|
About OakHill:
OakHill is a part time semi-pro Warcraft III player considered by many to be the second best Random player in the United States. OakHill has NOT played Starcraft 2 but has followed the game's progress very closely. Please note these are his OPINIONS and he is looking to actively discuss these OPINIONS with other member's of the community. If every single reply is a disagreement he will do his best to reply or refute arguments in a timely manner. These suggestions are for SC2 and NOT SC: BW, he realizes for example that terrans NEED siege tanks vs protoss because marine medic is near impossible to pull off.
So now I'll get straight to the point:
Unit Stacking
What's the deal?
That's right, Unit stacking. Primarily Muta Stacking. A core staple of Starcraft: BW gameplay, this gameplay element should have no place in Stractaft II.
Explain yourself
Because MBS is obviously in, and macro is reduced to gas gimmicks and tapping a key more, micro will obviously be at the forefront and macro cycles will take very little time, barely even requiring to go back to the base. I REALIZE people have sad Mutalisks suck already, mainly because they can't "dance" or stack. Blizzard said they are fixing this so I am assuming both features will be added back. Stacking is a silly gameplay element, it is a bug. It makes air units too powerful and reduces the ability for the opposing player to focus fire and requires zero defensive micro.
What solution do you have?
Get rid of stacking, keep or add dancing. Improve life regeneration slightly to warrant defensive micro. I thinking them grouping together to SOME degree is okay, as long as you can still select or attack individual ones. If this makes them obsolete in SC2, then improve ground DPS or damage.
Terran Reliance on Siege Tanks
What's the deal?
Massing a stationary battle unit is bad gameplay.
Explain yourself
Having a unit with insane range and requiring zero micromanagement immediately after the siege upgrade is ridiculous. SIEGE tanks should be support units (like in TvZ) and not massed units (as seen in TvP). Supposedly they are stronger than even in SC: BW.
What solution do you have?
Many. Increase damage output and lower overall DPS, making them less effective in battles. OR, increase their damage vs buildings and lower damage vs non-caster units, maybe increasing aoe damage to compensate and require micro in battles (to produce optimal splash damage). Increase collision size. Increase food cost to five. This will make them support units. I am not suggesting ALL of these, maybe a combination of one or two.
NOTE: IF SIEGE TANKS ARE NOT CURRENTLY BEING MASSED THEN DISREGARD THIS SUGGESTION.
Small Ramps
What's the deal?
Small ramps, as seen in Python or other various maps have no place in SC2.
Explain yourself
It should be the player's job to design their base or position units to deny scouting. Bases should have chokes but not ramps where you can simply put 1 unit on and press H. With the new "zero vision" line of sight from above element in SC2, a small ramp like this is simply too powerful at the entrance of a base.
What solution do you have?
Don't have small ramps at the entrance of bases.
Narrow Map Design
What's the deal?
Narrow map design, or having one land path between you and your opponent diminishes strategy.
Explain yourself
I feel STRATEGY in an RTS should play some role.
What dumb solution(s) do you have
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +Ok that was a joke, but clever map design would be nice. I have faith in Blizzard.
Auto Surrounding
What's the deal?
Apparently units will "wrap" around other units of yours (even through their collision) instead of going completely around. TL members have described this as "auto-surrounding" I believe. This DOESN'T need to go completely, it just needs to be changed.
Explain yourself
Warcraft III has this to some degree, units will auto surround but it is far slower than SC2 and they do not go through allied units collision. Starcraft:BW has each unit hesitate for about 1/4 a second before wrapping around.
What solution do you have?
Make it like Warcraft III. They don't go through allied units but they still wrap around.
|
|
|
10387 Posts
Number three and four depend on the mapmaker's choice and doesn't show up in every single map. Just keep the features. You don't have to play the maps that include these features.
Siege tanks are awesome, and you need not worry about Terran's dependence on that unit--there are new units that fit the niche to counter Siege tanks (i.e. Immortals).
No comment about stacking, as I feel I am not qualified enough to argue about it. I agree that auto surround needs to go, or atleast needs to be retarded. I've read many reports that early game rushes have been reduced to being near-useless due to the godly surround AI in SC2.
|
On August 14 2008 04:13 outqast wrote:
....
wow...
i just wanted to write the exact same :O
To OakHill:
So you have not played SC2, but play a lot WC3. Have you played SC:BW?
