Technology Starcraft 2
- Thread starter Preach
- Start date
I'm a real time strategy game fan but I find this game boring. Almost like Starcraft 1 (a bit worse) with HD graphics. Yeah I might be biased because I was never a fan of Starcraft.
I know that there are many fans of this game but I don't understand what they see in it. To me it's just about rushing for resources and rushing with units and if by any chance the game isn't over after the resources are depleted then the game turns into the most boring thing ever.
No good economy and no real strategy in Starcraft 2.
I know that there are many fans of this game but I don't understand what they see in it. To me it's just about rushing for resources and rushing with units and if by any chance the game isn't over after the resources are depleted then the game turns into the most boring thing ever.
No good economy and no real strategy in Starcraft 2.
In my experience there are two types of RTS gamers. The ones that like to use strategy and fast micro-management to trump the other player, and those that find satisfaction in watching numbers expand for no apparent reason.
Or in simpler terms, processing a lot of thoughts and choices very fast VS. taking your time, building a base, then crushing the opponent, feeling like a masculine beast of a war machine.
Even within Starcraft, there are people who like it for the single player gameplay and the story, and there are people who play it on a min-max level.
I am going out on a limb and suggesting that you probably never played more than a few games. What you are saying here is complete bullshit. The reason why people like Starcraft is because of its massive depth. Let me say that again. You say "I don't get why people like it, it's boring and there is no real strategy", and the answer to that question is that the reason so many people like it is BECAUSE it offers so much more strategy, both on the micro and macro level, than every other RTS game out there. Make no mistake about it, your opinion is wrong because 100s of millions of people around the world say so. There's either something you missed, or you haven't given it a good enough chance and you're just posting about it because you're bored and saw a new thread.
Here is the so called "Terran 1/1/1" strategy, which is one of hundreds of different strategies you can use, and serves as an example of the depth. This takes one thing into account: the macro management of your build order. It says little to nothing about what to do after 15 minutes have passed, because you simply have to know all races, their units, and how to counter their units. You need to know strategies for all races, and often you will have to come up with a counter-strategy based on what your enemy is building. To do this you need to scout his base early on and maintain map control. So the terran 1/1/1 strategy follows:
# 10 cap - Supply Depot
# 12 cap - Barracks
# 15 cap - Refinery
# 16 cap - Refinery
# 17 cap - Supply + Marine
# 19 cap - Orbital Command + Marine
# 20 cap - Factory + Reactor on Barracks
# 22 cap - Starport
# *Optional* Swap Barracks with Factory and get some Hellions for harassment
# 25 cap - Swap Barracks with Factory, train Marines
# 27 cap - Swap Starport and Barracks, build another Tech Lab with the Barracks
# 27 cap - Raven
# 28 cap - Command Center
# Time to transition (build Barracks / Factories/ Starports)
# Continue depending on the enemy build.
(the "10 cap" means to execute that action when your food resources are at x/10.
Notice how it says "continue depending on enemy build". The idea with this game is that you are supposed to make choices all the time, and your choices coupled with your ability to have a high APM (Actions per minute) is what will make you the victor. APM has to do with how fast you can issue orders. You have to know how to do everything except moving and selecting units using only hot-keys to even get to the level where the depth starts mattering for your level of play. So 3 games will not give you a proper look into what SC2 is all about. 50-100 online games are required. You need to get a feel for things. You need to learn how to expand your base and build new command centres while also harassing their expansions with fast, cheap units, and while doing all of this you have to ensure 100% uptime on unit production and to never have money in the bank, because unspent money = wasted resources. What you can in fact say about Starcraft play is that it is less like a game and more like a sport, because not everyone have eye-hand coordination tuned to do it. In the end it comes down to how fast is your mind and how good are you with the hotkeys.
I don't know what you mean by "no good economy". If you mean that it's not a game where you can build a base, harvest all the resources on the map and completely OMGWTFPWN the CPU then I guess you are right. What can be said about the Starcraft economy, however, is that HOW you spend your resources (as in, your build order), and making sure you are never saving your resources but instead using them wisely, matters greatly. It then comes down to a matter of taste. Do you like easy choices, or more difficult choices that require you to actually think?
