Anyone else buying Starcraft 2 to just play the singleplayer campaign?

[tydas]

I'm primarily in for the single player campaign...will also dabble in multiplayer..i'm just hoping they have worked out a good skill based match up system.

 

[lord_emperor]

Single player, then run around customs if there's anything interesting.

Starcraft completely killed competitive multiplayer. Warcraft 3 beat the horse dead, but with heroes. Starcraft II didn't help any and doesn't seem as if they care to.

I got sick of 5 min rushes and memorizing build orders. Strategy (and I use that term loosely) was little more than rote memorization based on race matchup. If you got lucky, the other guy guessed wrong and you rape him. If you get unlucky, he built correctly and after a quick fight he's razing your base. Balancing was little more than unit A rapes unit B, which rapes unit C, which in turn rapes A. So you always built units A and B, used A frontline to rape and pillage, switched B to the forefront if you run into unit C, then switched back to A when C is gone.

For RTS type gameplay, I prefer long, drawn-out fights. Units should be able to hold their ground long enough for reinforcements, no matter the match up, not be so badly overpowered you simply left them to die if they run into certain units. Infantry, for example, may always end up on the losing side against heavy armor, but they should at least be able to dig in long enough for you to bring in anti-armor units. The player base wants five minute wins, not hour long slugfests, so standard versus maps are unlikely to hold my interest at all.

Starcraft refined the quick-kill and it's not going away anytime soon.

This post is unparalleled in its accuracy. I tip my hat to you.

 

[Sahakiel]

To me this says you didn't scout properly and chose to do risky rushes yourself rather than stick with solid economic play and slowly beating your opponent.

Unfortunately, that may have been a solid assessment early on before Brood War. However, it really didn't take long for rush tactics to develop, at which point scouting gets you killed. Instead of spending valuable early resources on an army, you wasted it on scouts. One or two early units decided whether the enemy survives with 1 hp or not.
If you've ever played the first starcraft, you have a rough idea of the first few times you walked into a random versus map and saw everyone else flipping to zerg. It pretty much went downhill after that with new rush build trees coming out every time Blizzard tried balancing it.

Most units in Starcraft do not get hard countered unless you screw up. Standing your ground with an inferior force is just bad play on the level of WWI mass infantry tactics. Delaying/harassing, using advantageous terrain, flanking, hitting their bases via a runby or drop are all possible.

That's the whole point. If you do screw up, your force is completely wiped out. Hence, you simply left them to die.
Holding your ground with an inferior force is a delay tactic. It's not equivalent to WWI mass infantry. The idea is to hold out long enough that you can bring to bear equal or greater force or sacrifice them to run a second force around the side. With Starcraft, neither option was viable because your inferior force didn't last longer than 30 seconds.
The problem with hard counters is that it only encourages rushing. If you delay the rush by introducing more resource costs or moving techs up the tree, all you really do is allow time for the player to confirm their rush will work or switch to a different counter. There's no strategy involved that doesn't depend on memorizing counters.
The problem with balancing with soft counters is that it requires far more time and resources than Blizzard is willing to commit. Both Starcraft and Warcraft are great examples. The player base is simply too large to effectively prevent exploits and it never takes long before they figure out the new insta-win tactic. That's why Blizzard relies on rock-paper-scissors type balancing. Instead of balancing each unit against every other unit to varying degrees of survival, it's a lot easier to balance against a few and then let them get raped by the others as long as an overall composition involving all units on both sides has a roughly equal chance of going either way.
However, I'm sure we're quite familiar with how often you have a chance to gather or build a group on both sides with every possible unit available.

The player base wants to win. If the opponent is much better than you or vice versa, the winner might find a decisive advantage in five minutes. If you are evenly matched, it might take an hour. A "slugfest" is just what happens when two players are evenly matched, both scout enough and do not do suicidal all-ins. What you seem to be asking for is a game where two badly mismatched players would have to play for half an hour when the outcome is clear after five minutes. That would be a poor game.