To Narrow Map Design:
Dont agree with your statement, but i find that picture actually quiet interesting. I sound like a nice idea, to me, to have some paths (maybe bridges) going over other paths but dont connect with them. This could give a lot of options for interesting and innovative map design. But this could of course be a huge balance problem. Imagine some tanks on a bridge, unreachable for the melee units below them. And also there would be some visual mechanic required to see the units under the bridge...
|
This thread is crap and this guy is a nobody newb who thinks he knows what hes talking about.
|
|
|
So do we want Starcraft 2, or Warcraft 4?
|
On August 14 2008 04:35 willKeks wrote:i just wanted to write the exact same :O To OakHill: So you have not played SC2, but play a lot WC3. Have you played SC:BW? To Narrow Map Design: Dont agree with your statement, but i find that picture actually quiet interesting. I sound like a nice idea, to me, to have some paths (maybe bridges) going over other paths but dont connect with them. This could give a lot of options for interesting and innovative map design. But this could of course be a huge balance problem. Imagine some tanks on a bridge, unreachable for the melee units below them. And also there would be some visual mechanic required to see the units under the bridge...
Yes I play SC: BW. No I don't actually see Blizzard implementing vertical gameplay over the same horizontal space, they aren't trying to do anything too new or radical for SCII.
On August 14 2008 04:34 ArvickHero wrote:
Number three and four depend on the mapmaker's choice and doesn't show up in every single map. Just keep the features. You don't have to play the maps that include these features.
Siege tanks are awesome, and you need not worry about Terran's dependence on that unit--there are new units that fit the niche to counter Siege tanks (i.e. Immortals).
No comment about stacking, as I feel I am not qualified enough to argue about it. I agree that auto surround needs to go, or atleast needs to be retarded. I've read many reports that early game rushes have been reduced to being near-useless due to the godly surround AI in SC2.
In that instance I am referring to standard Blizzard maps in their automated matchmaking system. Technically you can play any way you want using the map editor and make every change I suggested in UMS variants.
Hi, I gave that account away a long time ago. Thank you for your interest and checking my post history. I am currently at 1400 in Iccup (D) and am making steady progress after playing just 1.5 weeks after a massive period of inactivity. Please keep the discussion relevant to the thread, thanks! Also, only the first account was mine, it is a throwback to a former professional RoC player known as Bei. This was my old account that I gave away to my friend after the reset: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&playername=oakhill . I do not "at whore", I prefer to play Random team if I play team games.
So do we want Starcraft 2, or Warcraft 4?
I've stopped playing Warcraft III and have moved on to SC:BW. I prefer Warcraft III but the challenge of SC: BW has switched me over. I believe War3 does have gameplay elements that should be carried over. Thank you for your interest in my topic.
|
1-2 Completely disagree. Firstly units already stack less in SC2 and siege tanks cost considerably more so they'll be less used.
3-4 This has nothing to do with Blizzard. The community makes most of the maps we play, this has nothing to do with Blizzards design choices.
5 Bullshit. Units do not go through other units, unit collisions are NOT ignored. Where is your source for this information? The new BlizzCast? They never said it there I just looked.
|
1) Unit Stacking|
- it is not necessary in SCII but it was in SC/BW because otherwise zerg would have been underpowered
2) Terran Reliance on Siege Tanks|
- just make them more expensive or change their splash so it works like in WCIII or slightly change the damage radius so the most damage will be made on the center spot where you let them fire on and weaken the damage on the outer region
- btw if someone masses siege tanks just make air... mass tanks only work when you dont scout your opponent
3) Small Ramps|
- yes create your own bases I liked this really much in WCIII but there your bases were too small
- SCII should have ramps but not small ones rather ramps 5 times as big as in SC/BW and I think this is no problem blizzard wont make pro maps in later stages of SCII only at the beginning its their job
4) Narrow Map Design|
i agree
5) Auto Surrounding|
yeah like in WCIII:D
|
Thanks for the post, guy!
