@OP:

Scouting is important, but what's more important is just knowing what your opponent's race can throw at you and coming up with a build that can deal with all/most of it. 

Starcraft 2 is not a "counter" game. It's not about playing passive and reacting to your opponent's build to "counter" it. If you want to play a long game, learn what each race's early rushes are, and come up with a build that can beat them back. If you know at ~6-7 minutes you can have a pair of cloaked Banshees in your base, make sure you either have an Overseer, Raven, Oberserver, or stationary defenses ready for when they come. If playing against Terran as Protoss, build a Stalker early to kill that scouting/harassing reaper (with the nerf on how fast a Terran can get a reaper out, this is easy now). If playing Protoss vs anything, if you're worried about early aggression, work in a couple Sentries early on so you can keep your ramp forcefielded. As Zerg against Terran, always assume the Terran will go for Hellion/Banshee harass. Extra queens counter both, and then you can use them to spread creep everywhere.

You don't have to actually *scout* any of these things, you just have to know that they can happen and prepare for it. There are few truly "all-in" strategies out there. If it seems that way, it's only because their initial harass succeeds brilliantly and they can finish off the game. If it fails and they leave, well, that just means they suck and they didn't have a plan past the early game. 

In summary: scouting is very important, but it's not everything. Having a strong build that is flexible to deal with a wide array of early pressure that's possible from your opponent is of much greater benefit than knowing what your opponent is doing at any given time.

It's a problem with all online games, though worse with RTS'.  You have a small group of people who want to play, and you have a much larger group of people who just want +1 win as fast as possible.  Too many fun games have been reduced to shit by a player base that use 5 minute win cheese tactics, every day, every game.  The age of a game doesn't seem to matter here.  Regardless of how old the game and how small the playerbase, you STILL seem to run into more people who just want to win ASAP.

The only solution is to play with friends, or play in unranked games where you are more likely to find people who actually want to play.  I can't even remember the last time I played a game of 1v1 ranked.  In 2v2 and 3v3 with friends you tend to at least be guaranteed a 15-20 minute game.

I don't really understand any of it.  If there's a cash prize for being in the top 3, then sure.  Do what it takes to win if you're aiming for that.  But in most games I've played, people don't respect the #1 player.  The #1 player is usually just infamous for abusing a cheese tactic when something was badly imbalanced.  That guy with the 400-10 record?  Yeah, nobody is buying that skill got them there.

You are exagerrating. I don't know of any game where cheese tactics have unequivocally reduced it to "shit". Any game with a half decent development team will root out and fix any imbalances that truly pose a threat to the well-being of the game. The cheese tactics that you are talking about are just...regular tactics. It is true that games played between less-skilled players will tend to end fairly early due to cheese but that is simply due to a lack of skill. At higher levels of play cheese diminishes in frequency and simply becomes another opening with its own risk/reward ratio.

That's a popular solution. I would argue that a better way to experience 20+ min games is to learn how to beat cheese and become a better player. As you climb the ladder you will play better and better players and end up having beautiful games that transition out of a cheesy beginning and into 40+ minute matches. This is exactly how a lot of pro matches play out.

I don't think that's the case. Using wins/losses to measure skill is the best way to do it. How else can you measure skill?
By playing custom games called "4v4 BGH no rush 30 minutes"? Yeah right.

This really isn't the case in SC2. It probably helps that there's nothing "badly imbalanced" to abuse at this stage. In all the big "pro" events with money involved the last matches tend to be pretty hard-fought and the winners (and losers) are pretty well respected. Just this weekend Sweden hosted DreamHack 2010, with I think about an $18,000 USD prize pool for winning the SC2 tournament. The finals were best-of-5, played out all 5 matches (one player won first 2 matches, other player won next 2 to tie the score, so the 5th was the final round) and included several 30+ minute games.

The problem is not with the game itself, but really with the way the ladder system is set up. People who want to move up the ladder need a lot of wins and points, and the fastest way to advance is to get fast wins. Couple that with the fact that a lot of players in the lower ladders have trouble defending early pressure turns what's normally considered harassment into a quick win.

There are "safe" and "unsafe" builds, and when the "pro" players lose quickly, it's usually because they lost gamble: they tried an unsafe build for an advantage, and got caught with their pants down.

This whole thread is full of people who miss the point. Its almost as if he is trolling them (like usual). So many people saying "The way to play is like *THIS*" when the problem is that not everyone has that opinion, not everyone finds that fun.

It doesn't matter the game, I see it in every (public at least) multiplayer environment I've been in. Mossie farmers vs outdoor infantry imbalance in planetside, the large game vs the quick game in civ (thanks for no animations in multi civ5...), "i just want the last boss" vs "I need all bosses" in WOW dungeon finder. These are some that I've run into personally.

When people with different goals are put in the same camp, somebody isn't going to have fun. The only real solution is to split the game up into different parts for different playstyles or get into a very heavy balancing act.


Also losing dosn't really effect the game for me if the game is FUN. Just the other day I was pushing into a town in arma 2, out numbered and running out of ammo I lost too many men and had to retreat, this was a 2 hour battle that (thanks to dispersion mods) felt like a news video from some Eastern European war. So fun!

