Starcraft, played at a high level, on a balanced map

[Achilles]

Guys I'm having real trouble against terrans, especially against Thors (I'm playing Zerg). Any advice for me? I tried all sorts of different combos with little success. Should I go with infestors? I would also love some general advice on the Zerg, as I'm slow and not so good with macro. I wish Starcraft was turn-based

 

[Ulminati]

I don't think I realized how gay the 'dex was until Starcraft 2 came out and all the twitchgaming homos left their closets.

STOP THIS MADNESS.

98% of the homo is attackfighter and roleplayer. My guess is both of them were raped by a blizzard employee, and this is their way of telling the world they lust for moar.

The last 2% is the latent background homophilia present everywhere on the internet.

 

[kingcomrade]

wtf isn't this smart cast

Because autocast is for WC3 players!! Starcraft players are capable of more butthurt than any other video game community I can think of.

 

[Dark Matter]

is the most balanced RTS, and possibly the most balanced game, of all time.

http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/m ... ing_Spirit

Look at that, about 250 games in each matchup, and the "better" race wins about 51-53% of the time.

Also, check out the ICCup statistics:
http://www.iccup.com/mapinfo/iccup_figh ... t_1.3.html

Zerg vs Terran: 42475 - 42828 (50 %)
Zerg vs Protoss: 52914 - 52277 (50.3 %)
Terran vs Protoss: 62945 - 66324 (49 %)

 

[Dark Matter]

wtf isn't this smart cast

Because autocast is for WC3 players!! Starcraft players are capable of more butthurt than any other video game community I can think of.

Is that your reaction to all forms of criticism? "omg teh butthurt"
The fact is SC2's simplified mechanics are detrimental for its prospects as an e-sport and its longevity as a competitive game.

Read this article if you actually care about the subject instead of just being a dumbfuck goon.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

SC2 is more fun to watch than broodwar.

 

[Dark Matter]

SC2 is more fun to watch than broodwar.

How?

 

[Grunker]

wtf isn't this smart cast

Because autocast is for WC3 players!! Starcraft players are capable of more butthurt than any other video game community I can think of.

Is that your reaction to all forms of criticism? "omg teh butthurt"
The fact is SC2's simplified mechanics are detrimental for its prospects as an e-sport and its longevity as a competitive game.

Read this article if you actually care about the subject instead of just being a dumbfuck goon.

If you boil down the content of that article, he's saying: "SC2 is less about micro, and more about macro."

Now since I always found the admittedly insane micro-plays some competitive players pull off in SC1 ultimately boring (since it solely includes a combination of luck and reflexes - not strategy), I'm inclined to answer the article with:

Yeah, exactly. That makes it a better game, in theory.

The author even concludes in his intro that a casual player only notices the micro, but only "experts" see the macro, which makes his later point, that the game loses depth by not focusing enough on the first, a bit null and void.

In conclusion, I like watching competitive SC2 much more than watching Brood War. In SC2, I follow build orders, timings, and economy - you know, that part of RTS that stands for "strategy," rather than in Brood War where you mostly watched which of the two guys who could move their hands and brain-cells around fast enough to keep up with the clusterfuck of units doing ten thousand things on the screen.

I'm not saying you can't be of the opinion that micro is the most exciting, like the author does. I'm just saying that it doesn't mean Brood War was a better game.

 

[Annonchinil]

A lot of micro also requires people to play the game to understand. For example I have no idea about muta-stacking and how hard it is to pull of. Thus 'good' muta play I can't recognize unless it is mentioned. Other types of micro like dropship micro I can easily understand and think its exciting.

 

[Destroid]

Take smartcast away from medivacs and see how people feel.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Hehe, just won a 2v2 where I never fired a shot on offense. The other team tried a few rine/mara/zealot rushes but we were able to fend those off no problem. After that they backed off, so I macroed like crazy to get four bases, and hit the supply cap with MMM, and 8 Thors, all fully upgraded. I moved my massive army into view of one of the Xel-Naga towers they controlled, and they both promptly dropped. Hehe.