I'll give you my thoughts on one of your suggestions:
re: Unit Stacking-
Muta stacking should stay, in one form or another. It's not a "silly" gameplay element, and whether it was introduced as a bug or deliberate feature is irrelevant; it's something that made the original game more interesting. If anything, we should do our best to keep the intense micro battles that muta harass brings rather than try to get rid of them. Muta harass is one of the signature elements of the TvZ game, and getting rid of it would be disappointing for many fans of the game.
All that said, the "degree" of stacking (ie, how quickly the units disperse after being stacked) should be open to balance. It may be that we don't want mutas stacking quite as well as they did in SC:BW. Between tweaking the mutalisks air-to-ground damage and altering their rate of dispersal, it should be possible to generate a balance that is neither overpowered nor too different from SC:BW.
Additionally, I think it's worth noting that mutas were probably the most difficult unit to balance in SC1, resulting in two units added in BW for the almost sole purpose of countering the mutalisk (Corsairs, which accomplished this task well enough, and Valks, which... didn't). So I don't think Blizz is scared of taking the time necessary to give us a mutalisk that is both true to the original SC:BW muta and balanced in the new environment.
|
On August 14 2008 04:40 OakHill wrote:
I believe War3 does have gameplay elements that should be carried over.
Which?
|
On August 14 2008 04:40 OakHill wrote:Hi, I gave that account away a long time ago. Thank you for your interest and checking my post history. I am currently at 1400 in Iccup (D) and am making steady progress after playing just 1.5 weeks after a massive period of inactivity. Please keep the discussion relevant to the thread, thanks! Also, only the first account was mine, it is a throwback to a former professional RoC player known as Bei. This was my old account that I gave away to my friend after the reset: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&playername=oakhill . I do not "at whore", I prefer to play Random team if I play team games.
This has everything to do with you being a presumptuous cockbag posting drivel without having ever played SC. That's even worse that you are not the real Bei either. What a fucking retard.
Let's see your 1400 account. All I could find is this 1-2 and 0-1 950 newb.
http://www.iccup.com/iccscprofile/288411/
Maybe you shouldn't go around blowing so much hot air about gameplay if you don't know shit?
|
|
|
I've seen plenty of maps which have more than one path to the opponent (on broodwar). Sure, there are a lot of maps with "one" path, or a big open area, like python, but those maps are overused. Players play python non stop because it's their preference. If you notice the preference of good players, there is a wide variety of maps, which have many different paths, and even wider ramps. Yeah, wider ramps, some players wanted so much more out of the common broodwar maps, that they made programs to custom make maps.
It seems that you have normal opinions that anyone else would have on things such as MBS, which can be visiualized with more than one game, ie broodwar and warcraft3. But, when it comes down the issues regarding broodwar in relation to starcraft 2, your opinions just plain old suck.
|
lol@everyone falling for troll.
|
3 and 4 are completely ridiculous claims.
That depends on map makers and what they want to achieve with their map, also we need diversion, so if all maps have wide huge ramps, it just makes the maps feel the same.
|
Thanks for the post, guy!
I'll give you my thoughts on one of your suggestions:
re: Unit Stacking-
Muta stacking should stay, in one form or another. It's not a "silly" gameplay element, and whether it was introduced as a bug or deliberate feature is irrelevant; it's something that made the original game more interesting. If anything, we should do our best to keep the intense micro battles that muta harass brings rather than try to get rid of them. Muta harass is one of the signature elements of the TvZ game, and getting rid of it would be disappointing for many fans of the game.
All that said, the "degree" of stacking (ie, how quickly the units disperse after being stacked) should be open to balance. It may be that we don't want mutas stacking quite as well as they did in SC:BW. Between tweaking the mutalisks air-to-ground damage and altering their rate of dispersal, it should be possible to generate a balance that is neither overpowered nor too different from SC:BW.
Additionally, I think it's worth noting that mutas were probably the most difficult unit to balance in SC1, resulting in two units added in BW for the almost sole purpose of countering the mutalisk (Corsairs, which accomplished this task well enough, and Valks, which... didn't). So I don't think Blizz is scared of taking the time necessary to give us a mutalisk that is both true to the original SC:BW muta and balanced in the new environment.
You have a good point, and I'm glad you agree with me on the "degree of stacking." I did not know about the balance changes stemming from the original Starcraft, which is very interesting. I agree with your middle ground suggestion. Thanks for the post.
