. but currently on the market there aren't many games that offer you of that. the last game i played like that was probably BOTF, but it was too small scale to really work and the game mechanics were crap...

 

[sniffy]

£35 for pc or console = no.

That's a night out on the town at best. SC2 is well worth £35.

 

[rebel28]

wasn't implying i had trouble dealing with pesky rush tactics, quite the opposite, years of playing the original i guess. its just the fact that thats all anyone ever does being the point, sure its a legit tactic and works a lot of the time, but man does it make for a boring multiplayer...

I've actually noticed from beta to launch that a lot of the "new" players don't want rush matches, but will try to rush because they have had such a hammering from rush players. Try to scout your opponents and see if they are going for a rush, and always worth a shot a saying "No rush?" to all

 

[Rimsy]

No offence intended, but starcraft is the national sport of an entire country for a reason.

....

Heres the World Championship final of SC in 2009

Game starts at 7:00 but you need to appreicate the awesome 80's theme tune.
Ofc this isnt SC2, but there havent been any world championships yet.
Example of micromanagement: Entire game given away because he moved his zerglings too far left.

Yet he still won ...not that you'd notice by looking at either of them at the end of the video. Looked more like a competition in who could look as disengaged and emotionless as possible, which arguably may have been more entertaining to watch than that 23 minutes of tedium.

 

[Strife212]

How is battle.net

Awesome, can't compare it to the crapfest of iw.net

 

[rebel28]

Battle.net is great, it will remember your campaign progress so if you log in from a different location you can continue your campaign. The match making for online play seems to get it fairly good match ups aswell. Just home from work about to dive into a few games now

 

[just Scott]

Yet he still won ...not that you'd notice by looking at either of them at the end of the video. Looked more like a competition in who could look as disengaged and emotionless as possible, which arguably may have been more entertaining to watch than that 23 minutes of tedium.

It was the first game of a series. Nobody won the tournament after that match so why would they look pleased or disappointed? Winning the first game in a series doesn't mean much.

 

[Indie]

wasn't implying i had trouble dealing with pesky rush tactics, quite the opposite, years of playing the original i guess. its just the fact that thats all anyone ever does being the point, sure its a legit tactic and works a lot of the time, but man does it make for a boring multiplayer. doesn't scratch supreme commander on multiplayer, since the maps can be so enormous rushing doesn't really work said this in a lot of threads, i think RTS developers need to come up with more ways for the tactical minded player to play, rather than the mad-rusher. but currently on the market there aren't many games that offer you of that. the last game i played like that was probably BOTF, but it was too small scale to really work and the game mechanics were crap...

What league are you playing in? i very rarely see a rush in platinum.

 

[The Running Man]

It was the first game of a series. Nobody won the tournament after that match so why would they look pleased or disappointed? Winning the first game in a series doesn't mean much.

watch tennis, when someone wins a game (even if its the first game of a 5 set match) im sure they will show some form of pleasure.?

Because you haven't played it properly.

if the game is well designed and balanced then there wont be a way to play 'properly' you simply play. if you can do a base rush and the online segment turns into base rush fest it means that base rushes are overpowered or that there is something flawed in the early game concept..

for example to stop people from getting into your base in COH you start the game with 2 base defences already in position (to cover 2 exits) thats not to say that by the 10,min mark they cant build tanks or something to enter your base with but it renders a 2 minute base rush completely unfeasible.

or you could spend 25munitions and lay a mine on the entrance so anyone who tries to get in some how takes that much damage they have to retreat or face certain extermination

but then the game is not necessarily based around base extermination but control of the outer field the resources points and ultimately the VPs - this dynamic forces you well outside of your base, and ensures skirmishes in the middle or sides of the map as all of the resources are spread around - so the better you play, the more you force your opponent back towards his base, the more resources you will be gaining

SC2 to me seems that top begin with both teams have enough resource right next to their base so they dont have to fight over it and can literally build a blob without ever skirmishing before in the game and then try to walk into your opponent base:/

What league are you playing in? i very rarely see a rush in platinum.

probably because a base rush is risky, you either win in 5 minutes or you lose. theres no emotional or mental investment into what is going on, or trying to build up VET on your inf - keep them alive - improve them - take on more next time?

i note that SC2 avoids veterency as i say above, reducing the want to keep a unit alive or even necessitating that a unit stays alive?

 

[Kazz]

Only had around 2 hours on a trial key, but I'm pleased with what Blizz have put together. It doesn't try to redefine the RTS genre and fall flat on its face (C&C4 etc), but takes the good old base building formula and polishes it to hell.