As for the "no real strategy", you are mistaken my friend. That's not one of those things where everyone have the right to an opinion. Your opinion is based on lack of experience with "the real deal", but Starcraft 2 has more strategy than any other game I can think of. Not to mention that most other RTS games are so simple in the way they play online that only Starcraft and Warcraft had what it took to entice advanced gamers. The C&C or AoE series don't have near the same type of following, and the games are tuned in such a way that little things matter less. In Starcraft you can for example win a battle by kiting the enemy if your troops move faster, even though he has more troops than you. How you move your troops starts mattering. A lot of troops have special abilities. Terran marines have stimpacks which give them 50% attack speed and movement speed boost for 15sec but takes 1/4 life bars from the unit. When to use it and how to use it is an art form almost. You can't just group all your military units to CTRL+1 and then right click one unit in the enemy army and then wait for whoever has the biggest army to win. You have to group ground-ground, ground-air, air-air and air-ground units in different group. Some unit types aren't supposed to initiate an attack but come in behind. Unit placement even matters. How you can say that there is no strategy just blows my mind.
Try playing the game for a while, or respect that you don't know what you are talking about lol. I'm just skeptical if your "I find the game boring" can't be translated to "I don't like having to think so much, I wanna play a game, not get a second job". Which is what you should have said if that's the case and not ruin the excitement for those of us who do appreciate it greatly
People play games for different reasons, some spend more energy on the game than on other real life ventures. Maybe because games provide an outlet for high energetic minds that nothing else can provide. There's nothing weird about finding the game overwhelming to the point where you feel like you CBA to even get into it, but factless accusations aren't cool.
Or in simpler terms, processing a lot of thoughts and choices very fast VS. taking your time, building a base, then crushing the opponent, feeling like a masculine beast of a war machine.
Even within Starcraft, there are people who like it for the single player gameplay and the story, and there are people who play it on a min-max level.
I am going out on a limb and suggesting that you probably never played more than a few games. What you are saying here is complete bullshit. The reason why people like Starcraft is because of its massive depth. Let me say that again. You say "I don't get why people like it, it's boring and there is no real strategy", and the answer to that question is that the reason so many people like it is BECAUSE it offers so much more strategy, both on the micro and macro level, than every other RTS game out there. Make no mistake about it, your opinion is wrong because 100s of millions of people around the world say so. There's either something you missed, or you haven't given it a good enough chance and you're just posting about it because you're bored and saw a new thread.
Here is the so called "Terran 1/1/1" strategy, which is one of hundreds of different strategies you can use, and serves as an example of the depth. This takes one thing into account: the macro management of your build order. It says little to nothing about what to do after 15 minutes have passed, because you simply have to know all races, their units, and how to counter their units. You need to know strategies for all races, and often you will have to come up with a counter-strategy based on what your enemy is building. To do this you need to scout his base early on and maintain map control. So the terran 1/1/1 strategy follows:
# 10 cap - Supply Depot
# 12 cap - Barracks
# 15 cap - Refinery
# 16 cap - Refinery
# 17 cap - Supply + Marine
# 19 cap - Orbital Command + Marine
# 20 cap - Factory + Reactor on Barracks
# 22 cap - Starport
# *Optional* Swap Barracks with Factory and get some Hellions for harassment
# 25 cap - Swap Barracks with Factory, train Marines
# 27 cap - Swap Starport and Barracks, build another Tech Lab with the Barracks
# 27 cap - Raven
# 28 cap - Command Center
# Time to transition (build Barracks / Factories/ Starports)
# Continue depending on the enemy build.
(the "10 cap" means to execute that action when your food resources are at x/10.