On August 14 2008 04:53 naventus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2008 04:40 OakHill wrote:Hi, I gave that account away a long time ago. Thank you for your interest and checking my post history. I am currently at 1400 in Iccup (D) and am making steady progress after playing just 1.5 weeks after a massive period of inactivity. Please keep the discussion relevant to the thread, thanks! Also, only the first account was mine, it is a throwback to a former professional RoC player known as Bei. This was my old account that I gave away to my friend after the reset: http://www.battle.net/war3/ladder/w3xp-player-profile.aspx?Gateway=Azeroth&playername=oakhill . I do not "at whore", I prefer to play Random team if I play team games. This has everything to do with you being a presumptuous cockbag posting drivel without having ever played SC. That's even worse that you are not the real Bei either. What a fucking retard. Let's see your 1400 account. All I could find is this 1-2 and 0-1 950 newb. http://www.iccup.com/iccscprofile/288411/Maybe you shouldn't go around blowing so much hot air about gameplay if you don't know shit?
Hi Naventus, thanks for your interest in my thread! I do not wish to reveal my account at this time because I am still learning to play at a high level. I've followed the last 2 seasons of GoM TV closely and have watched many other of the vods hosted on this site since the date I joined (maybe 6 months ago? Not sure). Thank you for your post and interest in my level of skill at SC: BW. I realize "just watching" SC: BW VoDs will not let me fully understand how SC: BW is played at high levels, but this post is about SC2 and I do believe I have a good fundamental grasp of high level play in SC:BW. Although I may have said something like "Getting B" is easy, it is only because I was drunk and I do not believe that at all. Thanks for your feedback.
|
On August 14 2008 04:57 SlickR12345 wrote:
3 and 4 are completely ridiculous claims.
That depends on map makers and what they want to achieve with their map, also we need diversion, so if all maps have wide huge ramps, it just makes the maps feel the same.
I'm pretty sure he isn't saying, MAKE ALL SMALL RAMPS BIG, but rather, make a variety of ramp sizes.
|
10387 Posts
On August 14 2008 04:57 SlickR12345 wrote:
3 and 4 are completely ridiculous claims.
That depends on map makers and what they want to achieve with their map, also we need diversion, so if all maps have wide huge ramps, it just makes the maps feel the same.
like war3 
|
On August 14 2008 04:59 OakHill wrote:
Hi Naventus, thanks for your interest in my thread! I do not which to reveal my account at this time because I am still learning to play at a high level. I've followed the last 2 seasons of GoM TV closely and have watched many other of the vods hosted on this site since the date I joined (maybe a year ago? Not sure). Thank you for your post and interest in my level of skill at SC: BW. Although I may have said something like "Getting B" is easy, it is only because I was drunk and I do not believe that at all. Thanks for your feedback.
Hi Oakhill, thanks for your interest in my reply. I do not "which" to to tell you why you are a dumbass and this thread is stupid. But, I have followed your dumbass posts in the SC2 forum and read your troll threads. Thank you for your post and the complete revelation of your idiocy. Thanks for your feedback.
P.S. You suck at WC3 and SC.
|
On August 14 2008 05:03 naventus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2008 04:59 OakHill wrote:
Hi Naventus, thanks for your interest in my thread! I do not which to reveal my account at this time because I am still learning to play at a high level. I've followed the last 2 seasons of GoM TV closely and have watched many other of the vods hosted on this site since the date I joined (maybe a year ago? Not sure). Thank you for your post and interest in my level of skill at SC: BW. Although I may have said something like "Getting B" is easy, it is only because I was drunk and I do not believe that at all. Thanks for your feedback. Hi Oakhill, thanks for your interest in my reply. I do not "which" to to tell you why you are a dumbass and this thread is stupid. But, I have followed your dumbass posts in the SC2 forum and read your troll threads. Thank you for your post and the complete revelation of your idiocy. Thanks for your feedback. P.S. You suck at WC3 and SC.
