Incline Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm

[zerotol]

And you think most people playing SC2 today have actually ever tried those classics? Even if someone is all burned out on those 2 games by now, that should be no reason to reach for bottom of the barrel RTS's like SC2, there's a ton of good games out there.

You are as big a moron like the people that say SC2 single player is great. Sure SC2 MP has its flaws but calling it bottom of the barrel..

 

[pan]

Banal, zerotol. It's called exaggeration; a fact that everyone's already aware of and in no need of having pointed out. This is the RPG Codex, for God's sake man! Not some equal opportunity dictatorship like the Watch.

How is it a "turd" exactly?

The reasons are quite too numerous and complicated to list and elaborate on, plus they have already been discussed to length, so there is no need humour you on the subject of faults that everyone's already aware of.

Rather than rant on your terms, I shall rant on mine. For, you see, there is a match I recently watched, as it came recommended in that other SC2 thread (speaking of which, why are there two threads? Ban the sapien who created this one for redundancy and merge them!) which demonstrates a major aspect of SC2's shittyness, one which has given me a momentary urge on which to rant upon. The match in question is this one, for reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VCL-xdAWvA

StarCraft, to begin with, was a game without super units, for the most part. Protoss had a few units which approached super unit status, carrier, archon, reaver -- unit's which were all-around more powerful than basic units, zealots and dragoons, and which, if allowed to max out upon, could grant their owner an automatic victory over a foe wielding non-super units -- but those units were prohibitive to acquire and not often seen in pro matches, or even amateur matches. On the other hand, as the replay above demonstrates, super units in SC2 are much more prolific. Late game unit compositions in SC2 simply obsolete early game ones. Where in Brood War you would see the same army archetypes all throughout the match, simply supplemented by high tech specialists as the game progressed, in SC2 you find that the difference between an early game army and a late game army so drastic that the two are nearly unrelated. A SC2 Terran player, Flash, opens with marines, marauders and medivacs, then progresses into fielding huge amounts of ghosts and battlecruisers by the end game; while his Protoss counterpart, Life, opens with a zealot, high templar mix, supplemented by a hodge podge of stalkers, immortals, and sentries, before progressing into an army consisting of colossus, tempests, high templar and stalkers by the end of the game. Zerg players, while obviously not demonstrated in the above match, are similar in that by the end game they will want to field an army consisting entirely of some combination of queens, ultralisks, infestors, brood lords and corruptors, while leaving their early tier units in the dust.

Essentially, in StarCraft 2 the late game is dominated by super units, which are obnoxious to watch (owing in no small part to the lack of micro required to operate them, see how the final confrontation in the above game is one in which minimal micro takes place) and imbalanced to boot. Imbalanced, I say, but I am no whiner. Rather, it is not purely my opinion on the matter that the game is imbalanced, but a well known fact. It is widely acknowledged that Terran has a strong early game while Protoss has a strong late game in the TvP match-up and while I'm not currently aware of the situations with the ZvT and ZvP match-ups, I do know that previously Zerg was regarded as having a weak opening and strong late game in both, and that currently that state may have been reversed in the ZvP match-up in particular (owing to the new found strength of void rays). So, playing SC2, one will find that, unless he is playing a mirror match-up, the onus will be on him to either win in the early game or survive into the late game depending on the match-up, unless he's willing to play at a significant disadvantage. As if it wasn't obvious, a consequence of this dynamic is that it creates uninteresting games in which one player often steam rolls the other due to his race's supremacy during the particular stage the game is in. Note how the game featured above consists of Flash gaining an early advantage, but being unable to defeat his opponent outright and, in the end, succumbing to the imbalanced late game which I speak of and was simply crushed by an invincible Protoss death ball in a simplistic battle with little micro.
Banal. Shit. Boring./edgy closure.

The only matchup that features extensive air vs air is ZvZ and that is only a couple months old. You have hardly seen the game, much less know it, and already proclaim it the "bottom of the barrel". Try to get those KKKredits somewhere else.

