StarCraft II

[Typhon]

For me the fun of a strategy game is in coming up with a strategy, not executing it.  If all you're doing is executing someone else's well-worn map to victory you're not really playing a strategy game -- THEY'RE playing a strategy game and you're playing a middle management game.  

Well, there is plenty of room for that, but you know...its also smart to build on other ideas that have worked in the past.  Its not like you just execute click for click someone elses strategy, but there is a reason a "13 gate, 17 core" and so forth, work.  It emerges from smart play (always be building workers, never get yourself supply blocked, etc).  Its not just some "oh, this smart player said do it so I do it"  It can be boiled down to supply numbers and such near the beginning just for the sake of simplicity, but the game is far more fluid than that.

I'm  bit confused about why they didn't improve the start.  If the 17th (!) thing you build needs to be plotted out, and the first six or seven things you build are ALWAYS the same (gatherers)... then why the is the game making me do it?  If no other strategy will ever work up to a certain point, why am I being allowed to not do what I need to do to be effective?  Every game starts with 3 minutes of tedium.  With the SAME three minutes of tedium.  Was there a conversation about this?  (anyone know?)

[trias_e]

There are non-standard openings.  And just because a standard opening is most versatile or efficient, doesn't mean that non-standard openings don't have their place.  The winner of the GSL 6 pooled one game.  I'd compare it to poker:  You want to raise/re-raise preflop with your strongest hands, and this is the standard play.  But you want to mix in a non-standard play of just flat calling once in a while, to become harder to play against overall.  That said, in a non-tournament setting, it's not really necessary to do so.

[bhodi]

bhodi can you explain to me how timed colossi push works?

Um, transition into colossi and push just as the extended lance finishes? Good against fast expands, zerg that haven't got an early spires, protoss t1? Don't try it against terran because marauders and vikings own them. Great on maps with imba cliffs like kulas ravine.

I'm not sure specifically what you're looking for. If you're looking at that one replay of mine, I just transitioned into them because it's a natural evolution. They support against a t1 army so very very well.

[Soulflame]

I don't mind the macro portion of SC2, but the micro side of the game is something I'm never going to be good at.

[Samwise]

I don't mind the macro portion of SC2, but the micro side of the game is something I'm never going to be good at.

As I understand it, SC2 requires you to do a lot of extra micro to keep up on your macro, so if you don't love the micro you're pretty much fucked.  Correct?

[Rasix]

I don't mind the macro portion of SC2, but the micro side of the game is something I'm never going to be good at.

As I understand it, SC2 requires you to do a lot of extra micro to keep up on your macro, so if you don't love the micro you're pretty much fucked.  Correct?

Not really.  Depends on what your goals are.  If it's pro-gamer level, sure, you're going to need some impressive micro.  

You're also somewhat misapplying the terminology.  Micro is usually in support of harassment and army unit encounters, not macro.  The most intensive macro support, I don't think you could even qualify as micro (larva spit).

For me, I'm not very good at micro.  The best I can do is usually some blink stalker harass. I still made it up to platinum with that combination of bad micro and an APM typically half of my opponents (sub 50 at most times).

[Malakili]

I don't mind the macro portion of SC2, but the micro side of the game is something I'm never going to be good at.

As I understand it, SC2 requires you to do a lot of extra micro to keep up on your macro, so if you don't love the micro you're pretty much fucked.  Correct?

Micro isn't the same as just...doing stuff.  It usually refers specifically to controlling groups of units in specific ways rather than attacking moving.  So, if you mean to say by "micro" just, you need to be doing a lot of stuff all the time, then its sort of true, but you can get away with pretty relatively slow play in bronze as long as you're making generally good decisions.

[Malakili]

I'm  bit confused about why they didn't improve the start.  If the 17th (!) thing you build needs to be plotted out, and the first six or seven things you build are ALWAYS the same (gatherers)... then why the is the game making me do it?  If no other strategy will ever work up to a certain point, why am I being allowed to not do what I need to do to be effective?  Every game starts with 3 minutes of tedium.  With the SAME three minutes of tedium.  Was there a conversation about this?  (anyone know?)