I never said the player base didn't want to win. They just want to win quickly, then move on to the next game or log off for the day. Blizzard kept nerfing rushes because nobody likes getting steamrolled so early. However, the player base simply kept adjusting and figuring out ways to steamroll as early as possible. That's the biggest problem with unequal tech trees. While they provide variety, they make it easier to find inflection points where one side can roll out units that have an advantage before either side can fill out the tree.
I agree that a slugfest is one possible result of two evenly matched players. However, the game mechanics prevent them from happening because either your units die too fast or you run out of resources. A series of skirmishes over 30 minutes isn't what I consider a slugfest. I like games with hundreds or thousands of units going toe to toe or running circles trying to get behind the other or any combination of the above. Less of an emphasis on pumping out fodder or counters and more on hold-fast, retreat, flank, give up for dead, etc. In other words, units shouldn't be capable of dying in less than 10 seconds even if they do run into their hard counter. I prefer survival up to 1 minute against your hard counter with equal numbers on both sides.
As I said, I prefer long slugfests, not a bunch of quick skirmishes.

I played plenty of half-an-hour games in the beta. Looking at my latest replays, I played one that was 35min just before the beta closed. Not once (in ~200 games?) did anyone rush me and quit after the rush failed, which is what someone solely concerned with five-minute wins would do.

Half-hour isn't exactly my idea of a slugfest when half that time is spent building your base and gathering resources to build an army.
That's the problem I have with SC2. It didn't really change anything tactically. I played a lot of 30 min matches and quite a few 10 min as well, but very rarely got into long matches. I got rushed several times, lost only a few of those, managed to counter the others because the rushes only involved a few units and took about a minute just to run across the map.
But even the non-rush games didn't have anything interesting. Both sides simply built up hard counters. The only reason we took about 30-40 min per game was because that's how long it took to build up the tech tree. SC2 didn't change the rush tactic, only moved it up the tree and upped the cost per unit.
The longest game I played was just about an hour long. The only reason it took so long was because we decimated each other's armies main base and that left us with almost no resources. 30 min of that game was spent harassing each other's expansions and sneaking a few probes/scv's to gather a bunch of crystal. One to two unit net count every five minutes or so. Not my idea of a fun RTS when you're only sticking around to avoid a loss.

I lost track of the number of games where both armies involved two unit types at the most. It's not as if I didn't want to build more, it's simply those other units would be utterly useless in a fight against the other composition, thus wasting resources better spent on a hard counter.
I could probably count the number of games I played that involved armies with more than 3 unit types on one hand. When your idea of variety simply means the next army uses two other unit types one or both which counters the enemy's previous unit type, you might as well just reduce the entire tech tree to three or four per side.
Oh, and the only time I got to see a Thor in action was in 2v2 where the other side had a player drop halfway and we essentially went 1v1 long enough for my partner to tech up and build one.

To reiterate, the single player I'll partake for the story. The multi-player depends on whether there will be any interesting custom maps. Ladder or versus, I'll more than likely boycott.

 

[solofly]

I haven't played SC1 for years but I'll be getting this game I think...

 

[JTsyo]

How about not buying it at all, till it is a normally priced game?

Got mine for $48 shipped when Gamestop had the deal on spending over $100. Got five copies with friends.

I agree that a slugfest is one possible result of two evenly matched players. However, the game mechanics prevent them from happening because either your units die too fast or you run out of resources. A series of skirmishes over 30 minutes isn't what I consider a slugfest. I like games with hundreds or thousands of units going toe to toe or running circles trying to get behind the other or any combination of the above. Less of an emphasis on pumping out fodder or counters and more on hold-fast, retreat, flank, give up for dead, etc. In other words, units shouldn't be capable of dying in less than 10 seconds even if they do run into their hard counter. I prefer survival up to 1 minute against your hard counter with equal numbers on both sides.
As I said, I prefer long slugfests, not a bunch of quick skirmishes.

Sounds like Company of Heroes would be your style of RTS. In SC the damage to health ratio is high. In War3, where the ratio was low, the game was more micro intensive since you had to pull back low health units and be sure to focus fire to finish off their troops, not to mention the hero and their skills.
Starcraft is a different beast but I'm OK with that. I find that in games that last over 20 mins. I lose track of something. I just can't focus on that many things. Resources starts piling up, SCVs go idle, forces get spread apart ect. I try to either attack first or if they rush to counterattack. I don't bother with harassing since, that takes focus away from my base. Once my food supply nears 100, I've probably lost the game.