Hi Naventus, I am glad you have taken an interest in my threads. Thanks for your post and constructive criticism, and good luck with your training regimen for attaining B+.
|
Vatican City State11 Posts
On August 14 2008 04:53 naventus wrote:This has everything to do with you being a presumptuous cockbag posting drivel without having ever played SC. That's even worse that you are not the real Bei either. What a fucking retard. Let's see your 1400 account. All I could find is this 1-2 and 0-1 950 newb. http://www.iccup.com/iccscprofile/288411/Maybe you shouldn't go around blowing so much hot air about gameplay if you don't know shit?
Maybe you should refute his arguments instead of throwing insults around. You seem very sure that you know his suggestions are bullshit. Would you care to explain it to me? I don't understand.
|
There aren't any arguments to refute. If you want to play theorycraft with the troll all day, I don't care. I just wanted to call him out on it.
|
Vatican City State11 Posts
|
|
|
On August 14 2008 04:40 OakHill wrote:
Also, only the first account was mine, it is a throwback to a former professional RoC player known as Bei.
Holy fucking shit i used to LOVE bei, most amazing creative player ever, loved his UD, I checked all the internet 3 times to find any of them.
Geez, man, great memories there!
(Angrykorean was quite fun too ^^)
|
On August 14 2008 05:31 Yank31 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2008 04:40 OakHill wrote:
Also, only the first account was mine, it is a throwback to a former professional RoC player known as Bei. Holy fucking shit i used to LOVE bei, most amazing creative player ever, loved his UD, I checked all the internet 3 times to find any of them. Geez, man, great memories there! (Angrykorean was quite fun too ^^)
I'm actually friends with AKM, he goes by Roqu on Starcraft.
Anyways here's a more recent replay of me:
http://www.fighterreplays.com/starcraft/replays/5deb28
The other one was like my 3rd game on BNet (If it's the replay I think you posted). Heaton was nice enough to give me some tips, like don't get pushed back to ramp, range needs to be gotten quicker, etc.
|
Many goons, yes? (replay..)
Anyway, I can't say anything about the balance of SC2 as I didn't have a chance to play it yet, but as someone already said, I think that the stacking thing of mutas should be kept just for historical reasons, it would make many people angry (and you don't wanna see TLnetters angry obviously). You make some good points about it, but don't worry, there will be plenty of micro involved when mutas get targeted by splash damage (my first thought was like hey, irradi.. waait Oo no vessels). And I don't know if you tried the stacked muta micro, it's not that easy like "click once and they stack and stay that way".. but you probably know that already.
Anyway - open mind is a good thing but don't go against a wall of hardcore fans (open mind = brain could fall out), at least not before the game is out and we can try it and confirm the issues.
edit::
And if you were being sarcastic, then this is officially my fail-week.
|
What is with the hate in this thread? So what if the OP's not super awesome at BW? He's making suggestions for SC2, not BW 1.5. If you want to criticize those suggestions, make rational arguments against him, and not irrelevant personal attacks.
|
you cant get any stupider than this
Stacking brings micro. If you cant focus fire, deal with it.
Massing tanks gay? Yes. Defeatable? Very. So why are you wanting to nerf tanks when you cant accept them as a staple to Terran?
Map issues = map maker, not the game.
And wtf do you have against improving the AI? I'd honestly rather use a smarter AI than a dumbfuck AI.
From what i can see, you still have problems dealing with muta harass and pushes.
|
Netherlands19130 Posts
This thread officially killed the last remaining bit of my inner child.
|
D but the progress is steady.
|
What the hell? Since when do units ignore allied collision in SC2?
Proof?
|
On August 14 2008 06:26 teamsolid wrote:
What the hell? Since when do units ignore allied collision in SC2?
Proof?
That's what I've read HERE from what it sounds like. Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken. If it functions just like "Warcraft" then it won't be a problem.
|
No. You made it up yourself to try to ridicule those that complained about it, Mr. part-time semi pro.
