So I read from one of the recent posts that the current build in SC2 has more micro. To me this seems sounds like something bad to me. SC to me needed a lot of micro already, and with the amount of macro needed it just seemed one hellishly stressful game. It also brings me to think about WC3. How that game is almost all Micro, and worries me that SC2 might turn into another Micro fest game. Now I know that we can't tell about the increased amount of Micro from SC to SC2 increased but how does anyone feel about the increase in it? Good? Bad? Just waiting? Also will this make SC2 only fun for those that are willing to try and go pro? Or will the casual player still be able to handle his own and put up a fight and have fun doing it?
I think it'll work out. If the new matchmaking system is good enough, pros will battle pros and casuals casuals.
Old news. Those who couldn't guess it were told this directly in Q&A Batch 16. (We're at 50 now.) Warcraft III has a supply cap of 90 (100 with expansion), units cost more food and you get penalized for making more than a few units. StarCraft II supports 400 zerglings. Comparison to Warcraft III? Fail. Given the overemphasis on macro in StarCraft I, I was happy to hear this as soon as the MBS debates appeared.
I don't know about you guys but I have yet played a game were the match making system work properly. A good example of this is WC3. When I play I am only level 4 or 5 and I play against people that are up to 23 and so forth. I don't think any sort of good match making system is going to stop the problem with casual players vrs pros. Also do you guys think that microing should make or brake a player? Should the micro in SC2 be so important that a person with better micro vrs someone with better macro should win?
Kimera757 how is comparing the microing to wc3 fail? Both games are made by Blizzard. And from the BR's even thought I think they are staged, a few banelings and hunter seekers + reaper charges destroyed each others armies. A simple click on both ends destroyed each others full army so easily that micro seems to play such a big role in SC2 that it is more in the shape of WC3. Explain how refering to WC3 such a heavy Micro game is a bad example, when in WC3 a simple nuke from a hero did the exact same amount of damage sometimes even less than what Hunter Seeker missles and Banelings did in BR2.
"Kimera757 how is comparing the microing to wc3 fail? Both games are made by Blizzard." WoW is also made by Blizzard. Comparing its micro to StarCraft would be foolhardy. Warcraft III has small armies (for numerous reasons which are missing in StarCraft II) and multiplayer hereos. StarCraft II has none of that. Also, too many people use the word Warcraft III like a generic insult. It's like saying "X unit is stupid!" without saying anything to back it up. "And from the BR's even thought I think they are staged," Conspiracy theories are so cute. The battle report took so long to make because they had to select one out of many games. Such a selection process wouldn't have occurred if there was scripting. The other day, Karune was talking about one of the games that didn't make the cut. In it, a nullifier blocked a bunch of drones from fleeing by using Force Field, and some other units came in and killed all the drones. The racial matchup was different ... this isn't clear evidence of scripting. If you're going to script a game, you at least assign the racial matchup first. "a few banelings and hunter seekers + reaper charges destroyed each others armies." That was early game, and no surprise since the zerg player had poor macro, so of course he had few units. You must distinguish between what is the fault of the game and what is the fault of the player. Did you notice the large number of terran troops at the end? And for that matter, should players be punished for using micro? You spend time, resources and practice dishing out some new ability, and all you did was wipe out 1% of your opponent's troops, which seems in line with what you wanted... IMO that is lame. In StarCraft I you can do serious damage with abilities when your opponent isn't paying attention, like killing a stack of mutalisks with a single Irradiate; there's no reason why you can't do that kind of thing in StarCraft II. "A simple click on both ends destroyed each others full army so easily that micro seems to play such a big role in SC2 that it is more in the shape of WC3. Explain how refering to WC3 such a heavy Micro game is a bad example, when in WC3 a simple nuke from a hero did the exact same amount of damage sometimes even less than what Hunter Seeker missles and Banelings did in BR2." There are no heroes in StarCraft II. Say it with me. There are no heroes in melee games in StarCraft II. A simple click? The terran player used multiple reapers. He had to place the mines in the midst of raging combat, and the zerg player had the chance to notice and move his troops. While he failed to do so, he did flank with the banelings, catching the terran player off-guard, resulting in an exciting finish (IMO). But apparently that kind of micro is bad for the game, or at least very unpopular with some fragment of the fanbase. In Warcraft III, units have a lot more hit points. Maybe my Warcraft III experiences have been quite different from yours, but I rarely see a "nuke" spell like Chain Lightning take out that huge a chunk of enemy forces. When the most basic fighting units have over 400 hit points, you don't get to see that kind of flashy death-dealing. People who complain about Warcraft III micro usually complain that battles take too long because units have too many hit points and here you're using units dying fast to say that StarCraft II is similar to Warcraft III? That is an argument full of fail. Meanwhile in StarCraft I a nuke would have dished out even more destruction. Why didn't people BMW&C about that then? B*tch, Moan, Whine and Complain.
Wow, I seem as if I have hit a soft spot in you. Sorry your so offended makes me laugh sorry. Yes I can compare them because of the way the micro works. Both games so far seem to have very similar micro. WC3 yes it takes a little more time, but with rightly timed spells (so your not so up set about the word Nuke) you can destroy a lot in WC3 just as you can in SC2. You like to say fail a lot. WIth an attack at my argument saying fail you have already lost. Instead of pointing out specific details. Yes he clicked many reapers but you also have to click many spells using more than one hero in WC3, as well as some units that do not auto cast spells, thus you have to use the skills of the units as well. Same micro. Click to use spells/skills and then devastate an army. You are right WC3 units have more life, but spells spells still did equal damage compared to the spells we have seen in SC2, the difference being that in SC2 skills kill units, the spells in WC3 heavily damage units to almost death. Do both a lot and you end up with the same out come. Armies being dead just because of microing skills. And you bring up the BRs and my opinion, yes I still feel they are staged, but maybe not in the same sense you are thinking. Like many of people have said they seem limited, meaning each player was told they could only use a select group of units. And I don't understand why you are saying I am BWM&C as your putting it. I am just bringing up a discussion, chill out.
StarCraft is an eSport driven on skill. This is really the only way for it to be what it needs to be. If you have problems with the interface then just practice. It all comes with time. I used to struggle with it back in the day when I was about eight years old trying to play with highly complex game. Hell, it still gives me a challenge but that's the greatness of StarCraft. I don't know of any other game I could've played almost every day for eleven years straight and still feel that I can improve in many ways. That's what StarCraft is all about.
I don't understand why everyone thinks I am complaining, I have said it, I am trying to just discuss this. TychusFindlay, that was a good response thank you. So you believe that an increase in Micro is mandatory to take SC2 to another level of playing that SC could not take us? So by that do you think there will be a greater increase in the casual vrs e-sport players level of skill?
What are you talking about? Starcraft had huge amounts of micro, I've seen nothing indicative in Starcraft 2 of more devastating micro than a well timed reaver drop or psi storm (exception perhaps being the hunter-seeker but i expect that to be nerfed). As always macro is going to be paramount, a person with better macro will be able to replace and thus suffer the losses bought on by a better microer easier.
Iv'e played semi-pro for both SC and WC3, and I love both games. The main reason WC3 is so micro focused is because there are much fewer units, so loosing a unit is a double penalty both because its higher importance, and more crucially because you are giving free XP to the enemy hero. Unit saving therefore becomes paramount to prevent the enemy hero from gaining lvl 3 spells or god forbid ultis. In SC you can throw away those Zerglings because they are not worth the couple of clicks to save. In WC you can't feed the enemy hero. SC2 is clearly less micro focused, yet someone with a quick hand and good spatial thinking can really shine, and there is really no way to prevent that at all. Blink and such is help on the way, but good players will always find devastating micro tricks. What makes SC2 a different game is the higher importance of macro. In WC3 you will never have more than 2-3 expansions, mainly because the low pop cap. In SC2, if you sufficiently outmacro and outexpand the opponent, you can very well send hordes of units on atk+ground and win. In WC3, macro is very limited. I have a friend who has very good micro and he beats me every time... looking forward to outmacroing him in SC2 =D