 

[Muscles]

I didn't bother with the beta as their are superior RTS's to play, but it's the devs themselves that talked about designing the MP around a 15 minute per game experience.

Oh really? What are these mysterious RTS games that are so superior? They don't exist.

 

[Muscles]

it will still suck because of leavers.
there's no stat tracking (disco's) and reconnecting built into the game like HoN. its a shame since i like wc3 dota so much more than HoN.

The only thing DotA has over Heroes of Newerth is more heroes and that lead is dwindling every month. Don't get me wrong, dota was great but HoN does everything better.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I got sick of 5 min rushes and memorizing build orders. Strategy (and I use that term loosely) was little more than rote memorization based on race matchup. If you got lucky, the other guy guessed wrong and you rape him. If you get unlucky, he built correctly and after a quick fight he's razing your base. Balancing was little more than unit A rapes unit B, which rapes unit C, which in turn rapes A. So you always built units A and B, used A frontline to rape and pillage, switched B to the forefront if you run into unit C, then switched back to A when C is gone.

guessing? if you're guessing anything, you're doing it wrong.
there's something called scouting.

 

[Athadeus]

Take the inverse of everything Sahakiel said, and you have my experiences with the game.

It sounds like you would be interested in playing custom games on the novice maps, or perhaps big money maps Sahakiel.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

guessing? if you're guessing anything, you're doing it wrong.
there's something called scouting.

Yea, everything he said was basicly just excuses. He may experience that, but the game definitely doesn't boil down to that for most especially not people good at the game.

 

[Muscles]

Take the inverse of everything Sahakiel said, and you have my experiences with the game.

It sounds like you would be interested in playing custom games on the novice maps, or perhaps big money maps Sahakiel.

100% agree. Every post Sahakiel has made is complete fud.

I like games with hundreds or thousands of units going toe to toe or running circles trying to get behind the other or any combination of the above. Less of an emphasis on pumping out fodder or counters and more on hold-fast, retreat, flank, give up for dead, etc.

Half-hour isn't exactly my idea of a slugfest when half that time is spent building your base and gathering resources to build an army.

Translation: He likes an RTS where he can press a button to magically warp in 1000+ unit armies that he can just attack move.

 

[shiranai]

Most of your claims are exactly the opposite of how SC1 is actually played at a competitive level. For instance, you assert that scouting gets you killed against rush tactics. The most glaring counterexample is PvZ early game, where scouting is absolutely crucial for P - to the point where being able to keep your scouting probe alive inside Z's base is considered a fundamental skill. Under your theory, scouting in PvZ would be suicidal given Z's supposedly strong rush capability, but reality is in fact exactly the opposite: rushes are easy (trivial, even) to stop, but Z's unparalleled ability to quickly shift unit production is almost impossible to counter without adequate scouting.

That said, SC2 looks like a poorer game than SC1 from a competitive standpoint.

snip

 

[lupi]

Oh really? What are these mysterious RTS games that are so superior? They don't exist.

yeah that's real tough, TA/SC and CoH for starters.

 

[Muscles]

yeah that's real tough, TA/SC and CoH for starters.

The numbers don't exactly support your theory. Inferior games with much smaller player base. You may not be a fan of StarCraft but the fact remains that it is arguably the best game of all time and for good reason.

CoH is awful. An ape can be trained to play these type of attack move games yet you claim it is superior to StarCraft. In my eyes, all your posts just lost all credibility.

 

[lsv]

I'm buying it to play online and only online. Wtf you guys.

 

[Anubis]

I'm buying it to play online and only online. Wtf you guys.

people enjoy different things, as i said in my other post i simply dont enjoy player vs player gaming anymore, i haven't PVPed in wow in 3 years, i don't play FPS games (console or PC) unless they have a solid single player mode so yea ill pretty much not be playing SC2 much online, unless its players v AI or some UMS games. i dount ill even bother doing placement matches

ill play D3 online but thats only because you need to be in an online game with other people to get the best items. ill never dual anyone. never did it in D2

 

[AstroManLuca]

The numbers don't exactly support your theory. Inferior games with much smaller player base. You may not be a fan of StarCraft but the fact remains that it is arguably the best game of all time and for good reason.