It's the game's problem.

However for me SC2 was a disappoinment for the game itself, expecially the half backed, plain and uninspired single player.

They could do a separate ladder for people that play for fun where your rank was kept hidden from you.

That way it could still match you up with equally skilled players, whilst having no incentive for the 'Ranking-up-chumps'.

But yes in general playing with friends/friendly comunities is the way to go, as it really is hard to work around the chump factor without limiting the game. This is why i was against Elementals multiplayer trying to be competitive based, it just cant be done, multiplayer is always best with friends for any game that takes over 5 minutes to play.

I can really relate to alot of people here.

Generally, I am really really competitive when it comes to games, I am for the win, and I really enjoy being like that. Trying different strategies and ideas and see how they would work out and (hopefully) reap my rewards .  

However like some of you said, its annoying when you have to use the newest method of winning or you are not going to. In my opinion thats not strategy....Hence why havent picked SC2 yet...I enjoy the competition, but there is no fun. Whats the point if the match would end before its begun?

My best multi player time has been with Empire Earth 2. I guess its because there are branching ways you can start and a lot of factors to consider not just the units you are going to build. Eg the research you going to do, what civilization you are, your main power, do you play defensive or not. Matches with one friend tend to be from 20minutes to 2/5 hours..which is really refreshing..sometimes its quick 20 min game (if the situation calls for it) but we can have an enjoyable night playing one match.I have played a lot of this game and its really weird how its not that popular...but hey we are all unique in our own ways hehe.

By playing Elemental, my first TBS game, I am starting to actually enjoy planing my expansion and not just clicking non stop Enter. Its really refreshing hehe. Maybe people who tend to like TBS games are the more relaxed crowd, or maybe I am just talking rubbish hehe

I hate multiplayer games, I hate other people in general.

I will probably get a lot of hate for this (as usual) but, play Dawn of War 2, it's an innovative and IMO much better multiplayer strategy game than Starcraft. (terrible single player though) It's criminal it doesn't have a larger player base.

Always action in the first 30 seconds of any game, very strategic despite lack of traditional base building. Most of the leaderboard/ranking complaints in this thread aren't an issue in DOW2. My only hate is it uses GFWL while also requiring steam installed.

(can't wait for that sirlin designed fighting game to come out. SSF2T HDREMIX was awesome.)

This was true of the original StarCraft as well. So, I turned to offline, making maps, modding ... but there was no way around the pig stupid AI. Even so it was a lot better than playing online.

With SC 2 I could see the same old thing coming. So, gave it a pass, going to be an instant replay of earlier experience. And these days if I am going to hack, there are a lot better things to hack than StarCraft!

I am thinking the maybe one of the reasons I never really felt that winning was the end game to all games is when i first started playing games, there were no saves. Occasionally there were these long ass codes you could use to start at a certain point, but to finish a game was an all day affair, and as children, we usually weren't allowed to spend that much time on a game. It was still a hell of a lot of fun though, especially at the arcades. It's not that I don't appreciate saves or the ability to finish a game, it's just the process is a blast for me with a good game, win or lose.

I'll have to call you on DoW2, but not quite for the reasons you'd think. I personally love DoW2, and the expansion, though I'll disagree in saying SP is terribad. I personally think it was very interesting (out of all the DoW titles, only the 1st one and the DoW2's had good campaigns).

In terms of GFWL, then try Retribution when it comes out. Retribution won't have GFWL, and will entirely use Steamworks (forgive me if I sound like I'm advocating Steam over Impulse; I simply love Impulse and rather lament that DoW2 is unable to use the fine services of Stardock).

That is why PBEM is good, it is easier to find people that are fun to play with the scedules of the players matter less, as long as they have play time.

People that want a short game would not be good for me to play with, as I and the opposite an sometimes intentionally draw games out.

You are exagerrating. I don't know of any game where cheese tactics have unequivocally reduced it to "shit". Any game with a half decent development team will root out and fix any imbalances that truly pose a threat to the well-being of the game. The cheese tactics that you are talking about are just...regular tactics. It is true that games played between less-skilled players will tend to end fairly early due to cheese but that is simply due to a lack of skill. At higher levels of play cheese diminishes in frequency and simply becomes another opening with its own risk/reward ratio.

I guess you don't play many non-Blizzard RTS' then, as I came name a half-dozen that were basically ruined due to poor balance warping ranked play.  Not all developers have the time or funding to balance the game, and others that do don't consult the experts of the community for ideas and try to balance it themselves...usually breaking several things in the process of fixing one.  I also don't know what your definition of cheese is, but MY definition of cheese is 'anything that is effective and easy do to, yet extremely difficult for the other player to counter'.  When mindless spamming of one or two units wins you 66% of your matches, there is a problem with the game that does not lie with skill levels.  Can cheese be beaten?  Sure.  Is it worth beating when you encounter it game after game?  Not really IMO.

I tend to be with Lord Xia these days.  Many balance issues could be resolved if people simply stopped abusing them, but they don't.  They just want their win.  Hell, there are people willing to pull their plug to win in games with poor drop detection.  And they can have them, as I'll be playing only with people I know.