EPTStarcraft 2 -- It's coming. Show your support. - Page 10
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
ZpuX
Sweden1230 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 13 2004 08:44 gricha wrote: disclaimer I don't think warcraft 3 is a good game so that give me a right to express myself in this forum. Yet I wanted to think about what make me enjoy a RTS and why. That's a personal opinion. I doubt you would find it interesting, but I had fun trying to think it through. If you think I'm dead wrong I'd be glad to hear your articulate and documented reasons, because I'm at work and I desesperately try not to do my job... What I like about warcraft 3: -much improved teamplay (ping, ressources sharing, and the ability to buff and complement your allies) -the upkeep system. That actually rewards agressivity if you think of it, and it makes sens. -the great diversity of spells, units, races. -the improved battle.net. anonymous matchmaking, in particular, is really really great when you want to play someone more or less your skill anytime. -the editor, making it possible to create complete new games within the game engine. -the control group management, tabbed browsing, multiple building selection, etc. And if I was a generaI and ordered a control group of ghost to lock that goon, I would expect them to understand: "get that goon locked", not "simultaneously launch 12 lockdowns on that unit". I know, that legendary boxer move wouldnt have been so impressive then. Well he just would have been legendary for something else. -autocast minor buffs: I don't care if you flame me, and here is why: autocast is implemented in starcraft too, and I've never seen anyone say : "hey autocast heal is for noobs ! Takes away the skill ! Manual heal all the way !... Why not make it so that you have to stim each marine manually ? Wait ! Come to think of it, almost EVERY UNIT IN STARCRAFT HAS AUTOCAST FIRE ! NOOB GAME ! Make it so you have to manually click on each unit, press a (noob shortcut ! less skill !), click on an enemy ! Talk about skill !" Nothing has to be newbie-friendly, of course I'm not advocating everything autocast. Auto cast storm or feedback is obviously stupid. But heal, for instance, that would be just weird without autocast. If you are old enough, please remember how much fun it was (not) to bloodlust manually your 30 ogres in WC2 during the battle. That was just plain boring. What I dislike about warcraft 3: - heroes: They are quite harmless if you just consider them as better, more expensive units, but the actual disadvantage is that they are much much too versatile, thus being the great strategic equalizer. Not good -the randomness: randomness is ok in a RTS only if the event will occur a sufficient number of times to be treated statistically, but it sucks when you deal 3 critical strikes killing the hero, or when those 4 goons cant kill that tank uphill in 6 volleys... -the experience system: that could have been interesting, but in war3, the problem is that experience = more power = more kills = more xp -> exponential gain. That makes comebacks hardly ever seen in WC3, which sucks. Maybe if totally rebalanced... -the cartoony graphics and the over-the-top fireworks light effects that look so pretty in the eye of a twelve year old but makes trying to know what's happening during that big 2vs2 battle absolutely illusory. -the creeps: it sure is a tactical element of WC3, but I dislike spending time compstomping when I could actually be playing against the guy... Note that the idea was probably to prevent you from camping, which is good. -all the things I like in broodwar that werent implemented (see below) What I like about broodwar: -the fast pace -the totally separate tech trees. That really was a masterwork in RTS balancing. -the subtle balance you have to find in each game beetween rush/tech/economics and the very little room for mistake allowed (which is mainly negated by heroes in WC3) What I dislike about broodwar: not much, actually. I was gonna bitch about turtling, that is so predominant in PvT or PvZ games, but in fact I think it's ok. The ability to turtle has also interesting tactic implications... What I may enjoy in SC2 aside from the good points I stressed below, some new features might be interesting, depending of course of their implementation: -different scales of play, like : 1) planets, ressources, fleets management, trade, warfare, treasons, etc... A bit like civilization in space but not shitty multiplayer... 2) spatial tactical battles, in full 3D, like homeworld but not boring... 3) planet ground tactical operations, like our beloved broodwar 4) small guerrilla warfare, like the commando missions in single player, or micromaps on battle.net 5) even a bit of tactical first person view might be enjoyable if it did blend smoothly into the rest of the game... Selecting multiple buildings means there will be no such thing as macro.. Especially with unlimited groups -- "Okay lets double tap this gateway, nice 50 gateways selected.. Press Z." Neat, 5000 minerals gone and I'm maxed again~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~! !~ ! I really hate the war 3 spells (most) because, I think, don't do shit on their own instead they stack together with another 50 spells (because every unit has spells..) and that's when it starts taking effect.. While that may be fun, and does justify autocast I really hope they wont put it in SC 2. I seriously have a hard time taking your post seriously after you argue for being able to order 10 ghosts to lockdown only 1 unit etc you know what I mean -- You say 'in real war they'd to that!!' Well then we could just say 'what if they are isolated from eachother!! What if their comlink is dead! Wouldn't their squad commander decide who takes the shot?' and so on and so forth.. + It would make the game less spectacular -- Upkeep is annoying and boring and forces a player to be aggressive. It removes an entire element, I mean you'd never see nada or oov style.. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
damn wc3 has marines... nm :S But upkeep would still suck ass. | ||
|
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
For a real sc2, I'd like a completely diferent game. New races, new mechanics, bring it on. Wc3 is fun, but it's a completely diferent game when compared to sc which is why I always hang my head in shame when I see people compare the 2. I don't want an sc2 designed to replace sc, because sc is impossible to replace, unless you stay true to it's principles and just add new units/race. To tell you the truth I'd love sc2 to be like homeworld, which is an absolutely brilliant and incredibly fun game. | ||
|
TvP On Guillo
Denmark646 Posts