You don't have to, you can do something like a 6 pool, or a double 10 gate, or 8 rax, or whatever.  I think the poker analogy was good, there is standard play that generally yields the best average results, but there are riskier plays that can end up winning you (or losing you) the game outright.

I generally like playing standard myself, but that doesn't mean every game is exactly the same either. 

Also I'm just going to come out and say it:  Yes, Starcraft 2 multiplayer is designed to be competitive.  I see alot of "well I like to make up my own strategy" stuff. Fine, but you have to realize that your strategy has to be viable, and that not all strategies are equally viable.   Its like a general saying "You know what, I know there is a 100  years of history saying this is a bad idea, but I'm just going to tell all my infantry to bum rush their  machine gun encampment, because I LIKE TO MAKE MY OWN STRATEGY."  Or take chess if real war is too silly an analogy for a game:  Would you play Chess and just wing it and then complain when someone uses a "standard" strategy to beat you?

If you just want to fuck around, play against the computer on easy.  I mean, if thats the way you get the most fun out of it I really don't care to tell you how to play.

[Samwise]

I mean, if thats the way you get the most fun out of it I really don't care to tell you how to play.

If that was in any way true, then when I said this:

I'm only further convinced that I never want to play SC2 competitively, which probably means avoiding multiplayer in general.

you wouldn't have started arguing with me.  

Although I suspect I'll get more fun out of the single player campaign than I would playing multiplayer maps against bots.  If the single player stuff is done right, each map will have a different strategic situation to respond to, which is how you can get the effect of having to develop novel strategies each time you play without having to "fuck around" for the sake of novelty.

[Malakili]

I mean, if thats the way you get the most fun out of it I really don't care to tell you how to play.

If that was in any way true, then when I said this:

I'm only further convinced that I never want to play SC2 competitively, which probably means avoiding multiplayer in general.

you wouldn't have started arguing with me.  

I'm really not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to explain multiplayer to you because from what you've said it doesn't seem to me like you have a great understanding of what its all about.  If you don't care, then I'll just stop talking about it. 

As for your last bit, the single player will probably do you fine.

[trias_e]

If you want to just sort of 'wing it' every game, the matchmaking will account for this and place you in a league with many other people who are similarly 'winging it', so I don't see what the big deal is.  The SC2 matchmaking is really solid, and will accommodate you no matter what your play level is, ensuring that you have a reasonably good time.  You don't have to play competitively to play multiplayer.

The problem is that you'll likely want to get better to avoid losing.  But remember, with the matchmaking you will always lose roughly 50% of your games, so this is impossible anyways.

[K9]

The matchmaking is pretty solid once you're about ~50 games in I found. The first 10-30 games to be a little all over the place. Now that the ladders are a bit more settled it might be better. In general though I feel that I almost always get matched against equal opponents, and so I generally don't rage so much. In Silver and Gold you can definitely wing a lot of stuff and people generally aren't so shit hot that you can't pull off some funky stuff from time to time without being shit-hot yourself.

[sinij]

an APM typically half of my opponents (sub 50 at most times).

If this is true APM you are average to above average, a lot of players spam to get that APM thinking it will make them better. In most cases APM is CPM (clicks per minute) and CPM is not in any way measure of skill.

[sinij]

The problem is that you'll likely want to get better to avoid losing.  But remember, with the matchmaking you will always lose roughly 50% of your games, so this is impossible anyways.

Apparently Blizzard let "bottom fall out" by removing copper league from the beta. There are multiple reports of people at the very bottom of the bronze that are nowhere near 50% w:l and can't earn any points because how terribad they are.

