View Single Post


Old 10-21-2008
 
#18
United States Nicol Bolas
BF Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,095
 Nicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too longNicol Bolas has been here far, far too long
Default

Quote:
I don't want starcraft 2 to play like ZvZ in SC1, where the relative ease of macro (2 hatch max) for the high econ player, the singular point focus on micro (the muta stack) and the absolute impossibility of defense means every game ends very quickly after mutalisks come out. There are few comebacks and many sudden death.
Actually, that's not why ZvZ in SC1 devolved to that state. It does so because defending with the Zerg is more expensive than attacking (Colonies cost Drones, which are critical), because all Zerg units come from Larva, because Tier 2 Zerg units, outside the Mutalisk, are of little value, and because Hydralisks cannot effectively stop Mutalisks.

So it's a question of proper game balance.

I don't see anything in SC2 that will keep comebacks from working. Having a large economy still costs money, and therefore there is an opportunity to attack someone who gains an economic advantage. And SC2 has lots of ways to make people pay for expanding at the wrong time or in the wrong way.

Quote:
imagine if Warp Gates had a build queue and rally point which can be enabled/disabled
If it had a rally point, it wouldn't be Warp-In

Quote:
Warp Gates are something that could be 100% automated, too.
But there is an automated alternative. You sacrifice automatic as a choice to get control over location and a slightly shorter build time. Or, to put it another way, there are two ways to make a Zealot: one that can be automated to a degree and one that is faster, but requires more APM and thought. You're not forcing people to use the unautomated version.

Quote:
If you have the macro skill to keep that Warp Gate constantly busy without the help of a build queue, then because of the faster production, it becomes strictly better than using a Gateway.
Does it?

There is an advantage in units coming out of a Gateway; they start out in your base. If your enemy flanks you, avoiding your Warp-In staging area in favor of smiting your base, it's going to take a long time to get your units back. Whereas if you had your units back near your base, that wouldn't have been as much of a problem.

It is better in the sense that you build units faster. But it can leave your base open to possible attack. Not the biggest disadvantage, certainly. And I suspect that most high-end pros will 100% switch to WarpGates ASAP. But it isn't wrong to use Gateways in the way you're describing.
 

"I still haven't heard a reason why clicks spent overcoming interface limitations to build troops are somehow more indicative of skill than clicks spent maneuvering units and using abilities." - SpiderBrigade
 

Nicol Bolas is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote