GuitarBizarre's Big Bad StarCraft Thread

[mr dave]

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

Neither of those things are true, really. The game is about taking expansions and whatnot.

All depends on what you play.

In my experience trying the online side of things it's ALWAYS been about rushing. 100% aggression. That is it, that is all. At least up to Gold level. I don't think it has anything to do with Korean playstyle and everything to do with the rebalancing and redesign of the gameflow for a flashier spectator product. It's simply not possible to play a defensive style to any amount of success in the current game. If we played a match and I spent the first 7 minutes doing nothing but setting up a defense you would crush me with whatever offense you created in the same time. Blizzard made the choice in the way they designed the flow of the current game to reward aggressive play. It's like streamlining chess so that whoever is playing Black always loses unless White messes up horribly.

The races have become more balanced over time but that doesn't change the fact that one aspect of the product is designed and delivered in a way that it doesn't support the other side. That's a major faux pas by Blizzard in my eyes, though I'm also giving them the benefit of the doubt and their wacko 3 releases = 1 product distribution method. I'm hoping the final release of the game completely revamps the multiplayer or at least adds a new mode with a 'Classic' option for those who want to keep playing an e-sport.

@Tuna - don't deny yourself a good game because of petty bickering. It is still quite fun. The single player campaign is quite good and offers some pretty interesting twists on tailoring your available units and buildings. There are also lots of fun and free mods for multiplayer.

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by mr dave

All depends on what you play.

In my experience trying the online side of things it's ALWAYS been about rushing. 100% aggression. That is it, that is all.

Nah thats bull****. Protoss vs Zerg, the standard opening is defensive - Forge fast expand. Build a forge, a cannon, and a nexus in that order. the cannon stops zerg from rushing early and you can expand your economy before he can. Then you just have to build up your army faster than he does and go stomp him.

You can have that ****ed up for you if you tech to an army that his units are strong against of course, but Starcraft is absolutely not about all aggression, all the time. Obviously turtling is bad, but so is going for an all-in when you can't win. There's balance between the two.

[mr dave]

Originally Posted by GuitarBizarre

Obviously turtling is bad, but so is going for an all-in when you can't win. There's balance between the two.

See that's exactly my issue. Turtling was a valid and effective tactic in the original. If I chose to turtle against a player who chose to go full aggro we'd reach a stalemate. To me that's how balance works, 100% aggro vs. 100% defense should result in 0% victory within the match. In the new version 'some' defensive play is effective but being a predominantly defensive player is not.

[GuitarBizarre]

Originally Posted by mr dave

See that's exactly my issue. Turtling was a valid and effective tactic in the original. If I chose to turtle against a player who chose to go full aggro we'd reach a stalemate. To me that's how balance works, 100% aggro vs. 100% defense should result in 0% victory within the match. In the new version 'some' defensive play is effective but being a predominantly defensive player is not.

In a 1 base vs 1 base situation where neither player has a terrain advantage, thats exactly what happens.

But if you take 2 bases while your opponent turtles up on 1, you have twice as much money and can reinforce twice as fast, so you win, unless he stops you taking that extra base, or takes one of his own. Surely that makes exactly the same amount of sense?