[K9]

Er, copper wasn't removed, it was just re-branded. Everything moved up so copper became bronze, bronze became silver and so on, diamond was added and copper itself removed. This had no real effect on the distribution of players other than Diamond having a slightly higher barrier to entry than early beta platinum.

And yeah, the matchmaking cannot force you to win 50% of your games, nor lose 50%, but for the majority it will get you pretty close.

Unlike this guy, who seems pretty determined for a bronze level player

And he's fairly slack, there's plenty of folk down in bronze with over 6K games played, you'd think after that many they would improve and get out of there 

At the other end of the scale pros like HuK and DeMuslim have win percentages of 75%+

[sinij]

Unlike this guy, who seems pretty determined for a bronze level player

And he's fairly slack, there's plenty of folk down in bronze with over 6K games played, you'd think after that many they would improve and get out of there 

These players are farming portraits with SCV or 6 pool rush. With gold-level micro you can have close to 50% W:L ratio and crank out under 5 min games.

[Fordel]

I did that in Beta when the portraits were only like 5-10 wins. 

[slog]

The problem is that you'll likely want to get better to avoid losing.  But remember, with the matchmaking you will always lose roughly 50% of your games, so this is impossible anyways.

Apparently Blizzard let "bottom fall out" by removing copper league from the beta. There are multiple reports of people at the very bottom of the bronze that are nowhere near 50% w:l and can't earn any points because how terribad they are.

Leagues don't matter at all, except for the  top one.  The various leagues are just the way that Blizz allows players of all abilities to fell like they are accomplishing something.

[Malakili]

The problem is that you'll likely want to get better to avoid losing.  But remember, with the matchmaking you will always lose roughly 50% of your games, so this is impossible anyways.

Apparently Blizzard let "bottom fall out" by removing copper league from the beta. There are multiple reports of people at the very bottom of the bronze that are nowhere near 50% w:l and can't earn any points because how terribad they are.

Leagues don't matter at all, except for the  top one.  The various leagues are just the way that Blizz allows players of all abilities to fell like they are accomplishing something.

I think there are a lot of people who would prefer some kind of global (or even regional) ranking system instead of the leagues/divisions thing they way they have it now as a matter of fact.  Though I have to say the matchmaking has been surprisingly good compared to almost eveyr other match making system in games I've played.  Perhaps due to the population being large enough that it has the ability to pick someone pretty close when it wants to.

[Fordel]

The Leagues are much better for just describing your general skill level.


"Oh I'm only a Silver" or "I'm a Platinum level player" makes sense to most people.

When you are 125,251st out of 1,025,261 players, who gives a shit? It doesn't mean anything either way. Like, unless you are in the top 50 or whatever, then the number is just a number.

[Ingmar]

The leagues give people something actually somewhat tangible to play for, too.

[Malakili]

Man, I've gotten nothing put diamond matches for the last week and its like learning the game all over again.  I'm not doing terrible, probably pretty close to that 50/50 split, but its definitely right on the edge of what I can handle

[Malakili]

Had to share this replay because of how goofy it is (its a game I played yesterday, I'm Zhenya)

[bhodi]

Poor zerg. He didn't do the proxy hatch properly :(

[Malakili]

So is 2v2 just clownshoes in general? I have a friend that really wants to get into it, but it seems like its mostly just shenanigans like one base mass void ray, while the other guy goes mass bashee, and then just attack one guy at the same time.

I really REALLY am not enjoying it so far, but are you basically beholden to living or dying by this kind of play?

[K9]

2v2 is a really mixed bag in my experience. There is a tendency to try massing T2 and T3 units, but you can beat those strategies with a coordinated push with T1 and T1.5-2 units before your opponents can reach critical mass.

[Fordel]

All the Team games are kinda weird in that it all boils down into turning it into a 2v1 or 3v2 or whatever. It's a little better when are playing on a map that shares bases with team mates, but there is a real "problem" of 'okay, if we both 4 gate one guy, then he can't possibly defend on his own and we win' on maps that are built more towards FFA's and the like.

