EPTStarcraft 2 -- It's coming. Show your support. - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
| ||
|
ssidengi
Korea (South)326 Posts
| ||
|
Orlandu
China2450 Posts
On September 10 2004 21:50 tfeign wrote: Hard counter = extremely little room for mistakes. Takes a massive amount of skill to make sure your units are alive. Skill-intensive Soft counter = TONS of rooms for mistakes. You have time to pull back your units and not be hurt so badly at all. You don't have to be attentive to your units. Newbie-friendly It's basically comparing skill-intensive vs newbie friendly. Which is similar to comparing SC vs W3. SC takes a massive amount of skill because the player has to be extremely attentive to their units. W3 allows lots of room for mistakes Saying one has be more attentive to their units in SC than in War3 just shows the lack of knowledge of both games as a whole. The argument in place has nothing to do with having to be more attentive to units, or being newbie-friendly. If anything, under such logic hard counter would be newbie friendly because there is a clear counter, as opposed to having to intelligently coordinate combinations to counter the enemy most-effectively. There's arguments for both cases, but for the sake of everyone, leave out the "newb-friendly" and "more micro" arguments because they are irrelevant and are only fuel for the fire. With that said I particularly prefer the hard counter style simply because things become much more clear and as a result, simpler. One can concentrate more on improving raw skill than worrying about whether or not a loss was caused by improper unit combinations. | ||
|
OhThatDang
United States4685 Posts
On September 10 2004 23:39 ssidengi wrote: starcraft2... I'm worried it'll turn out like Starship Troopers 2 -_-;;; cause sc2 will be so good starcraft one wouldnt be able to compare? | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
On September 10 2004 23:45 Orlandu wrote: Agreed. Has nothing to do with having more skill or being "noob friendly"Saying one has be more attentive to their units in SC than in War3 just shows the lack of knowledge of both games as a whole. The argument in place has nothing to do with having to be more attentive to units, or being newbie-friendly. If anything, under such logic hard counter would be newbie friendly because there is a clear counter, as opposed to having to intelligently coordinate combinations to counter the enemy most-effectively. There's arguments for both cases, but for the sake of everyone, leave out the "newb-friendly" and "more micro" arguments because they are irrelevant and are only fuel for the fire. With that said I particularly prefer the hard counter style simply because things become much more clear and as a result, simpler. One can concentrate more on improving raw skill than worrying about whether or not a loss was caused by improper unit combinations. | ||
|
0wNaG3-
333 Posts
 | ||
|
GroT
Belgium3003 Posts
and for the love of god, please, keep the tempo | ||
|
booooo
Singapore372 Posts
"Since Starcraft was about large unit battles, autocast would be needed in a sequal. The game isn't about micromanagement. " "If Starcraft 2 had autocast, it would also be balanced around that as well, like Warcraft 3 is." Arguments without basis... | ||
|
0wNaG3-
333 Posts
| ||
|
0wNaG3-
333 Posts
| ||
|
krzych113
United Kingdom547 Posts
| ||
|
ChApFoU
France2983 Posts
| ||
|
ChApFoU
France2983 Posts
| ||
|
Casper...
Liberia4948 Posts
| ||
|
Casper...
Liberia4948 Posts
when they were making sc they just asked the war2 kali players for bw, they asked the top sc players when it came time to make war3 they fucked it all up by not listening to the community which was damned near unanimous in saying "no heros, hard counters, fast-paced, rewards aggression, good looking, direct damage spells, strong skirmishing units" we got "heros, soft counters, slow-paced, rewards not fighting your opponent, good looking, sluggish direct interface, billions of buffs, weak skirmishing units" some stuff was good. maleable terrain, more clearly-defined tactical options, enhanced multi-unit interface. it looked good, but ran poorly. even on today's computers, war3 does not bench any better than 60fps, which speaks to the very cpu consumptive engine. they brought zman in to fix it, and he did a pretty good job, but it's still broke if they don't get alpha and early beta builds to korean progamers, or at the very least, the likes of maynard, rekrul and froz sc2 will be a disaster | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
On September 11 2004 03:06 Casper... wrote: they should stop fucking around and just ask the koreans he said it all, now someone with credibility on the bnet forums repost it :p | ||
|
gravity
Australia2009 Posts
You could say that Starcraft is good because it's like a complex real-time boardgame. The chances of that being maintained in a sequel are virutally zero because the general public wants everything shiny, new, 3D, mistake-friendly, etc. | ||
|
Travin
Sweden672 Posts
I dont want them to add more races blizzard has proven that they cant balance 4 races. most important of all, you should be able to select more than 12 units, so u dsnt have to group millions of units just to attack.. | ||
|
Pob
880 Posts
war2>war3 | ||
|
gravity
Australia2009 Posts
| ||
| ||