CoH is awful. An ape can be trained to play these type of attack move games yet you claim it is superior to StarCraft. In my eyes, all your posts just lost all credibility.

Stop having fun guys.

 

[Dorkenstein]

What? Company of Heroes is ANYTHING but an attack move game. The amount of micro required to beat all comers is like staring at the sun. I would rather play Starcraft ladder games for a year than play CoH on Relic's smurf ridden servers.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

I'm going to play both, but first focus on single player.

I don't know all that much about it but if you just want to play against a certain friend can you just quickly set up a match with them?

 

[Pia]

What? Company of Heroes is ANYTHING but an attack move game. The amount of micro required to beat all comers is like staring at the sun. I would rather play Starcraft ladder games for a year than play CoH on Relic's smurf ridden servers.

Yeah. I tried the CoH demo in hopes I'd find a somewhat realistic game where I don't need massive APM or strategy like in Starcraft but can concentrate on tactical command. I was sorely disappointed - it's a complete clickfest, it isn't the least bit realistic, and I understand you have to memorize a lot of stuff about the maps if you intend to play MP. The only thing I liked was the overall "Band of Brothers" feel, plus that for once characters speak the language(s) they are supposed to speak.

 

[Pia]

I'm going to play both, but first focus on single player.

I don't know all that much about it but if you just want to play against a certain friend can you just quickly set up a match with them?

Yes, you can.
There is also a handicap setting for individual players, although I'm not sure what it does.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Yeah. I tried the CoH demo in hopes I'd find a somewhat realistic game where I don't need massive APM or strategy like in Starcraft but can concentrate on tactical command. I was sorely disappointed - it's a complete clickfest, it isn't the least bit realistic, and I understand you have to memorize a lot of stuff about the maps if you intend to play MP. The only thing I liked was the overall "Band of Brothers" feel, plus that for once characters speak the language(s) they are supposed to speak.

Huh? Germans mainly spoke English with a German accent with a few German words thrown in.

I like CoH and I hate strategy games. Still don't play online multiplayer with it though. I pretty much only do comp-stomps with friends in every RTS I play because I'm just bad at RTSs. I like to have some leeway and not have to click a zillion times per second to compete. Hell, I often READ the little descriptions of various buildings, units, and upgrades in these games.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

The numbers don't exactly support your theory. Inferior games with much smaller player base. You may not be a fan of StarCraft but the fact remains that it is arguably the best game of all time and for good reason.

CoH is awful. An ape can be trained to play these type of attack move games yet you claim it is superior to StarCraft. In my eyes, all your posts just lost all credibility.

What?

Okay, I haven't played CoH much, but I have played DoW2 a lot and the squad tactics seem similar. In DoW2 if you get a giant blob and attack-move it, it will lose against a smaller and inferior force that is properly micro'd. There's also a good chance the attack-mover will lose a lot of their units. If you play DoW2 more like a traditional RTS and run around attack-moving while taking tons of losses, you will lose terribly, as losses are not so easily replaceable in the game and having no units on the map gives the other player(s) control of the map and resources.

 

[Dorkenstein]

Yeah. I tried the CoH demo in hopes I'd find a somewhat realistic game where I don't need massive APM or strategy like in Starcraft but can concentrate on tactical command. I was sorely disappointed - it's a complete clickfest, it isn't the least bit realistic, and I understand you have to memorize a lot of stuff about the maps if you intend to play MP. The only thing I liked was the overall "Band of Brothers" feel, plus that for once characters speak the language(s) they are supposed to speak.

Hmm, really? In my game all the sides speak english, just some of them with exaggerated accents. Are you referring perhaps to Men of War?

 

[Maximilian]

Yeah. I tried the CoH demo in hopes I'd find a somewhat realistic game where I don't need massive APM or strategy like in Starcraft but can concentrate on tactical command. I was sorely disappointed - it's a complete clickfest, it isn't the least bit realistic, and I understand you have to memorize a lot of stuff about the maps if you intend to play MP. The only thing I liked was the overall "Band of Brothers" feel, plus that for once characters speak the language(s) they are supposed to speak.

Mine dont, the germans are all "German steeeeeel" and "Crack him open"