Looking at a pro lvl scbw game

I know im posting scbw stuff, but im doing it because this is what I want sc2 to evolve into:

All Star Zerg v Protoss Battle Set 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok7VaFz-iWc&feature=channel_page

Watch the game - and lets discuss.

-Something is happening all the time, all over the map.

-Many interesting ideas/tactics, observer sniping (invis getting stronger), zerglings borruw to scout etc.

-Multitasking and interesting play is important.

-Interesting map

What do you think is key?

 

It won't let me watch it. "unavailable on mobile" What the hell, but perhaps you should have posted this in the strategy section.

But about that map, in Return of the King scouting is your friend iirc. Harassing is is always better then going fully offensive if you play Protoss vs Zerg anyway. At least early game, since you risk loosing all your zealots against the first wave of zerglings. The one dragoon you might have when the second wave followed you back to base already makes you loose the game.

 

I posted it here because it wasnt a strategy/build-order discussen, but a "how you want starcraft 2 to be" discussen - thinking out from this very special game.
Forsaken you are right about your harrasing part, but its not very normal to see the zerg being the one harrasing with a few ovies-drops and the Protoss going corsair-reaver not being able to do anything. (yes, im a Savior fan ). I want sc2 to be a game where every race can do many different things.

 

I could not watch the game for some reason, so I posted my own experience on that map with those races.

I understand where you want to go with this now, and you are right. Being versatile is important for each race, and strarcraft manages to do this with as less units as possible. In most other -modern- RTS games, you just have to much overlap. Supreme Commander for instance has about 40 units per side, or so I have been told. That is just exaggerated. If you put that many units in a game, then you have no need of improvising with what you have and you never need to counter a type of unit. You just build a crapload of units and hope the overlap between unit roles is big enough to counter everything without to much damage. Starcraft2 needs to force you to choose, or it will fail entirely as being a balanced E-sports game.

 

i dont what was so special about this game to hope sc2 evolves to it. They were both playing sloppy from what I've seen them do before. Was a good game, but seen alot better.

 

Forsaken you are completly right! But what Blizzard has done so fantastic in the past (and still do) is that they make 15 units which fill out 40 units roles. So you still have to pick - but its not just hard counters on hard counters (like AOE 2 for example) - or the example you named. I for example love to see a ZvP midgame where Zerg does the interesting thing to start producing mutalisks even though Protoss still has Corsairs in the air. Then he makes a big push where, he sacrifies a lot of his Hydralisks just to kill the corsairs. What is left is an army advantage for the Protoss, but Zerg has the aircontrol - and is able to pick off some high templers - and a hydrapush wins the game.
Ofcourse thats just an example, but really thats what sc2 should be, a game where you have to adapt all time, and not a game where some units are useless (yeah, even scbw has failed in that category).

 

This game was so special because it involved some really unexpected choices by both players, and the one who responded in the best way with what he had won. This game shows that improvising and taking risks can make you win a game, which is exectly what sc2 should be about in multiplayer games.

 

Are you the one who gave me bad rep for my post? I disagree with what your saying. sc2 should not be won at a pro level simply because the other person took risks. I believe its good every once and a while, but overall thats related to Proxying. Where everyday or the gameplay should not be revolved around. From what I was seeing, I didnt see any big risks. 3rd expansion in begining is not out of norm and the base drop was a normal response in play. The over all game was super sloppy though and ofcourse Im speaking for PRO level play, which this obviously was.

 

Where did the other person take risks if I may ask? Point something out instead of talking crap

 

Are u replying to me? cause if you read my post.. its obvious that you then agree with me.

Ask Aurora.

 

What I meant was that going reaver and corsair is a risk, you only have limited attack options then. Going harassing seems a good choice for zerg then, but you risk exposing your base and expensions by flying back and forth all the time. If that happens the toss only has to quickly move in his reavers to win. Both took a risk, but it payd of for the zerg.

And why would I give you bad rep, tinke?

 

someone gave me bad rep for this post saying "it did not add to the topic". Just asking if it was you.. because whoever it was is hiding behind a curtain.

 

As a creator of this topic I would like you to take that discussen in another topic - thank you.

 

If you're looking for more pro SC games...

