|
On April 12 2010 14:16 aimaimaim wrote:If they remove that feature where the units can pass other units by pushing it. it would also be better to remove the auto-formation feature, the game-play is so restricted because of this. too many clustered units being easily pwnd by AoE + Show Spoiler +(storms are being nerf'd so bad its unfair) dumben/remove auto-surround from the game (decreasing SCV hp isn't the solution, they have 60hp in BW for a reason) add the high ground advantage. make marco harder .. + Show Spoiler + .. remove the SMARTCAST .. Jangbi is only human yet he made it possible .. and for the finale + Show Spoiler +not enough playguu, mines debak, and reba per second
bring LURKER back!!
When I read garbage like this, I wonder why the people who believe this would ever crawl out from under their Brood War rocks to give their opinions anyway. You already have a game released with all those features. Why are you trying to turn SC2 into a cheap SC1 imitation with better graphics, rather than a new gaming experience?
|
people have just become complacent about the old problems 
|
SC2 Sucks guys dont you really see??
|
On April 12 2010 12:08 Ideas wrote:other: ZERG IS BORING AS HELL
This ... Either bring back the lurker or an interesting spell caster . Infestors alone aren't enough of a interesting unit , and units moving underground isn't either .
|
Wow, another fail poll.
No higher ground advantage is the only thing reasonable in the list so of course it's going to win. It's even the first option in the poll, just to make sure.
It makes TL sound pathetic when we keep banging on about a non-existent problem that Blizzard is never going to change.
At the end of the day the goal is to get exciting, balanced games that often reach mid-late game. Even in early Beta we are already seeing that Blizzard is achieveing that goal.
|
On April 12 2010 17:15 raga4ka wrote: This ... Either bring back the lurker or an interesting spell caster . Infestors alone aren't enough of a interesting unit , and units moving underground isn't either .
ya definitely. This is by far the biggest concern I have.
On April 12 2010 09:23 im a roc wrote:
Another thing that I am very concerned about is the rampant spread of maphacks. If the entire ladder is dominated by the people who use hacks then the entire game will be dead. Without a fair ladder, there is really no reason for me to want to play the game.
Tons of people hacked broodwar and blizzard wasn't very strict on hacking for the game. Now all those unskilled, maphack reliant noobs are pouring into the beta. But the prospect of having your account banned and having to rebuy a game as expensive as this one should be a strong deterrent.
|
On April 12 2010 17:34 cartoon]x wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 17:15 raga4ka wrote:On April 12 2010 12:08 Ideas wrote:other: ZERG IS BORING AS HELL This ... Either bring back the lurker or an interesting spell caster . Infestors alone aren't enough of a interesting unit , and units moving underground isn't either . ya definitely. This is by far the biggest concern I have. Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 09:23 im a roc wrote:
Another thing that I am very concerned about is the rampant spread of maphacks. If the entire ladder is dominated by the people who use hacks then the entire game will be dead. Without a fair ladder, there is really no reason for me to want to play the game. Tons of people hacked broodwar and blizzard wasn't very strict on hacking for the game. Now all those unskilled, maphack reliant noobs are pouring into the beta. But the prospect of having your account banned and having to rebuy a game as expensive as this one should be a strong deterrent.
so SC2 will be Battlenet 2.0 with all the hackers again?
|
I voted balance, but I'm not worried about anything.
The game is pretty damn balanced already and I know blizzard will never stop improving it until it's perfect.
High ground advantage isn't as big as in BW, but the new high ground vision does make a big difference. And I think that is plenty of high ground advantage.
|
Need.... more.... MACROOOOO
|
On April 12 2010 15:14 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 14:16 aimaimaim wrote:If they remove that feature where the units can pass other units by pushing it. it would also be better to remove the auto-formation feature, the game-play is so restricted because of this. too many clustered units being easily pwnd by AoE + Show Spoiler +(storms are being nerf'd so bad its unfair) dumben/remove auto-surround from the game (decreasing SCV hp isn't the solution, they have 60hp in BW for a reason) add the high ground advantage. make marco harder .. + Show Spoiler + .. remove the SMARTCAST .. Jangbi is only human yet he made it possible .. and for the finale + Show Spoiler +not enough playguu, mines debak, and reba per second
bring LURKER back!!