And what of the game which I just now posted, were the battle cruisers, vikings and tempests simply a fluke, not often seen? I think not. I have watched quite a few replays (my dirty secret) and I often see extensive use of air units, on both sides, in ZvP as well as less extensive, but still notable usage of air in ZvT and now here in this late game TvP in which Tempests and Battlecruisers reduced the game to matter of attack moving (after all, when slow-moving air units (of which there are many -- tempest, carrier, BC, brood lord) are in play what else is there to do but attack and cast spells, for they are too slow to make retreat an option yet possess the range and power to force faster units to engage them). No, sir, you are wrong, air in SC2 is extensive, far more extensive than it was in Brood War. And not only is it more prevalent, the sorts of air units that you find in SC2 are far less mobile and far more potent in straight up battles that they are not only more common but less interesting as well.

 

[Malakal]

You are blind if you think that "super" units dominate games consistently in SC2.

Speedlings are used all game long, so are marauders and marines with medivacs. Mutas are the most op zerg unit and they can hardly be considered super units, protoss use stalkers.

I have been watching a lot of pro games lately and you know what unit is truly op? Reapers. They can win you a game by 8 min mark. You cant just mass tempest or carriers because then a smart player will just drop into your worker line and kill them all - both of those units, as all super units, are SLOW. And mobility is king.

Actually I dont know what bullshit you saw but battlecruisers and carriers are used so rarely they may as well not exist.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Pan, how can you write long ass texts like this without knowing jack shit about the subject you're talking about? Like, jesus christ. It's so pointless

The reasons are quite too numerous and complicated to list and elaborate on, plus they have already been discussed to length, so there is no need humour you on the subject of faults that everyone's already aware of.

Sorry, that's too cheap. I could tell you why you're wrong but I won't because everyone knows it already




Oh wait that's not how it works now is it?


Ok, first of all: The "super units" are as powerful in SC2 as in SCBW. Archons are the same as they always were, same with HTs, Carriers are similarly strong in numbers though worse from a meta standpoint. And the Colo is as super as the reaver is. As for the claim that these units " if allowed to max out upon, could grant their owner an automatic victory over a foe wielding non-super units" - that's bullshit. You needed to protect your reavers or they died to simple lings.

As for late gam compositions "simply obsoletes early ones" - welcome to the world of RTS. Teching is one of the main points. If late game compositions werent better than early ones there would be no point in investing in tech to get them.

Where in Brood War you would see the same army archetypes all throughout the match, simply supplemented by high tech specialists as the game progressed, in SC2 you find that the difference between an early game army and a late game army so drastic that the two are nearly unrelated. A SC2 Terran player, Flash, opens with marines, marauders and medivacs, then progresses into fielding huge amounts of ghosts and battlecruisers by the end game

Yeah, not believing that crap you claimed about having seen many SC2 matches. I have seen well over a hundred, probably closer to two or three hundred, and I have only once seen battlecruisers in a game. Marine marauder medivacs are used constantly, tho supplemented by ghosts. In short we have a basic composition supplemented by specialists. This is what happens in 90% of terran games so neger bitte, don't be dissing SC2 for doing exactly what you claim to want it to do.

As if it wasn't obvious, a consequence of this dynamic is that it creates uninteresting games in which one player often steam rolls the other due to his race's supremacy during the particular stage the game is in.

Funny then that you see every race winning at every stage of the game. Your statement is simply false. Just watch a fucking tournament to check it out.

And what of the game which I just now posted, were the battle cruisers, vikings and tempests simply a fluke, not often seen?

Short answer: Outside of vikings, yes.

 

[pan]

I'm sorry, but neither of you know what you are talking about. Both of you failed to comprehend my post, even though it went to length to stay unambiguous. Herostratus, you in particular have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what you are talking about. I will point out several examples for your benefit.

" if allowed to max out upon, could grant their owner an automatic victory over a foe wielding non-super units" - that's bullshit. You needed to protect your reavers or they died to simple lings.

A maxed out army of archons and reavers, or even just reavers, cannot die to lings. That should be obvious if you take a moment to think about it.

As for late gam compositions "simply obsoletes early ones" - welcome to the world of RTS. Teching is one of the main points. If late game compositions werent better than early ones there would be no point in investing in tech to get them.