There's a link to some in my sig, or go straight there by going to www.gomtv.net

 

I love matches like this, these guys are awesome as heck.

I could never be as good as them though, They have like 150+ clicks per minute.

 

What we're seeing I think, is enhanced macro play in the game.

For a decent strategy game, all of the three macro strategies must be in "balanced contradiction". Where no one macro strategy is predictably the best. Each macro strategy should detract from the other macro strategies.

For example, see the contradictions the three main aspects of macro:

1. Maximise your attack force. -- Must build units quickly and not loose units --> Must not let units become vulnerable --> Best to keep your forces together --> Do not spread out --> Do not leave base --> Do not expand.

2. Counter Selection. -- Must do reconn --> Must leave base --> Must spread out --> Must make units vulnerable --> Must engane enemy --> You will loose units.

3. Control Resources. -- Must expand --> Must leave base --> Must spread out --> Must stop building units to afford to build expansions.


Good games happen when there is balanced contradiction. The sign of balanced contradiction is that one of these choices doesn't cripple a player as a case of bad luck, but provides some disadvantage that can (and should) be recoverable. It should be relatively easy for a player to shift to a different macro strategy.

All of this is determined as much by the map layout as the tech tree.

 

Jasmine very fine post! I agree, but I will try in the following post to look at your 1/3 spread out compared with SC2 and SC1.
Thats actually easy to do. Building units quickly has been made eaiser, and increase of the micro needed for Resource Gathering has been wieghted higher, which means that there is the same need for macro as in Starcraft 1, but its different. I will let you judge if this is good or bad.

 

Quickly building units does improve one's ability to quickly adapt your strategy. Whether it's the reactors giving 2x units, or the faster mineral harvesting mechanic, or the warp prism ability, or the queen's hive larvae thing... SC2 certainly sounds like the game-play is going to get faster as time goes on.

I personally feel that micro should be kept to the battlefield, rather than on harvesting. I think it's important to not let the tactical aspect of the game overshadow the strategic aspect.

While micro is fun to watch, it is only fun to watch in combat. Where is the fun in watching SCVs be ordered about? What you saw in the game posted was deeper strategic play, and we don't really want tedious scv ordering to detract from depth of play, do we?

------

Traditionally, strategy is like chess -- an iterative process of anticipating your opponents responses to your responses to their responses and so on. When you've got all that going on in your head, you've got to find a path through the logic it throws out, so that your choices don't lead to your own ruin.

Sometimes, choice is obvious. Make X attack Y. Let Z come to defend. Safely warp in the photon cannons while Z is out of the way, and you've got them.

What balanced contradiction does, is provide greater depth to the strategic layer. Simply because with that in place, no player can get their head around what's best in the long term, because the logic of anticipating responses and counter-responses gets too mind-boggling before it gives any deep insights.

So it forces each player to experiment, trying to discover new strategies of play, that might pay off. Whether it's venturing into areas of the map that aren't normally used, or building stuff that isn't normally built... Games are less predictable, even for pro players.

Let's face it , nobody likes a game once they've "solved" it, or once they know how to win. Keeping players' heads in that grey area, allowing them to gain some insight but not being able to predict the long term game, is a good thing.

------

My concern over SC2 is that it will be more about massing units and creating hard counters. Faster builds don't really help that. They make the whole experience more intense, and the player has less motivation to be creative.

High build speed and increased tactical gameplay both push the player into predictable forced reactive builds, rather than giving them opportunities to experiment with their strategy. Although depth of strategy is what we should be aiming for.

 

Jasmine one thing:
"While micro is fun to watch, it is only fun to watch in combat. Where is the fun in watching SCVs be ordered about?"
You see, pro gamers dont want a fun game, they want a game where there better apm prevails not only in micro but also in macro (sending scv's from the cc to the minerals isnt possible anymore).

 

They don't want a fun game? :laugh:

While it may be beneficial, in general apm should mean nothing. It shouldn't predict the winner.

It may just be that that's what sc1 rewards, but RTS shouldn't be a twitch game; you should win because you have a superlative adaptive strategy. It should be about reading the state of the game and responding astutely.

But as I said, micro is good in combat: Managing your unit formations, moving units in and out of combat, selecting your targets for focus fire... are all good. apm can benefit that, but it shouldn't dominate the bigger game.