Incline Starcraft 2: Heart of the Swarm

[Raghar]

Static defenses will not count against your army supply.

 

[Malakal]

Well the point is static defense is more or less useless unless it happens to be placed at the exact spot where the battle takes place. Armies can just move around them. And because the focus is on the mobility then its no wonder that static defenses are used only in some ways - mainly to prevent mineral line drops.

I like it this way too, some older rts with extremely powerful static defenses werent very fun.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

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.

Yeah, I'm noticing that. Sometimes I don't even get a chance to actually watch the battle because I'll flick back to base and start rebuilding lost units only to come back and find everything's dead by then. I also note there's no "hold ground" or other commands like in the original and so far battles for me have consisted of "Select all units -> Attack", rather than having any sort of "strategy" in mind when I do so.

I like it this way too, some older rts with extremely powerful static defenses werent very fun.

See, I disagree on that. I used to love AoE2 and turtling up with massive walls and cannon towers. It made the enemy have to think about attacking you and meant a small number of forces could defend against a larger army. You'd have to get a few trebuchets if you wanted to take that wall down quickly, and then you'd need archers to defend against the cavalry that would come out after your units. You needed "the right unit" at the right time in order to counter.

I find that less so in SC2. Admittedly I am only playing against the AI - so this may change drastically online - but I find I'm just spamming the biggest, most expensive units I can (tanks, those mech walkers). And if you accidentally run into his whole army with say, half of yours because you're trying a small economic attack or moving some units around or something, you're pretty much naffed right then and there. I don't recall the original SC being quite that bad. A handful of siege tanks in siege mode, some bunkers and missile turrets was usually enough to cause some decent damage against an attacking army. At least enough to make him think twice. In SC2, as Borelli says, I'm just seeing that and laughing as it all dies before my units - or wondering why I wasted the effort as I watch defenses crumble in quite literally, seconds.

 

[pan]

A handful of siege tanks in siege mode, some bunkers and missile turrets was usually enough to cause some decent damage against an attacking army. At least enough to make him think twice.

Or just one tank, a supply depot wall and a turret. That small amount could cause a large amount of damage and delay a concerted attack long enough for reinforcements to arrive.

Or a high templar/reaver and some cannons.

Zerg of course had to rely on more... either sunken spam, defiler, or nydus canal.

Ahhh, those were the times.

 

[Malakal]

but I find I'm just spamming the biggest, most expensive units I can (tanks, those mech walkers). And if you accidentally run into his whole army with say, half of yours because you're trying a small economic attack or moving some units around or something, you're pretty much naffed right then and there. I don't recall the original SC being quite that bad. A handful of siege tanks in siege mode, some bunkers and missile turrets was usually enough to cause some decent damage against an attacking army. At least enough to make him think twice. In SC2, as Borelli says, I'm just seeing that and laughing as it all dies before my units - or wondering why I wasted the effort as I watch defenses crumble in quite literally, seconds.

In low level the one with the bigger army faster wins, if maxed out the one with better army composition countering enemy wins. In high level its all about having the bigger income, more bases and reacting better to enemy threats while delivering yours.

There are lots more viable tactics now than I remember in SC1. For example Terrans can just go marine marauder then add medivacs and they are set to go for the whole game while in SC1 that wasnt nearly possible. Tanks go well with hellbats or simply marines too. The limiting factor is gas availability so you will rely WAY more on mineral based units like marines, zerglings and zealots.

 

[Johannes]

There are lots more viable tactics now than I remember in SC1. For example Terrans can just go marine marauder then add medivacs and they are set to go for the whole game while in SC1 that wasnt nearly possible.

Yeah I always lamented how you cannot just go marine marauder in SCBW.

 

[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.

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.

Matchups where losing a battle decisively usually makes you lose the game: PvT, PvP, ZvZ, PvZ if you're playing Protoss. That's 3,5/6, quite a bit. It also happens in some of the other matchups depending on how both sides play. If Zerg loses their 10+ Ultra army in ZvT, they almost always lose the game, ditto for those dumb Swarm Host with Air comps in ZvP.