Notice how it says "continue depending on enemy build". The idea with this game is that you are supposed to make choices all the time, and your choices coupled with your ability to have a high APM (Actions per minute) is what will make you the victor. APM has to do with how fast you can issue orders. You have to know how to do everything except moving and selecting units using only hot-keys to even get to the level where the depth starts mattering for your level of play. So 3 games will not give you a proper look into what SC2 is all about. 50-100 online games are required. You need to get a feel for things. You need to learn how to expand your base and build new command centres while also harassing their expansions with fast, cheap units, and while doing all of this you have to ensure 100% uptime on unit production and to never have money in the bank, because unspent money = wasted resources. What you can in fact say about Starcraft play is that it is less like a game and more like a sport, because not everyone have eye-hand coordination tuned to do it. In the end it comes down to how fast is your mind and how good are you with the hotkeys.
I don't know what you mean by "no good economy". If you mean that it's not a game where you can build a base, harvest all the resources on the map and completely OMGWTFPWN the CPU then I guess you are right. What can be said about the Starcraft economy, however, is that HOW you spend your resources (as in, your build order), and making sure you are never saving your resources but instead using them wisely, matters greatly. It then comes down to a matter of taste. Do you like easy choices, or more difficult choices that require you to actually think?
As for the "no real strategy", you are mistaken my friend. That's not one of those things where everyone have the right to an opinion. Your opinion is based on lack of experience with "the real deal", but Starcraft 2 has more strategy than any other game I can think of. Not to mention that most other RTS games are so simple in the way they play online that only Starcraft and Warcraft had what it took to entice advanced gamers. The C&C or AoE series don't have near the same type of following, and the games are tuned in such a way that little things matter less. In Starcraft you can for example win a battle by kiting the enemy if your troops move faster, even though he has more troops than you. How you move your troops starts mattering. A lot of troops have special abilities. Terran marines have stimpacks which give them 50% attack speed and movement speed boost for 15sec but takes 1/4 life bars from the unit. When to use it and how to use it is an art form almost. You can't just group all your military units to CTRL+1 and then right click one unit in the enemy army and then wait for whoever has the biggest army to win. You have to group ground-ground, ground-air, air-air and air-ground units in different group. Some unit types aren't supposed to initiate an attack but come in behind. Unit placement even matters. How you can say that there is no strategy just blows my mind.
Try playing the game for a while, or respect that you don't know what you are talking about lol. I'm just skeptical if your "I find the game boring" can't be translated to "I don't like having to think so much, I wanna play a game, not get a second job". Which is what you should have said if that's the case and not ruin the excitement for those of us who do appreciate it greatly
People play games for different reasons, some spend more energy on the game than on other real life ventures. Maybe because games provide an outlet for high energetic minds that nothing else can provide. There's nothing weird about finding the game overwhelming to the point where you feel like you CBA to even get into it, but factless accusations aren't cool.Wow Preach, you sound like you are not a noob at all. 
Not only can you make your marines shoot faster, but getting additional resources (gas) to pump out medics to heal them in battle helps too.
Masta, I'm sure if you give it a try like Preach said (50-100x) you will learn more through more fights and understand that there is not ONE strategy you can use. ANYTHING can counter you.
I've seen someone building a huge base once, I got a lurker (an alien that goes underground) and I wont in like 5 mins. So, sometimes if you don't spy on what your enemy is doing, you can be building all the units in the world, but if u don't have the proper ones, you're fucked.
Not only can you make your marines shoot faster, but getting additional resources (gas) to pump out medics to heal them in battle helps too.
Masta, I'm sure if you give it a try like Preach said (50-100x) you will learn more through more fights and understand that there is not ONE strategy you can use. ANYTHING can counter you.
I've seen someone building a huge base once, I got a lurker (an alien that goes underground) and I wont in like 5 mins. So, sometimes if you don't spy on what your enemy is doing, you can be building all the units in the world, but if u don't have the proper ones, you're fucked.
@Preach: I actually took my time to read it all but my response probably won't do your post any justice.
I think that you are looking too deep into my post.
I agree that there are different kinds of strategy games. The likes of Age of Empires, C&C series, then there are games like Total War (which imo require the most strategy but I don't like them).
My point about Starcraft and it being boring is that it doesn't really feel rewarding for a casual gamer like me.