|
On August 14 2008 04:01 OakHill wrote:About OakHill:OakHill is a part time semi-pro Warcraft III player considered by many to be the second best Random player in the United States. OakHill has NOT played Starcraft 2 but has followed the game's progress very closely. Please note these are his OPINIONS and he is looking to actively discuss these OPINIONS with other member's of the community. If every single reply is a disagreement he will do his best to reply or refute arguments in a timely manner. These suggestions are for SC2 and NOT SC: BW, he realizes for example that terrans NEED siege tanks vs protoss because marine medic is near impossible to pull off. So now I'll get straight to the point: Unit StackingWhat's the deal? That's right, Unit stacking. Primarily Muta Stacking. A core staple of Starcraft: BW gameplay, this gameplay element should have no place in Stractaft II. Explain yourself Because MBS is obviously in, and macro is reduced to gas gimmicks and tapping a key more, micro will obviously be at the forefront and macro cycles will take very little time, barely even requiring to go back to the base. I REALIZE people have sad Mutalisks suck already, mainly because they can't "dance" or stack. Blizzard said they are fixing this so I am assuming both features will be added back. Stacking is a silly gameplay element, it is a bug. It makes air units too powerful and reduces the ability for the opposing player to focus fire and requires zero defensive micro. What solution do you have? Get rid of stacking, keep or add dancing. Improve life regeneration slightly to warrant defensive micro. I thinking them grouping together to SOME degree is okay, as long as you can still select or attack individual ones. If this makes them obsolete in SC2, then improve ground DPS or damage. Terran Reliance on Siege TanksWhat's the deal?Massing a stationary battle unit is bad gameplay. Explain yourselfHaving a unit with insane range and requiring zero micromanagement immediately after the siege upgrade is ridiculous. SIEGE tanks should be support units (like in TvZ) and not massed units (as seen in TvP). Supposedly they are stronger than even in SC: BW. What solution do you have?Many. Increase damage output and lower overall DPS, making them less effective in battles. OR, increase their damage vs buildings and lower damage vs non-caster units, maybe increasing aoe damage to compensate and require micro in battles (to produce optimal splash damage). Increase collision size. Increase food cost to five. This will make them support units. I am not suggesting ALL of these, maybe a combination of one or two. NOTE: IF SIEGE TANKS ARE NOT CURRENTLY BEING MASSED THEN DISREGARD THIS SUGGESTION.Small RampsWhat's the deal?Small ramps, as seen in Python or other various maps have no place in SC2. Explain yourselfIt should be the player's job to design their base or position units to deny scouting. Bases should have chokes but not ramps where you can simply put 1 unit on and press H. With the new "zero vision" line of sight from above element in SC2, a small ramp like this is simply too powerful at the entrance of a base. What solution do you have?Don't have small ramps at the entrance of bases. Narrow Map DesignWhat's the deal?Narrow map design, or having one land path between you and your opponent diminishes strategy. Explain yourselfI feel STRATEGY in an RTS should play some role. What dumb solution(s) do you have+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +Ok that was a joke, but clever map design would be nice. I have faith in Blizzard. Apparently units will "wrap" around other units of yours (even through their collision) instead of going completely around. TL members have described this as "auto-surrounding" I believe. This DOESN'T need to go completely, it just needs to be changed. Explain yourself Warcraft III has this to some degree, units will auto surround but it is far slower than SC2 and they do not go through allied units collision. Starcraft:BW has each unit hesitate for about 1/4 a second before wrapping around. What solution do you have?Make it like Warcraft III. They don't go through allied units but they still wrap around.
UNIT STACKING-
I hate how ungainly WC3 air units operated in groups compared to SC so I would have to say I wouldn't mind if Blizzard did implement stacking in SC2, but I doubt they will ultimately do it.
TERRAN RELIANCE ON SIEGE TANKS-
Blizzard seems to have already changed this.
SMALL RAMPS,NARROW MAP DESIGN-
Like everyone said before, but I wonder if the professional SC2 tournaments will rely on Blizzard maps to the degree that they do in WC3?
AUTO SURROUNDING-
I'm going to have to play the game before I come down one way or the other on this. Ghoul surround in WC3 is OK, but I'm not going to make a call until I play for myself.
|
On August 14 2008 04:01 OakHill wrote:
About OakHill:
OakHill is a part time semi-pro Warcraft III player considered by many to be the second best Random player in the United States.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
About OakHill:
OakHill is a part time semi-pro Warcraft III player considered by many to be the second best Random player in the United States.
Who? Source?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 14 2008 07:11 SoleSteeler wrote:Show nested quote +About OakHill:
OakHill is a part time semi-pro Warcraft III player considered by many to be the second best Random player in the United States. Who? Source?