And Mech is awful in anything but TvT, where it's map dependant. And what makes it work currently aren't tanks, which are awful, but Hellbats, which are ridiculously powerful for their cost.

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?

BW had:

1. A real highground advantage that couldn't simply be annuled by having vision.
2. Inferior pathing, which made moving units through tight spaces more difficult and time-consuming, thus making chokes and ramps more defensively potent. You practically never see players run up ramps offensively in BW unless they have a huge advantage.
3. Reasonable unit movement speeds relative to map size, making reinforcement time a serious consideration for an attacker. As opposed to SC2, where everything has insane mobility, there are warpages, Zerg units moving at the speed of light, medivac boost, and so forth...
4. This ties into 2, but positionally defensive units were a lot more powerful. Tanks, Lurkers, Dark Swarm, Storm that actually did damage, Reavers, and so on.

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.

Err, well-placed static defenses were very effective in BW. Zergs literally take their third base on the other side of the map and defend it with Sunken Colonies behind a building wall against Protoss. Similarly, a bunch of cannons and a high templar can kill infinity hydralisks if they try to run in through a choke. Bunkers weren't used all that much, but turrets were built routinely as defense against harassment.

 

[Absalom]

I'm as cynical as cynical is, but has the shit in this industry become so thick, so stench ridden, that we can't appreciate a quality entry?

Plain and simple, behind the corny trailers, marketing, art direction, and big business BS like online DRM, there's a quality underlying foundation of gameplay here. This is a hardcore game. This is a niche game which in this day and age, is hard to find with any legitimate financial backing.

1. You can't buy an unfair advantage in multiplayer.
2. There's no shitty up selling that compromises the game's integrity
3. The business model, besides the online DRM, is traditional (full game, + expansion, + a future expansion).
4. The game makes you pay for mistakes, and gives you a sense of satisfaction when you succeed.
5. There's lore, story (shitty but it's there), the game has soul.
6. The campaign is good (you need to use your brain to progress).
7. The game is supported indefinitely with patches, bug fixes, balance changes, and other additions made based on community feedback, etc. etc. etc.

I'm (as) ad cynical as cynical does, (for the purpose of this review)
but boy howdy Blizzard does make it sure handy to register my account and start posting mindlessly like all the other retards trapped in a B.F. Skinner Box. I just wish Blizzard would incline ALL gaming and not allow a dissenting thought on the page linked.

 

[Malakal]

Matchups where losing a battle decisively usually makes you lose the game: PvT, PvP, ZvZ, PvZ if you're playing Protoss. That's 3,5/6, quite a bit. It also happens in some of the other matchups depending on how both sides play. If Zerg loses their 10+ Ultra army in ZvT, they almost always lose the game, ditto for those dumb Swarm Host with Air comps in ZvP.

And Mech is awful in anything but TvT, where it's map dependant. And what makes it work currently aren't tanks, which are awful, but Hellbats, which are ridiculously powerful for their cost.

Eh a quick tech swap from land to air can win you a game if you have enough production capacity and enemy army doesnt have enough counter. Seen that many times but true, mostly on zerg spawning loads of mutas or broodlords. Protoss can chrono some units out of stargates but not sure if few defensive voids could handle a half decent land army. Stlil 6 voids is enough to at least stop the push for a while. Terrans just counter by doing drops - the enemy has to decide if he ignores them and goes all in or if he backs giving you much needed time.

There are pro players going mech vs any matchup, its possible either with a mobile defensive force (hellbats medivacs for example) or in certain situations (static turrets can handle zerg harass most often when supported by few widow mines).

 

[pan]

The level of play you watch affects your interpretation.

If you are watching skilled Koreans on Gom tournament then you will see fast games ending after the first major confrontation.

But if you are watching Kwans on the Husky Youtube channel then you see 40 minute games with lots of comebacks because neither player lacks the ineptitude to not lose the game straight away.

 

[Malakal]

Im watching a lot of Husky channel and can safely say that most games can include a huge comeback. Pros wont let you regain your stance after even a small loss but in no skill games its possible.