You are right that it requires a lot of time to master and then when I'd know it perfectly then each detail, every action would probably feel rewarding. Most strategies there lie in details.
I grew up playing games like C&C, Red Alert, Age of Empires, Settlers, Empire Earth and such. They define the genre in my opinion. When I played Starcraft I instantly knew that it's not my thing. I found it boring. Too fast, simple, with scarce resources, little bases and a lot of silly rushing and dumbed down fights. That was it from my perspective. Okay I agree that it actually requires strategy but it's mostly about doing little things differently.
I know it was just my perspective - I couldn't use my hard earned resources to build a proper base or a proper army and actually watch it grow to be actually bigger and better than those of my enemies' that have been inferior strategically. In most other games I've played all choices that I made and moves that I made would bring me closer to being the dominating force. Having a bigger army, better base, more ore fields in range etc. Then using these resources properly to wipe out my enemy was cool. I knew that I was the better side if my opponent actually couldn't stop me. Made me aware of my better strategy that resulted in me having the superior base and superior army he would then have to struggle a lot with. These were the consequences of his worse strategy earlier in the game, worse economy or things as minor as planning with structure placement. Then I could attack on millions of different ways with the best unit in the game that I took a lot of effort to afford.
Back in the days I was really great at Red Alert. I could easily take over half of the map and make a virtually indestructible base. Take over multiple enemies at the same time. When I encountered a good player it would be a huge and very entertaining war that could last for hours. Destroying structure by structure, multiple assaults, crippling their economy by destroying harvesters and refineries to strike when the enemy sells his structures to rebuild economy etc. It all took some time and yet was extremely rewarding in my opinion. In my opinion that was the pinnacle of a strategy game (okay maybe it missed some elements that games like Empire Earth, Age of Empires and Settlers had like elements of politics/making alliances, trading and such). My base was actually like my own little country.
In Starcraft any base can be dominated by a few units in less than a minute. Starcraft online matches were really frustrating to me because I was used to something else. Playing Starcraft felt like playing Counter-Strike. You couldn't spot a ghost on the back of your base that you took a lot of effort to build ergonomically - bah, you lose. Your armies can get wiped out in seconds. The game was entirely about offense and just countering armies of your enemy with different units. To me it's an entirely different genre.
It was always that strategy game that was out there, had its fans and just existed but wasn't especially interesting to me. Just like Warcraft (though I used to play Warcraft 2 for some time).
I really enjoy slower strategy games, where you can take your time and make various different decisions. Building bases, planning and smart thinking.
I agree that I shouldn't have called Starcraft the game with no strategy. There's that different kind of strategy, the one that I don't like. I don't find it rewarding and thus I find the game boring. That's what I should've said.
When I got into the beta of C&C 4 and found out that some silly head decided to go "Starcraft" with the series I was pissed - basically almost no base, just building proper forces *for free* and countering opponent forces with different forces that were good against them, taking over the nodes, speed and reflexes etc. my heart was broken and I declined to buy that game. It took terrible reviews and was the first C&C game I don't own.
That genre should be actually called differently.
I enjoy building a proper base, watch it grow, actually plan and have the superior base, take over most resources to actually use them to build my base further and build up a proper army, not just to spawn a few units that could own my enemy because he builds a different kind of units, even if they are super mega awesome.
I agree that if I liked it and played a lot then even small improvements in my strategy would feel rewarding. But I don't, I don't see anything interesting in that game. It's not really a proper RTS to me. It's a basic base, basic units and rush to destroy your enemies with proper units and timing - in that game strategy is making these little things differently. Yeah so that's why I said that Starcraft is boring to me. Maybe except of its campaign but still to me it was nowhere as good as other classic RTS series.
I think that you are looking too deep into my post.
I agree that there are different kinds of strategy games. The likes of Age of Empires, C&C series, then there are games like Total War (which imo require the most strategy but I don't like them).
My point about Starcraft and it being boring is that it doesn't really feel rewarding for a casual gamer like me.
You are right that it requires a lot of time to master and then when I'd know it perfectly then each detail, every action would probably feel rewarding. Most strategies there lie in details.