OakHill and the any voices in his head.
Going to bed now so don't have time to read through the thread to tell if it should be closed or not, sorry =P
|
Uh afaik war 3 used to not stack air units and it fucking sucked so bad even with all the AoE that they disallowed this stupid shit and finally let them stack.
Especially since they have a lot of air to air melee fighters. It was horrendous.
|
What the fuck is wrong with siege tanks? Since when are they supposed to be just support units?
Do we invade the middle east with nothing but men and 1 tank for support ? no. we come in there with fucking fighter jets, tanks, and bombers and obliterate that shit then send in the infantry to clean up the bleeding pussies huddled in the corner.
And really for a futuristic game these men should all be running robots, ships, or vehicles anyways.
Why the fuck do you want TvP /TvT to be dumbed down? 'Oh I think knives are more realistic and better fighting weapons so they should get rid of tanks because then my knives will suck /cry.'
|
Ramps can be as big or as small as you want. There is also a map editor if you want, you can make everything level and then you won't have cliffs. While you're at it remove all the doodads and rivers and that'll be more balanced.
The point of a base is to have a fortified position dumb ass. You can only get in when you severely outnumber the enemy or get around it via strategy.
|
I'm not even going to address the 'Narrow Map Design' claim. What the fuck are you talking about? Ever seen a Peaks, or any pro map in the last 4 years for that matter.
|
Hummmmm, someone close this thread, someone here wants warcraft 4
|
Ok, Oakhill, first of all, this is a Starcraft forum, so no one cares what WC3 credentials you have, no one cares if you were semi-pro in WC3 or not. If you were semi-pro in SCBW, that'd be a different matter, but warcraft and starcraft are 2 different animals, so to speak. The only thing we care about here, are your ideas. If their good, you'll get congrats, if their bad you'll get flamed, end of story.
1- Unit Stacking cannot be removed without drastically changing the game. Not only mutas are affected by it, but so are Carriers, Battlecruisers, Phoenixes, etc. Some units may become unstackable for balance, like warp rays i suppose, but the majority should stay stackable.
2- Siege Tank are already being made into a support unit in SC2. Players at WWI all said the BioMech is the preferred strat for TvP and TvT, so the Siege Tank has already been changed the way you described.
3+4- Some maps should have narrow chokes and some not, same for the "one path" route. This is to diversify strategies, so the strat that you choose depends on the map and not just the matchup.
5- Yes, this should go, completely or almost completely. I disliked the WC3 formations and surround because i felt that such a micro oriented game should at least make micro HARD.
|
United States4991 Posts
lol, this was a pretty successful troll (judging by your posts in the past I'd guess it's a troll, at least).
|
On August 14 2008 04:01 OakHill wrote:
About OakHill:
OakHill is a part time semi-pro Warcraft III player considered by many to be the second best Random player in the United States. OakHill has NOT played Starcraft 2 but has followed the game's progress very closely. Please note these are his OPINIONS and he is looking to actively discuss these OPINIONS with other member's of the community. If every single reply is a disagreement he will do his best to reply or refute arguments in a timely manner. These suggestions are for SC2 and NOT SC: BW, he realizes for example that terrans NEED siege tanks vs protoss because marine medic is near impossible to pull off.
LOL. OakHill has problems . How you're still here with 167 post is amazing. Just because you watch doesn't mean you have the experience as someone that um.. plays the game. There are so many subtle details to BW that someone that passively watch won't be able to pick up while watching a pro match. People with experience will say that almost every point in your opening post is lacking and/or completely wrong. At D rank, you're not the right person to tell people what BW is or isn't.
|
I disagree with every point wholeheartedly. If you like Warcraft 3 so much, why not just play it?
|
Unit stacking is balanced by the many ALL target AOE spells that exist in starcraft (Storm, Ensnare), and those that effectively counter unit stacking (irradiate, corsair splash dmg) Unit stacking DOES require much single target moving (moving the muta that's been irradiated or the one that the corsairs are attacking), choosing to unit stack or choosing not to SHOULD most definitely be a choice the gamer can make, it only ADDS to the game eliminating it only removes an element from the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/5498/spagqo9.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.lolwut.com/layout/lolwut.jpg)