This is not true for Brood War. I have already spoken of this in my previous post, but I will mention it again as you failed to comprehend it. In SC2 it is favourable and entirely possible for Zerg and Protoss players to build armies consisting purely of a combination of brood lords, ultralisks, infestors, and queens for Zerg and void rays, high templar, colossus, tempests, and stalkers as Protoss. This was not true for Brood War, nearly all early game units in Brood War continued to be preferable all throughout the game. Late game units did not replace early game units, they simply served utility roles. Again, as I mentioned, late game armies in Brood War were very similar to early game armies, they usually only diverged in that late game armies had a few high tech supporting units such as science vessels, arbiters, high templar and defilers mixed in with them, where as early game armies tended to consist purely of combat units.

So, you can see, the late game in SC2 is quite different from the late game in Brood War in this regard. This is a bad thing for reasons I mentioned in my previous post, which you would have understood had you taken a moment to think about it, rather than mindlessly disagree like some twerp in a console war.

 

[Johannes]

Well I can't really analyze too much on its faults since I have not extensively played the game, just tried for an evening or two.

When I look at SC2 battles they just are not exciting at all... Big clumps of air units just clashing at each other and hoping to have superior numbers is really the worst offender -

The only matchup that features extensive air vs air is ZvZ and that is only a couple months old. You have hardly seen the game, much less know it, and already proclaim it the "bottom of the barrel". Try to get those KKKredits somewhere else.

If it looks bad, feels bad and smells bad, why should I waste more time with it? Good RTS's tend to grab me straight away, where SC2 annoyed me on several fronts. Or you think it'd grow on me, if I'd play it more? Oh and I'd have to pay to do that, really why would I buy this game or recommend it to anyone when there's actual good shit available.


And answer me: when compared to SCBW, in what ways is the sequel better, beyond graphics and UI to some extent?

 

[cvv]

Cue the Benny Hill tune.

 

[wergle]

There is one reason for buying Hots: It's the only hardcore multiplayer RTS on the market.

Plenty of people still play, and will kick your ass at, SupCom:FA.

EDIT: But I guess you can't argue about the metagame of SupCom on forums because it doesn't involve units hard countering each other repeatedly on flat terrain so it's clearly not a hardcore enough RTS

 

[Brotherman Bill]

If it looks bad, feels bad and smells bad, why should I waste more time with it?

All of these things are subjective, if you feel that way I can't really tell you to force yourself to play it. But when claiming it's a turd, that it's the bottom of the barrel, and so on, you have to justify it further than "sux, gtfo"

And answer me: when compared to SCBW, in what ways is the sequel better, beyond graphics and UI to some extent

I don't know, I never played BW beyond the campaign and once or twice with friends. But this is all a derail, because the claim was that SC2 was shit, "bottom of the barrel", not that it was worse or better than BW. It is certainly possible for a game to be good in spite of being worse than SCBW.

I'm sorry, but neither of you know what you are talking about. Both of you failed to comprehend my post, even though it went to length to stay unambiguous. Herostratus, you in particular have demonstrated a lack of understanding of what you are talking about. I will point out several examples for your benefit.

You are not particularly unambiguous, mostly because you know jack shit about the topic you're commenting on so it's impossible to know what you actually mean. But to comment: t1 units are consistently used until super-late game (most games doesn't reach super late game). Lings, marines, marauders, stalkers and sentries are never phased out. Well, sometimes in super late game toss compositions you mostly phase out zealot and stalker in favour of archon, but even if we accept the premise that this is a bad thing it is very rare.

 

[Misconnected]

SCBW can fuck right off. Never again will I play a micro-intensive RTS with such abysmal fucking pathfinding.

And as for the super units ruling the game thing, I can't say my personal experience is any different. But then, that was my experience in SCBW too. And I'm pretty sure the reason is that I suck at both, and the match making is good enough to set me up against people who also suck at them. Because high level SC2 play doesn't usually revolve around the super units, if the tourney casts are to be believed.

 

[Kane]

FA is dead mang, it died along with GPGnet

wake up

 

[Cowboy Moment]

SC2 is to SC1 what Deus Ex: HR is to the original Deus Ex.

SCBW can fuck right off. Never again will I play a micro-intensive RTS with such abysmal fucking pathfinding.

And as for the super units ruling the game thing, I can't say my personal experience is any different. But then, that was my experience in SCBW too. And I'm pretty sure the reason is that I suck at both, and the match making is good enough to set me up against people who also suck at them. Because high level SC2 play doesn't usually revolve around the super units, if the tourney casts are to be believed.