 

[Dormir Con Las Arañas]

Hehe, just won a 2v2 where I never fired a shot on offense. The other team tried a few rine/mara/zealot rushes but we were able to fend those off no problem. After that they backed off, so I macroed like crazy to get four bases, and hit the supply cap with MMM, and 8 Thors, all fully upgraded. I moved my massive army into view of one of the Xel-Naga towers they controlled, and they both promptly dropped. Hehe.

terran faggotry

 

[Shuma]

Also, keep in mind comments are BW vs. SC2. Blizz still has 2 exp packs of units to add, and who knows how that will change gameplay? The comparisons he draws (lurker v baneling, pheonix v corsair, et al) are not fair. BW added splash damage as its main new mechanic. I expect SC2 expansions to similarly spice things up.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Hehe, just won a 2v2 where I never fired a shot on offense. The other team tried a few rine/mara/zealot rushes but we were able to fend those off no problem. After that they backed off, so I macroed like crazy to get four bases, and hit the supply cap with MMM, and 8 Thors, all fully upgraded. I moved my massive army into view of one of the Xel-Naga towers they controlled, and they both promptly dropped. Hehe.

terran faggotry

I watched the replay. After their two rushes failed miserably, they really didn't do anything for the next 8 minutes while I built up my mega army. The Terran had gone battlecruisers and built 4 of them, and the Protoss... well he built an expansion but not any units aside from dozen or so zealots he had on defense.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Also, keep in mind comments are BW vs. SC2. Blizz still has 2 exp packs of units to add, and who knows how that will change gameplay? The comparisons he draws (lurker v baneling, pheonix v corsair, et al) are not fair. BW added splash damage as its main new mechanic. I expect SC2 expansions to similarly spice things up.

I thought they said the SC2 expansions won't touch the multiplayer for the most part.

 

[Kraszu]

Also, keep in mind comments are BW vs. SC2. Blizz still has 2 exp packs of units to add, and who knows how that will change gameplay? The comparisons he draws (lurker v baneling, pheonix v corsair, et al) are not fair. BW added splash damage as its main new mechanic. I expect SC2 expansions to similarly spice things up.

I thought they said the SC2 expansions won't touch the multiplayer for the most part.

Sure it will, many people buy expansions just for those new units, they can change allot in mp.

 

[attackfighter]

wtf isn't this smart cast

Because autocast is for WC3 players!! Starcraft players are capable of more butthurt than any other video game community I can think of.

Is that your reaction to all forms of criticism? "omg teh butthurt"
The fact is SC2's simplified mechanics are detrimental for its prospects as an e-sport and its longevity as a competitive game.

Read this article if you actually care about the subject instead of just being a dumbfuck goon.

If you boil down the content of that article, he's saying: "SC2 is less about micro, and more about macro."

Now since I always found the admittedly insane micro-plays some competitive players pull off in SC1 ultimately boring (since it solely includes a combination of luck and reflexes - not strategy), I'm inclined to answer the article with:

Yeah, exactly. That makes it a better game, in theory.

The author even concludes in his intro that a casual player only notices the micro, but only "experts" see the macro, which makes his later point, that the game loses depth by not focusing enough on the first, a bit null and void.

In conclusion, I like watching competitive SC2 much more than watching Brood War. In SC2, I follow build orders, timings, and economy - you know, that part of RTS that stands for "strategy," rather than in Brood War where you mostly watched which of the two guys who could move their hands and brain-cells around fast enough to keep up with the clusterfuck of units doing ten thousand things on the screen.

I'm not saying you can't be of the opinion that micro is the most exciting, like the author does. I'm just saying that it doesn't mean Brood War was a better game.

Spoken like a true consoletard. SC1 has plenty of build orders and timings, it's just that they're more subtle than SC2's "LOL HES GETTING COLLUSUS WHEN FIGHTING ALL MARINES WHAT A FUCKING GENIUS 10/10 GOTY" and hence dumb noobs like you don't understand them.

Also by less micro I think he was refering to the A move clusterfuck of units that's become a staple of every SC2 battle. It's basically for retards that like watching shiny lights

 

[Grunker]

Haha, you bloody idiot. I was commenting only in the context of the article. I didn't say Brood War focused less on Macro; he did.