[Tairnyn]

I have enough friends that play every night that we're forced to play 4v4 more than any other game mode. For a while the matchmaking was terrible and any premade would get matched against diamond league teams or, at very least, lower ranked teams filled with diamond 1v1 players which can be just as bad. It's better lately but there's always weird unbalanced combinations, such as the 4 protoss cannon rush or the 3-4 zerg 6 pool, that can make it not so fun. It's also common for one player to do almost nothing and just feed a protoss minerals/gas to enable an early void ray push.

We usually win by having our zerg player hit with an early zergling rush to hamstring one person and put them on the defensive followed by myself and the other terran rushing in with M&M while the protoss builds up. We're on top of gold at the moment, but still get our ass handed to us by a well coordinated set of good 1v1 players.

2v2 tends to be pretty tame and moderately balanced, but 3v3 and beyond is often death by rush or death by cheese. An early combined rush against one person is often very effective because by the time the reinforcements arrive (often one player at a time) the defending force is dead so the force on force confrontation is lopsided. This means a strong attack should almost always be met with a counterattack rather than trying to help defend someone. The better teams are very effective at building a good sized force and all attacking together, most likely with one person in control so everyone else can focus on macro for the next wave.

[Abagadro]

It's just a different type of game with different strategies that sometimes involves one player being a punching bag.

[K9]

Voting down Monolyth Ridge and Tarsonis Assault in your map preferences for 2v2 will also improve your enjoyment as those two have maps have the longest gap between the friendly bases.

Oddly, I got Shakuras Plateau in a 1v1 last night.

[Malakili]

Oddly, I got Shakuras Plateau in a 1v1 last night.

Yeah, they added it to the 1v1 pool.

Also, I've gone like 1-8 since moving up to diamond and its frustrating the hell out of me, everyone is just one beat ahead of me and it adds up so fast.  I mean, I guess I can't complain, I was on a similar winning streak when I was getting to the top of platinum, but DAMN its like I don't understand how to play anymore.  Its a bit different than before though.  Last time I just got really ragey, this time I mostly just feel despair beause I don't know how much better I can get given my play time limitations.

ETA: sigh..chalk up 2 more losses.  Terran pressure if fucking brutal, I simply can't hold off these one base 4-5 barracks pushes.

[El Gallo]

http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/761331

It looks like Protoss have an enormous drop in win% when they hit diamond.  I assume it's because the 4 gate is so much easier to execute than it is to defend, but by the time you get to diamond the other guy knows how to handle it.

As a shitty zerg, the roach range increase makes me a happy camper.

[Malakili]

http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/761331

It looks like Protoss have an enormous drop in win% when they hit diamond.  I assume it's because the 4 gate is so much easier to execute than it is to defend, but by the time you get to diamond the other guy knows how to handle it.

As a shitty zerg, the roach range increase makes me a happy camper.

Not surprising really.  I play Protoss but I almost never 4 gate...though my win % is still going to shit in diamond...

[sinij]

YMMW but here is my view of Plat/Dimon 2s:

1. 2v2 is a lot more about scouting than 1v1 ever is, meaning you will want to scout RELIGIOUSLY, with constant Virgin Worker Sacrifices. Control of Xelnaga towers is something constantly fought over.

2. Games seem to be all about expos - side that can expand and hold to it most will likely win.

3. Some cheese play is present, but with 2 people watching and religious scouting it is a lot harder to pull off. For example, if you try to go VR push you nearly guaranteed to have 2x T1 army beating on your partner's door (why not yours? because you likely to have base D but no army to help your partner).  After that its 2 on1 you you won't have enough VRs to kill 2 bases + 2 gold expos all entrenched in static D with VR before AA comes into full swing and makes your VR obsolete.

[K9]

They're really trying to nerf reapers hard aren't they. Doesn't bother me as I hardly ever use them, but it'd be nice for reapers to find their niche. Roach range is a nice change, it feels too short right now.