However the £35 price tag (£45 from Battle.net) is a little over the top for me personally. I very rarely buy games at their full RRP and as good as this is so far, I'll be waiting for it to drop a little.

 

[Borrish]

I don't get why people who play RTS games are often so against rushing. It's part of the genre and it always will be. RTS games generally aren't very fun without it. I don't know what else you expect people to do. Rushing requires more thought and planning then sitting in your base building an army anyway.

In every RTS game ever made there's always people that will build masses of 1 unit. It's no more of a good idea in StarCraft 2 then any other game. Play someone decent and see what happens when you just build marines.

I know SC2 isn't perfect but it seems that most of the "faults" you're coming up with are just because you're not very good. Unit preservation is just as important as it is in games with Veterency. Again you just don't see the need because newer players don't do this.

If SC2 has any faults it's that it almost has too much depth which makes it ludicrously hard to learn.

 

[The Running Man]

I know SC2 isn't perfect but it seems that most of the "faults" you're coming up with are just because you're not very good. Unit preservation is just as important as it is in games with Veterency. Again you just don't see the need because newer players don't do this.

it cannot be though can it? you dont have to work as hard to prioritise teams, or squads unless they gain from making that kill which may enable them to be more useful at a later stage in the game when higher tier units are on the field.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

Isn't there already a Starcraft 2 discussion thread?

edit: and didn't we already kick you out nickg

 

[just Scott]

it cannot be though can it? you dont have to work as hard to prioritise teams, or squads unless they gain from making that kill which may enable them to be more useful at a later stage in the game when higher tier units are on the field.

That would be overpowered as hell. Zerg units get taken out in large numbers so fast, doing something like this would just buff terran and protoss so much. Then imagine when a colossus gets on the field and roasts 50 zerglings. It would be unstoppable if that unit got any sort of buff.

I wish you would stop cherry picking mechanics from completely different games and saying Starcraft is bad because it doesn't have them. They clearly don't work for Starcraft.

 

[The Running Man]

That would be overpowered as hell. Zerg units get taken out in large numbers so fast, doing something like this would just buff terran and protoss so much. Then imagine when a colossus gets on the field and roasts 50 zerglings. It would be unstoppable if that unit got any sort of buff.

they dont work because of your nonsensical view on how you would implement them

what if they got less XP for instance from killing zerglings and infact needed to kill 50 just to get to vet 1? what if the unit started with a little less HP or a higher incoming accuracy bonus until it got to vet1? as an example.

where did i say it was bad? i said it is good at what it does but wont have the same tactical or emotional grip that something else that rewards good play by something like veterency...perhaps if you understood these dynamics a bit better you would realise they could benefit the SC series with a bit of work?

i hate these fanbois/

 

[just Scott]

It would need a whole new system of balance to make it work properly. Blizzard already have enough on their plates balancing the game in its current form. Besides, this exact thing came up on team liquid forums and most of the pros agreed it would not be a good idea.

 

[CaptainRAVE]

I wish you would stop cherry picking mechanics from completely different games and saying Starcraft is bad because it doesn't have them. They clearly don't work for Starcraft.

He is a COH fanboy. Cherry picks the worst bits of SC2 and the best bits of COH. Why else would he enter a SC2 thread and start bashing it?

 

[The Running Man]

yes it add a whole new layer of complexity - fancy that! making a game more complicated to play>!

yes its harder to balance - yes it adds more skill and technique...

ill give u an example (from COH) US riflemen, probably have to kill 5-10 volks before getting to vet1. at vet1 they get increased accuracy, lower recieved incoming accuracy....if they kill another load, they get to vet2 which does a bit more of the same PLUS it allows them to throw a sticky bomb further (you know last minute anti tank fending off ability) which is great because otherwise once vehicles hit the field, those vet0 rifles will be pretty useless as they cannot throw very far and thus will get kited by a micro intensive wehr player and picked apart.

however should a vet0 rifles get lucky enough to get a sticky off and it is the last to kill a Panther, those rifles would almost instantly jump to Vet2 because a panther is worth more than killing 5-10 volks and then become more useful themselves in the near future....?

 

[The Running Man]

He is a COH fanboy. Cherry picks the worst bits of SC2 and the best bits of COH. Why else would he enter a SC2 thread and start bashing it?

is that not what you would do to make a perfect game? take the best bits from one, get rid of the worst bits from another?

that he misquoted me, when i said SC2 is good i dont know but it certainly doesnt make me a fanboy.

do you not want better games?