On September 15 2004 09:52 FrozenArbiter wrote: Selecting multiple buildings means there will be no such thing as macro.. Wrong. Being able to select multiple buildings, would not really have an impact on how to macro optimally. You still need to build your unit as soon as possible, thus selecting the unit producing buildings one at the time is the most efficient way. Saving lots of minerals up doesn't have any use, anyway. | ||
|
radiaL
Andorra2690 Posts
anyway all this auto-cast bullshit talk is making me quote this: I hope they have auto-cast, auto army and unit build, and even auto movement. I mean...having to move the mouse and click in a RTS is BS... | ||
|
Oxygen
Canada3581 Posts
" me: you realize that a lot of people in europe still play on like 500mhz comps? ovazio: then they shouldn't be playing games, now should they?" his msn is pascalid@hotmail.com | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 15 2004 17:18 Oxygen wrote: omfg this Ovazio dude pissed me off. " me: you realize that a lot of people in europe still play on like 500mhz comps? ovazio: then they shouldn't be playing games, now should they?" his msn is pascalid@hotmail.com People with IQ below 50 shouldn't be posting on forums, doesn't seem to be stopping him  | ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
We'd like to know what the community thinks of the idea of resource gathering in RTS games - some games in the genre have eliminated it completely. Should future RTS StarCraft games still force the player to have 'workers' who collect resources? What advantages/disadvantages does it have in terms of gameplay? and: We're curious what the forum community thinks about the idea of placing negative feedback functions on supply in future RTS StarCraft games. What advantages does this system have? What disadvantages? One of the more common criticisms of StarCraft is that the game depends on large groups of units and rewards turtling (I'm not arguing that that is the case or not; but it's certainly something we hear often from customers). The upkeep system in Warcraft III helps to eliminate this situation. Do you feel that something like this can be (or even needs to be) successfully integrated into future StarCraft titles? I will update this in the topic. | ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
Personally I think having workers to collect resources is a definite plus. It leads to a host of new strategies as well as putting more emphasis on macro. In W3, the game is focused too much on micro. With workers, there will be a good, balanced mix of micro and macro to offer the best gaming experience. For those who are confused by the second question, he is basically asking whether or not upkeep should be implemented in the game. I think most would agree that upkeep is a terrible idea. | ||
|
Hoops
417 Posts
Second, starcraft only has turtling on money maps to a high degree. If blizzard makes Starcraft 2 for money mappers there is no way I'd even consider buying it. Yes, terran in general just turtles every freaking game. Zerg kinda turtles vs tos, but this level of turtling is stratagy and it's not like it prolongs games that are unwinnable for hours on end. It may add 10-20 minutes to a lost game, maybe. But resources die out and eventually you have to beat the enamy if you want to win. | ||
|
VerticalHorizon
United States415 Posts
For the most part, I think turtling is overrated and just too often bitched about by people who just don't know how to deal with it properly. Sure it can be annoying and incredibly hard to defeat... if you play into the turtler's hands. I just don't understand... turtling has its strengths but most definitely has weaknesses as well. If an opponent is turtling, there are definitely ways to exploit the situation and still end the game relatively quickly. It is all relatively dependant on skill levels, but either way, if your adversary is up to par, you probably would have had a long, more intense match anyway regardless of whether he chose to turtle or not. | ||
|
USMCgamer
Korea (South)255 Posts
I truely hope that they at least leave that alone, and don't try to change the dynamics of the game too horribly much | ||
|
BumpOnaLog
Canada318 Posts
I spent about 2 hours typing that, thats what I did for this community. I hope it wasn't pointless. I suggested that blizzard ask theses questions outside this forum or ask the koreans. http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?ForumName=sc-general&ThreadID=87436 page 3. | ||
|
dsh
United States879 Posts
| ||
|
Locked
United States4182 Posts
| ||
|
tfeign
United States2980 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
As for progamers and strong amateurs, I think they would still like to control their macro more precisely than just selecting all gateways and pressing Z or D every so often, though in the late game that could be good for them too, and for progamers would give them more time for spectatulcar micro, making games more fun to watch. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On September 15 2004 21:46 gravity wrote: I would love to see multiple building selection, etc, because it would make it easier for the average player like me to think about what they're doing in the late game rather than spending all their mental energy just try to spend as fast as possible, which would make the game more interesting. Sure, it would take away one skill aspect, but I think it would add more back in another, better, area. As for progamers and strong amateurs, I think they would still like to control their macro more precisely than just selecting all gateways and pressing Z or D every so often, though in the late game that could be good for them too, and for progamers would give them more time for spectatulcar micro, making games more fun to watch. I think your logic is a little off here. The reason micro is so impressive is because players are still executing the more mundane tasks at the same time. When you simplify the mundane tasks, that makes micro easier and therefore less impressive since everyone is doing it. | ||
|
gravity
Australia2198 Posts
On September 15 2004 22:00 Excalibur_Z wrote: I think your logic is a little off here. The reason micro is so impressive is because players are still executing the more mundane tasks at the same time. When you simplify the mundane tasks, that makes micro easier and therefore less impressive since everyone is doing it. I don't think it'd make any difference, since in the late game when the macro benefits would be most useful, you usually have a lot more units, so you can just micro more units at once instead of microing some and also macroing. It would be awesome to see more 3-way attacks and the like in late-game. | ||
| ||