Funnily enough, the bad pathfinding actually allowed you to micro, because your units wouldn't automatically form a perfect ball like they do in SC2. 200/200 army battles in SC2 are mostly micro-less clusterfucks because of this.

 

[Raghar]

FA is dead mang, it died along with GPGnet

I played FAF. That looks much better than Steam, or GPGnet.

 

[Kane]

FA is dead mang, it died along with GPGnet

I played FAF. That looks much better than Steam, or GPGnet.

FAF is a mess f.e. it crashes when i start it not gonna bother and so isn't anyone else

 

[Raghar]

I played 120 games without crash.

 

[wergle]

Never crashed with FAF far as I can remember

 

[Johannes]

If it looks bad, feels bad and smells bad, why should I waste more time with it?

All of these things are subjective, if you feel that way I can't really tell you to force yourself to play it. But when claiming it's a turd, that it's the bottom of the barrel, and so on, you have to justify it further than "sux, gtfo"

And answer me: when compared to SCBW, in what ways is the sequel better, beyond graphics and UI to some extent

I don't know, I never played BW beyond the campaign and once or twice with friends. But this is all a derail, because the claim was that SC2 was shit, "bottom of the barrel", not that it was worse or better than BW. It is certainly possible for a game to be good in spite of being worse than SCBW.

So what's your overall experience of playing different RTS's, to be able to claim that it isn't a turd compared to the good ones?

 

[Brotherman Bill]

If it looks bad, feels bad and smells bad, why should I waste more time with it?

All of these things are subjective, if you feel that way I can't really tell you to force yourself to play it. But when claiming it's a turd, that it's the bottom of the barrel, and so on, you have to justify it further than "sux, gtfo"

And answer me: when compared to SCBW, in what ways is the sequel better, beyond graphics and UI to some extent

I don't know, I never played BW beyond the campaign and once or twice with friends. But this is all a derail, because the claim was that SC2 was shit, "bottom of the barrel", not that it was worse or better than BW. It is certainly possible for a game to be good in spite of being worse than SCBW.

So what's your overall experience of playing different RTS's, to be able to claim that it isn't a turd compared to the good ones?

You're asking me what RTSes I have played? At the top of my head, various C&C's, both red alerts, all age of empires, SupCom, the DoW's, the BFMEs, CoH, Warcraft3+TFT, Empire Earth, Stronghold (to the degree it can be called RTS anyways), one of the shit settlers, and I'm sure a couple other ones.

 

[Psquit]

SC2 HoTS has revived my faith in the gaming industry.

HAHAHA, Your the man now dog!.
Actually, no. Fuck you. With your gottagofast spam fest.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Funnily enough, the bad pathfinding actually allowed you to micro, because your units wouldn't automatically form a perfect ball like they do in SC2. 200/200 army battles in SC2 are mostly micro-less clusterfucks because of this.

Is that true? I downloaded the SC2 demo version (as in, the actual demo version) the other week and have just been playing a few games against the AI (I can't seem to play it online yet because I either haven't finished enough games or I can't because it's the demo) but so far every match has been "my army meets AI army, everything dies". I had a battle the other day where I was dicking around with air units and encountered the enemy with my army (ground + air forces). By the time I got to selecting and then right-clicking my air units on the enemy's specific air units (so they focussed fire), half of them were already dead (and we're talking like, half a second to a second here).

Everything also seems to move in this "big ball" too. I swear I can remember original SC having to hold back certain units because others were still moving in slowly, waiting for tanks or Goliaths to come up. Now it seems everything moves at about the same speed?

Adding: Buildings die way too easily. The defensive structures are more like LOL waste of money. Bunkers in the original SC were useful to stop that early Zerg rush and even then, came in handy later in the game. Now, they just ASPLODE in the first 2 seconds of being attacked. Once the enemy kills your army it's over - although that was a criticism of the original game too (there's no real chance of a "come back" unless the player is really dumb).

Not sure what the "spells" are like yet. Used to have a ball playing Protoss and using freeze, teleport and stasis or Zerg and using the parasite and other things. Terrans never really had the same sort of useful spells so can't tell from the demo. Oh and nukes really, really, really suck. Only 200 damage to a building? 30 seconds to hit? For all that hassle of micro-ing a ghost unit in and getting it within 5 feet of everything so it can target something? No.