My only postulate was that Micro in Brood War got real old real fast.

So pardon me for saying this, but cut the edgy meme-spams you're throwing my way and see if you can get something intelligent out your clam-brain.

In that case, I'm more than willing to discuss with you.

 

[Dark Matter]

If you boil down the content of that article, he's saying: "SC2 is less about micro, and more about macro."

He's saying that SC2 is tactically limited, not that BW has less macro.

Now since I always found the admittedly insane micro-plays some competitive players pull off in SC1 ultimately boring (since it solely includes a combination of luck and reflexes - not strategy), I'm inclined to answer the article with:

Yeah, exactly. That makes it a better game, in theory.

No, it simply makes SC2 more limited and predictable. The fact is that Blizzard didn't compensate for the simplified mechanics by providing greater strategic options. Compare SC2 zerg with BW zerg. Just about every zerg unit in SC2 is of the attack-move variety, whereas in BW, muta micro, lurker leapfrogging and defiler usage all provide the zerg with a ton of strategic choices.

Having greater tactical options also results in greater strategic options. For example, last night there was an awesome ZvT between Jaedong and Light where the zerg chooses to skimp on units as much as possible in the midgame (at one point he's about 50 supply behind) to save up resources and make a ton of ultras in the lategame. Despite the supply deficit, he still manages to deal with the Terran aggression perfectly due to some fantastic midgame control with lurkers, lings and defilers. That's just one example of how micro can enhance strategy.

Is something similar possible in SC2 ZvT? There are no game-defining spells like dark swarm, there is no muta micro, there is no stop lurkers. In the end, it all comes down to having solid macro (which BTW is purely based on having high APM) and build orders.

The author even concludes in his intro that a casual player only notices the micro, but only "experts" see the macro, which makes his later point, that the game loses depth by not focusing enough on the first, a bit null and void.

How does that make his point null and void?
And SC2 does lose depth by being limited when it comes to micro, as explained in great detail in the article.

In conclusion, I like watching competitive SC2 much more than watching Brood War. In SC2, I follow build orders, timings, and economy - you know, that part of RTS that stands for "strategy,

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about BW's competitive scene. Timings are even crucial in BW than in SC2 simply because of how much a difference individual spells and units can make. For example, in ZvT getting dark swarm just in time to defend against the Terran midgame push can be the difference between victory and defeat.

" rather than in Brood War where you mostly watched which of the two guys who could move their hands and brain-cells around fast enough to keep up with the clusterfuck of units doing ten thousand things on the screen.

How is having higher APM than your opponent any less important in SC2? The only difference in SC2 is having decent macro is a lot easier. APM plays the same role in BW as in every other standard RTS. Sure, a guy with 50 APM probably isn't going to beat a guy with 500 APM but how is SC2 or any other RTS different in that regard? Also FYI, several top progamers have fairly low APM by progamer standards and a lot of progamers with ridiculously high APM are fairly mediocre, so no, game results are not defined by which player has higher APM.

Also, I find it funny that you use the word clusterfuck to describe BW when SC2's battles are the very definition of clusterfuck. The combination of units clumping together, shitty overdone spell effects and bad unit design and you have some of the most ugly and messy battles ever. It's so bad that a lot of people prefer playing on medium setting for multiplayer so that the shitty effects are less obtrusive. In BW, even in the most hectic battles, every unit and spell is clearly visible and distinguishable. SC1 probably has the best art design ever for a competitive online game.

 

[TNO]

I've only watched shoutcasts of the games, and I have no skills in RTS worth mentioning, but it seems all the SC2 games are decided by who has the right tech and the biggest ball of units. Everything seems to revolve around getting the right units at the right time - if your opponent doesn't have the counter ready, he loses.

Which is cool, but I'd also like to see more micro stuff - as far as I can tell, it's mostly just 'have huge ball of units, throw against enemy, + focus fire'. 'Cos otherwise it just boils down to who's got the better macro and who picked (fluke or no) the right unit selection.

But what do I know?

 

[Destroid]

No muta micro? Is this a joke?

 

[Grunker]

I concede to most of your points Dark Matter, except the ones about the "skill-level" of micro and that SC2 is more of a clusterfuck that Brood War.