When I read garbage like this, I wonder why the people who believe this would ever crawl out from under their Brood War rocks to give their opinions anyway. You already have a game released with all those features. Why are you trying to turn SC2 into a cheap SC1 imitation with better graphics, rather than a new gaming experience?
i dont have problems with new gaming experience. but there is no harm in putting it back, it has been working for 10+ years, then why change it? these are the stuff that made BW a great spectator sport. you watch PROS that display great skills. and you try to imitate it. what blizzard is making is that making the aspect easier for casual gamers to compete in higher levels.
and nowadays, its safe to say that nothing is new .. only improved version of it
now where is the fun in that???
|
I think it's stupid that standing at the edge of your base with ranged units, firing at the opponent who's passing down below can sometimes be disadvantageous (if they have a spotter unit they essentially circle your units, forming a perfect flank and raping you 'cause they don't miss shooting uphill).
This needs to be changed asap.
|
On April 12 2010 09:20 wassbix wrote:Units aren't fun to watch/play compared to BW Need more things like vulture/reaver/lurker/defiler/muta micro
I agree. No matter how much blizzard nerfs roaches and marauders, they're still boring units.
|
On April 12 2010 09:10 im a roc wrote:
I think that the lack of a high ground advantage is a game-breaking flaw. I don't, however, think that a miss chance firing uphill is the answer either. Miss chance makes the game too random and it'll just end up being like WC3. Randomness is great in a single player RPG, but in a controlled and hopefully balanced game like Starcraft in which all numbers are set you need to have damage reduction in order to keep the game consistent and interesting.
I agree that a high ground advantage is a game-breaking flaw. I do, however, think that a miss chance firing uphill is the right answer. SC1 had it, and it worked perfectly. It is also easier to balance and it is not as random as people think as shown by Daigomi's article on t he matter.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116142
|
The unit blobs. Really. Blob fight vs blob fight.
That's my biggest concern.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On April 12 2010 09:10 im a roc wrote:
I think that the lack of a high ground advantage is a game-breaking flaw. I don't, however, think that a miss chance firing uphill is the answer either. Miss chance makes the game too random and it'll just end up being like WC3. Randomness is great in a single player RPG, but in a controlled and hopefully balanced game like Starcraft in which all numbers are set you need to have damage reduction in order to keep the game consistent and interesting.
starcraft has a miss chance, this post doesnt make any sense
|
Clearly MMMT and Immortals r way imba
|
On April 12 2010 09:10 im a roc wrote:
I think that the lack of a high ground advantage is a game-breaking flaw. I don't, however, think that a miss chance firing uphill is the answer either. Miss chance makes the game too random and it'll just end up being like WC3. Randomness is great in a single player RPG, but in a controlled and hopefully balanced game like Starcraft in which all numbers are set you need to have damage reduction in order to keep the game consistent and interesting.
I think you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.
BW had the miss chance and it's widely considered the most balanced RTS ever made. What does that do to your comment now?
Yea...it makes it wrong. There was a huge thread made on why damage reduction wasn't a great idea.
|
Smartcasting/ Autocast for Psistorms, EMP etc. This really destroys the beatuy of StarCraft. In Broodwar seeing 5 storms being casted during a big battle was so awesome, because everybody knew how difficult it is to cast spells. Only the really good players could do this and this seperated them form the averade players.
In SC2 even silver league noobs can lay down blankets of storms over everything on the battlefield.
For Spells like Forcefield or neural parasite i dont mind Smartcasting, because they are not as game deciding as Storm, EMP or fungal growth. For those Blizzard should remove Smartcasting.
|
i'm going with this quote  :
"sc1 and sc2 is like the difference between guitar and guitar hero" - Morrow
but who cares, game ist still fun and spawns a lot of ESPORTS. may not be the artful masterpiece that sc:bw was but it's still the no1 rts title to be played in the next 4-5 years i guess.
if i had to make a real statement i would say the game doesn't feel like sc:bw did in a slightly negative way. but what does that mean?
possible relations:
-A.I. that takes too much off the player
-boring unit design (roach, marauder, missing lurker)
-hard counters? still unsure whether theory or reality but the sweeping and counter sweeping of whole armies is sometimes astonishing. it shouldn't be rock-paper-scissors without execution.
-cute micro tricks not working anymore (and are there enough replacements in sc2? time will tell)
fun game though and i like watching streams / playing it. only unsure whether it can be taken to the masterful level of sc1 (if it has enough potential).
|
There's *PLENTY* of macro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