So far it seems to be all about "who's build order is better". I messed up and added reactors or something instead of tech labs to my first factories against a hard Protoss AI - and so nuffed myself and couldn't build siege tanks initially. Got hellbats instead which were then annihilated in the first Protoss attack which pretty much ended the game for me then and there - and I was never able to recover. Still early days but it seems like a lot of the early strategies from the original are missing?

 

[Cowboy Moment]

DarkUnderlord, your impressions are more or less right. Not only does losing a single battle typically lead to losing the game, but battles are over really fast, even at high supply counts. This is because the developers think it's fun when everything deals "terrible, terrible damage", combine that with tight ball formations allowing more ranged units to attack, and you get a veritable clusterfuck with 100 supply armies melting in under 10 seconds. This also means that defensive structures are only useful en masse, or for defending harassment. I general there's very little intrinsic defender's advantage built into the core mechanics, which means the dude with the bigger army can usually just walk over and kill his opponent without being hindered by terrain or reinforcement time.

On a side note, being unable to make Tanks was a blessing in disguise, since they're quite awful in HotS.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

Everything also seems to move in this "big ball" too. I swear I can remember original SC having to hold back certain units because others were still moving in slowly, waiting for tanks or Goliaths to come up. Now it seems everything moves at about the same speed?

That was introduced in Warcraft 3, I think, that units move slower to keep a consistent pace with the slowest one if they move together.

 

[Malakal]

DarkUnderlord, your impressions are more or less right. Not only does losing a single battle typically lead to losing the game, but battles are over really fast, even at high supply counts. This is because the developers think it's fun when everything deals "terrible, terrible damage", combine that with tight ball formations allowing more ranged units to attack, and you get a veritable clusterfuck with 100 supply armies melting in under 10 seconds. This also means that defensive structures are only useful en masse, or for defending harassment. I general there's very little intrinsic defender's advantage built into the core mechanics, which means the dude with the bigger army can usually just walk over and kill his opponent without being hindered by terrain or reinforcement time.

On a side note, being unable to make Tanks was a blessing in disguise, since they're quite awful in HotS.

Zergs can max out extremely quick at 4-5 bases (5-6 hatcheries is 30-36 larvae plus queens spawning more) and thus may survive losing their whole army in battle. Protoss can gate in some reinforcements so its not that bad anyway. Terrans are mostly fucked but they get double production on certain units.

That having said losing a single battle only loses you the game if its late game and you won with a significant edge. Early-mid you can count on enemy being unable to destroy you outright and thus come back is possible.

And pro games are all about harass and small victories accumulating into a big victory. Denying enemy new bases, killing his workers. Its truly a war of maneuver and I like this.

As a side note siege tanks are a core of any Terran mech army, which is quite viable too. Depending on what your enemy fields since mech is very slow and cant win against fast harass.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

So far it seems to be all about "who's build order is better".

Well, build order certainly matters in an RTS, but you know, you can do pretty much anything against the AI and still win so at this level it doesn't really matter.

Everything also seems to move in this "big ball" too. I swear I can remember original SC having to hold back certain units because others were still moving in slowly, waiting for tanks or Goliaths to come up. Now it seems everything moves at about the same speed?

That was introduced in Warcraft 3, I think, that units move slower to keep a consistent pace with the slowest one if they move together.

SC2 units don't keep a consistent pace with each others, if you got a little ball of stalkers and immortals the stalkers will outrun the immortals.

I general there's very little intrinsic defender's advantage built into the core mechanics,

You have to explain this one to me. If we add that all SC2 maps have that gay ass ramp thing, and that static defense is pretty much as strong/weak as it is in BW.... How do they differ at all from BW?

 

[Borelli]

Starcraft's (both BW and 2) static defense being weak is IMO one of the design hallmarks of the games. Now "weak" is a relative term here depending on time passed in match,unit upgrades and the number of said defensive structures but generally if you see lots of photon cannons/sunkens/bunkers you should just laugh. This is because buildings in SC don't have any sort of "building armor" and neither is their health that impressive compared to other RTS. The best way to defend your expos are actually units.