I saw Flash vs Innovation game where one of the players ffed after losing several workers early to reaper harass. I also saw American games where one player won despite having 30 less workers than the enemy. Pro games are no fun at all but in normal you can make a lot of mistakes and still win.

 

[kris]

4. This ties into 2, but positionally defensive units were a lot more powerful. Tanks, Lurkers, Dark Swarm, Storm that actually did damage, Reavers, and so on.

Problem with storm isn't so much the damage, it is more about the big movement speed and the fact that your buildings just melt away. I could defend well with templars in BW because attackers would be delayed with destroying a building or because their army didn't just vanish the moment they saw a storm or templar. It also helped that in BW people divided their army for multiple attacks, while SC2 you have a big blob floating around. Because then the opponent can put near 100% attention on his army, avoid the storm and then melt your templars.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Actually I do have to say watching the really, really, really bad players on YouTube is hilarious and gives me some confidence that the game online is at least some-what fun.

One of the reasons I stopped playing SCBW online was because of all the Koreans you'd run into who would just kick your ass with their pro-build setups and spastically retarded superman like clicking skills. Does the ladder actually work at keeping match-ups fairly even or is it b0rked to hell?

Similarly, a bunch of cannons and a high templar can kill infinity hydralisks if they try to run in through a choke.

Oh God yes. I loved having a few Templars and an Arbiter, getting attacked by someone's entire army and just watching as a freeze / storm combo tore them apart into retreat. Then countering with a nice Reaver / Templar drop, warping a handful of Dark Templars into their base and ripping them up. It's a pity the demo doesn't seem to let me play online. Seems there's no match-making and I have to know and specifically hook-up with people or something?

Oh yeah, and I love "waiting for server" in my single-player, offline game against a computer AI.

 

[pan]

4. This ties into 2, but positionally defensive units were a lot more powerful. Tanks, Lurkers, Dark Swarm, Storm that actually did damage, Reavers, and so on.

Problem with storm isn't so much the damage, it is more about the big movement speed and the fact that your buildings just melt away. I could defend well with templars in BW because attackers would be delayed with destroying a building or because their army didn't just vanish the moment they saw a storm or templar. It also helped that in BW people divided their army for multiple attacks, while SC2 you have a big blob floating around. Because then the opponent can put near 100% attention on his army, avoid the storm and then melt your templars.

the main thing is that everything else became more effective in SC2, so relatively storm is less of a big deal

it being 'easier' to dodge storms is part of that, but even with perfect storms it's noticeable how much less of a difference it makes than in BW. largely this is due to better pathfinding allowing grunt units to get in range and damage more easily. other matters like the actual changes to storm (it having a shorter duration, smaller AoE, lower overall damage output but higher DPS), higher cost of high templar, alternatives, different unit compositions (easier to storm MMM than vulture+tank) and a bunch of other stuff are also important

 

[Borelli]

Err, well-placed static defenses were very effective in BW. Zergs literally take their third base on the other side of the map and defend it with Sunken Colonies behind a building wall against Protoss. Similarly, a bunch of cannons and a high templar can kill infinity hydralisks if they try to run in through a choke. Bunkers weren't used all that much, but turrets were built routinely as defense against harassment.

Cannons have good versatile dmg but they are made of paper, bunkers dmg is too low unless you manually stim marines before entering, sunkens are strongest but even they need other units to help them (or simcity as you said). Anti air is a special case so i won't talk about that.
Static defence main use is making fast expansion possible, defending against harass and stopping rushes in which not only they excel they are a must. For late game TvZ the best way to defend expos is lurker+swarm+nydus.
ZvP is something i only obsed but hydras and/or crackling go attack move destroy cannons easily, the fact that you need templars/reavers to support cannons only proves my point.
An actual proper defense is ramp+choke because it amplifies both units and buildings.

 

[Malakal]

Storm doesn't stack now so thats a main difference. Its still a good 80 dmg ignoring armor, excellent vs Z&T.

As for static defenses there is some play with swarmhosts. I kinda remember using missile turrets with siege lines now it doesnt seem to be viable - well in high level play that is, guess you still can use it in normal games.