While I haven't played much Brood War online, I've watched both it and SC2 a lot. What makes SC2 a better game to watch for me, is the fact that well-placed clicks with some spell can often mean a huge difference in Brood War, nullifying an opponent's macro. This is less so in SC2. Admittedly because stuff has been taken out; but contrary to popular Codex opinion this is not an arbitrarily "bad" thing.

So even if I say: "Yeah, you're right" (especially when it comes to this:

No, it simply makes SC2 more limited and predictable. The fact is that Blizzard didn't compensate for the simplified mechanics by providing greater strategic options. Compare SC2 zerg with BW zerg. Just about every zerg unit in SC2 is of the attack-move variety, whereas in BW, muta micro, lurker leapfrogging and defiler usage all provide the zerg with a ton of strategic choices.

Having greater tactical options also results in greater strategic options. For example, last night there was an awesome ZvT between Jaedong and Light where the zerg chooses to skimp on units as much as possible in the midgame (at one point he's about 50 supply behind) to save up resources and make a ton of ultras in the lategame. Despite the supply deficit, he still manages to deal with the Terran aggression perfectly due to some fantastic midgame control with lurkers, lings and defilers. That's just one example of how micro can enhance strategy.

line of arguments), I still prefer SC2. Perhaps a compromise is possible though; my main beef is with hot-key spells that, as I say, have the potential to nullify an opponent's macro (because his, in theory, superior game-plan is wiped out by well-placed click). The compromise could thus be the same nerf that these spells have had in SC2, backed up by units that abide different rules (Reapers cliff-jumps are a good example - there's just not enough of these unit-varieties in SC2, and most of them have no long-term purpose, except for harass).

Perhaps I know less than you about the subject at hand, but I do know from watching tons of videos, and following Day9 quite close, that I like watching SC2 games more.

EDIT: Oh, and as an additional note: Didn't most of the units you refer to make their way into the game with Brood War, and not SC1 stand-alone? If so, isn't it possible that SC2 is solid base upon which more of that you like so much will be constructed?

 

[Genma:TheDestroyer]

I thought they said the SC2 expansions won't touch the multiplayer for the most part.

I imagine they also didn't originally plan on turning Raynor from revenge-seeking into a mopey lush who grimaces every time someone else mentions killing Kerrigan. But there you go.

 

[Jaedar]

I thought they said the SC2 expansions won't touch the multiplayer for the most part.

I imagine they also didn't originally plan on turning Raynor from revenge-seeking into a mopey lush who grimaces every time someone else mentions killing Kerrigan. But there you go.

One or two new units per race is what we'll see hopefully. And if Blizzard are as good as they think they are, they'll pull a Relic and give the new units to everyone and not just the people who buy the expansion. But I seriously doubt that...

 

[Kraszu]

Units clumping together also limits the importance of flanking, even in high lvl games players just seem to move they blog against enemy blob, lack of Tank overkill also makes it not important how you place them (as long as they cover are that you want obviously).

There is 1-0 cliff advantage if you see enemy unit on the cliff then you have no penalty. In BW units missed some % of the time when firing up cliff.

 

[Overweight Manatee]

Guys I'm having real trouble against terrans, especially against Thors (I'm playing Zerg). Any advice for me? I tried all sorts of different combos with little success. Should I go with infestors? I would also love some general advice on the Zerg, as I'm slow and not so good with macro. I wish Starcraft was turn-based

Thors are countered by Zerg well with either broodlords or zerglings. Unfortunately, good Terrans also bring siege tanks and vikings which when combined will manhandle everything you can possibly throw at them. Infestors can Neural Parasite, but the Terran will probably just shoot the infestor down ASAP. Their main use is against marine balls with fungal growth or spamming infested marines into groups to attract siege tanks into nuking their own troops. Your best bet is probably Ultralisks + Zerglings, but you really need to catch the tanks unsieged AND surround them to beat them with an even army.

You can probably just beat Terran by getting better with your macro. Unless you are in the top 1% of players you can usually win just by having 15% more X at Y time because you remembered to keep making workers, didn't get supply blocked, and kept spending your money.