I grew up playing games like C&C, Red Alert, Age of Empires, Settlers, Empire Earth and such. They define the genre in my opinion. When I played Starcraft I instantly knew that it's not my thing. I found it boring. Too fast, simple, with scarce resources, little bases and a lot of silly rushing and dumbed down fights. That was it from my perspective. Okay I agree that it actually requires strategy but it's mostly about doing little things differently.
I know it was just my perspective - I couldn't use my hard earned resources to build a proper base or a proper army and actually watch it grow to be actually bigger and better than those of my enemies' that have been inferior strategically. In most other games I've played all choices that I made and moves that I made would bring me closer to being the dominating force. Having a bigger army, better base, more ore fields in range etc. Then using these resources properly to wipe out my enemy was cool. I knew that I was the better side if my opponent actually couldn't stop me. Made me aware of my better strategy that resulted in me having the superior base and superior army he would then have to struggle a lot with. These were the consequences of his worse strategy earlier in the game, worse economy or things as minor as planning with structure placement. Then I could attack on millions of different ways with the best unit in the game that I took a lot of effort to afford.
Back in the days I was really great at Red Alert. I could easily take over half of the map and make a virtually indestructible base. Take over multiple enemies at the same time. When I encountered a good player it would be a huge and very entertaining war that could last for hours. Destroying structure by structure, multiple assaults, crippling their economy by destroying harvesters and refineries to strike when the enemy sells his structures to rebuild economy etc. It all took some time and yet was extremely rewarding in my opinion. In my opinion that was the pinnacle of a strategy game (okay maybe it missed some elements that games like Empire Earth, Age of Empires and Settlers had like elements of politics/making alliances, trading and such). My base was actually like my own little country.
In Starcraft any base can be dominated by a few units in less than a minute. Starcraft online matches were really frustrating to me because I was used to something else. Playing Starcraft felt like playing Counter-Strike. You couldn't spot a ghost on the back of your base that you took a lot of effort to build ergonomically - bah, you lose. Your armies can get wiped out in seconds. The game was entirely about offense and just countering armies of your enemy with different units. To me it's an entirely different genre.
It was always that strategy game that was out there, had its fans and just existed but wasn't especially interesting to me. Just like Warcraft (though I used to play Warcraft 2 for some time).
I really enjoy slower strategy games, where you can take your time and make various different decisions. Building bases, planning and smart thinking.
I agree that I shouldn't have called Starcraft the game with no strategy. There's that different kind of strategy, the one that I don't like. I don't find it rewarding and thus I find the game boring. That's what I should've said.
When I got into the beta of C&C 4 and found out that some silly head decided to go "Starcraft" with the series I was pissed - basically almost no base, just building proper forces *for free* and countering opponent forces with different forces that were good against them, taking over the nodes, speed and reflexes etc. my heart was broken and I declined to buy that game. It took terrible reviews and was the first C&C game I don't own.
That genre should be actually called differently.
I enjoy building a proper base, watch it grow, actually plan and have the superior base, take over most resources to actually use them to build my base further and build up a proper army, not just to spawn a few units that could own my enemy because he builds a different kind of units, even if they are super mega awesome.
I agree that if I liked it and played a lot then even small improvements in my strategy would feel rewarding. But I don't, I don't see anything interesting in that game. It's not really a proper RTS to me. It's a basic base, basic units and rush to destroy your enemies with proper units and timing - in that game strategy is making these little things differently. Yeah so that's why I said that Starcraft is boring to me. Maybe except of its campaign but still to me it was nowhere as good as other classic RTS series.
The strategy is in how you build your base (where you place the buildings, which ones you build first), what units you train, what upgrades you use, how you group your units and the way you attack etc. Because it's so fast-paced you have to make decisions very quickly. Real-time strategy game sounds pretty spot on to me.
But I never play multiplayer for strategy games, just the campaign, so maybe that part of the game isn't that good. Starcraft's campaigns are very good though.
But I never play multiplayer for strategy games, just the campaign, so maybe that part of the game isn't that good. Starcraft's campaigns are very good though.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.