 

[pan]

Storm doesn't stack now so thats a main difference. Its still a good 80 dmg ignoring armor, excellent vs Z&T.

-.-

Ahh, I facepalmed when Husky said that, now he seems to have convinced you too. Don't listen to Husky when he talks about BW, it's all nonsense. Storm doesn't stack in either game.

DarkUnderlord, earlier you mentioned that you didn't see the 'hold position' command, and I think I know why. The unit command window currently defaults to this really wierd noob style for new users. In order to get the old version you have to change it in settings.

 

[Ulminati]

Actually I do have to say watching the really, really, really bad players on YouTube is hilarious and gives me some confidence that the game online is at least some-what fun.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Oh, just had a screen tip come up on the loading page - pity print screen didn't work but it said "Gather as many resources as you can. The largest army almost always wins."

 

[Kane]

At least enough to make him think twice. In SC2, as Borelli says, I'm just seeing that and laughing as it all dies before my units - or wondering why I wasted the effort as I watch defenses crumble in quite literally, seconds.

The game was deliberately made that way because it's more interesting to the viewer. Blizzard wants the game to be decided at any moment.

 

[Johannes]

At least enough to make him think twice. In SC2, as Borelli says, I'm just seeing that and laughing as it all dies before my units - or wondering why I wasted the effort as I watch defenses crumble in quite literally, seconds.

The game was deliberately made that way because it's more interesting to the viewer. Blizzard wants the game to be decided at any moment.

It's not more exciting for the viewer. A 2 second engagement sucks compared to a 20 second one.

 

[Malakal]

I prefer short dynamic games actually, hate when players wait to be maxed out and for the upgrades to finish, gather few thousands in the bank... Good play with quick harass and decisive battles is more entertaining for me,e specially since games are usually best of three or five. One 50 min game compared to 3 games in 50 min seems like a no brainer for me.

Also at 200 supply better army composition wins, at 100 its better tactics.

 

[Johannes]

I prefer short dynamic games actually, hate when players wait to be maxed out and for the upgrades to finish, gather few thousands in the bank... Good play with quick harass and decisive battles is more entertaining for me,e specially since games are usually best of three or five. One 50 min game compared to 3 games in 50 min seems like a no brainer for me.

Also at 200 supply better army composition wins, at 100 its better tactics.

What are you talking about? SCBW battles are much more dynamic than SC2 battles, exactly because you have time to move stuff around, time to actually fight. It has nothing to do with whether there's harass, or with how long the games take.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

TvZ is the best matchup in SC2, except for the regrettable time period when Blizzard decided it was too good and fucked it up with the Queen buff. And it's the best matchup precisely because nobody can lose in a split second, both sides can afford to trade armies, both sides can usually disengage from a battle without severe losses, and what results is constant action, harassment, attacks and counterattacks, which include micro and positional play from both players.

It's a small wonder that they managed to achieve this with their retarded design principles.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Finally played some games online! Seems I can't do the match-making thing and have to content myself with "Custom Games" of which there mostly are none.

First match was a 1 vs 1 where I got owned by the Reaper Rush. Didn't even realise I was being attacked because I didn't notice the cutesy "being attacked" and the sounds seem to lack... the notice that SC1 had? Anyway, me being dumb and wondering why my SCV's were dying and... oh... right.

Second match was a 2 vs 2 where the game can be summed up as: Build Battleships = Win. My ally tried the odd nuclear strike against the Zerg's massed army which softened them up. Then my Battleships just walked all over it (mostly ground units anyway).

Enjoyed it. Thinking about buying it but yeah - not the same as SC1. In SC1 mass Battleships took a while and you could defeat Battleships reasonably well with enough goliaths / marines. Here they just walk all over everything a little bit more than I remember. People didn't do much in the way of base defense (the old days of "walls of proton canons" seem gone) and so the meagre defenses there were I walked all over. Mind you this is a "default" SC2 map and the really fun games in SC were the custom "unlimited resources" maps where everyone would turtle up.

Still very much "our lump of units met their lump of units", and their side overwhelmingly died - much more so than I recall SC1 being. In SC1 all of theirs vs all of yours usually fucked both sides up. Still, early days.