On January 24 2010 10:22 Spo0ky wrote: <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Congo-line 1000 lings into my marine-laden blastula of death. Just please don't BM by forgetting to bring lye. I don't want to have to waste clicks or answer to the overmind...but if we are playing SimCity SC... I need everything to be spotless, so that when my medic avatar gets here from Andromeda ...or HeartBreak Ridge (i'm actually cheating with another medic :-O ;-D giggitty), I can defile[r] her hatchery with my thickly stacked mutas. The actual destination I wish is her sunken, but she doesn't let me in there, unfortunately =(. Probably because my lovers don't even know how much there is in terms of my mutas...the shadow is that scary. Regardless, she'll be on the Ride of Valkyries of her life. Show me the money 'cuz not we's hazin' kidzzz, Mz Kerrigan. Walk across the sea of zerg blood with me to the alter <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
On January 24 2010 09:39 TeWy wrote: I've plaid a lot of Warcraft3 before switching back to Starcraft so let me explain why all these fears about Starcraft2 being "War3 in space" are non-sense.
The reason why War3 is kind of boring spectator wise, is that War3 is slow and that the unit combinaisons fighting each other are most of the time the same, not to mention that they're very few scenarios where 2 battles are going on in the same time.
1). The reason why the unit combinaisons are stereotyped at the high level, is not due to poor macro or whatever, it is due to the HEROES. When you opt for a certain hero in War3, you can't change it anymore, and all your strategies have to revolve around him. For instance if you're a HU player and that you don't choose Archmage as first hero, you wouldn't have the Archmage's mana aura and the Water elementals DPS to effectively play casters at tier2, and if you've no casters at tier2 you will be vulnerable at this point of the game, so the only way to not play AM first as HU is to take an early expansion, mass towers to prevent any kind of tier2 push and go for the high tech.
2).The reason why there's almost never 2 real battles going on in the same time, is also kind of linked to the heroes (hero spells synergize with the armie as mentionned above) but also due the fact that War3 has a fourth ressource called experience. You can't suicide your units to disturb your opponent economies because even if you successfuly disturb your opponent's economy, he will straight push your expansion/main base and beat you due to superior hero levels (losing units/time means more experience for your opponent heroes) and the fact that he has more units ; so spending time/units to disturb your opponent's economy is most of the times a bad choice, unless you're playing a mass expansions/mass towers/tanks strat which is considerd to be an epically lame strat, and which has been nerfed.
3).The reason why War3 is slow is that well, they wanted to make something more unique than Starcraft in the forest. And for those who haven't plaid it, let me make a revelation folks, Starcraft is Warcraft2 in space.
Hey... i was going to explain to you how you were wrong, but this game pretty much disproves alot of you've said, its a good game too. The game definately isn't 'slow'... It's also not boring... though some games can be, as in all sports. As for the Archmage debate, its entirely situational to race matchup and personal preference. I prefer MK vs orc every game no matter what.
game 2 of the set is good too
(it's funny in the background you can hear them talking about SC2. Probably talking about Moon who is rumoured to be one of the SC2 bonjwas in the future, and taken on by WemadeFox)
Anway... SC2 will obviously be alot different than Wc3 in many aspects, why i originally brought it up was because of the "interface"
Even if we are talking about action happening in 3 different spots it doesn't mean they all need need to happen at exactly the same second and even if they do it doesn't mean they require equal spectator attention - I don't need to watch the very last marine dieing to switch my screen to other location. The same thing that allows good players keep their macro going is applied here imo.
No, no, no. The definition of action happening in three spots is that they're happening at roughly the same time, if not *the* same time. You cannot pretend that the players will magically make it convenient and easy for the spectators to follow. As it is, there are times in SC1 already where the observers miss important things. Moreover, the more different things you have to watch the more crazy the screen gets.
During last WCG there was a thread in Broodwar about a site that allows to watch multiple you tube videos simultaneously - OP gave links to fpiews of both players from some of recorded matches and people found it cool -> it wasn't that annoying to watch 2, 400+ APM guys playing! It's not like Koreans never show fpiews during early stages of games also.
I can tell you right now that most players of starcraft 2 will not be able to follow one FPVOD, let alone two simultaneous FPVODs, if I and my friends are any indication. Your average spectator is not here on TL.net. He is behind me, a relatively cruddy player, saying that he's never seen anyone click that fast in SC before.
I know I had a hard time understanding what the FPVODs were showing and even now when watching them I often miss basic elements of BOs.There's a reason why the Koreans use FPV but not all the time: not everyone can understand them, but it's fun to see how crazy progamers are.
Multiple observers aren't anything new, if the guy that controls main screen ever gets confused other that aren't as static as him can ping him location on minimap.
If both fpiews can be shown just like that (as I wrote earlier) then screens of 2 observers can be shown as well.
I find that two obs screens is about the limit for what I can handle without completely missing what's going on on one of the screens. There's nothing more annoying for me than those WoW PvP videos, combo videos, or SC videos where it splits into a million screens and I can't see what's going on.
Obviously there's a balance to be struck, but there's no way you're going beyond 2 screens, and even that can be disorienting to the average spectator at a moment of high action.
Even minimap itself can be used to break technical barrier to show 2 battles going at the same time at 1 screen, just like it's done in Supreme Commander where both main screen and minimap can be zoomed in and out. All it would take Blizzard is to ignore cool badwagon kids of pure SC feeling.
Yeah, the minimap helps people see the big picture, but it unfortunately is missing a lot of the eye candy and interesting detail. It wasn't until Day[9] daily that I ever started watching the minimap at all as a spectator, and unless you're someone who is a really technical spectator the lack of detail just isn't as interesting.
I don't mean to completely rain on your parade. But I feel like you are being unrealistically optimistic.
Even if we are talking about action happening in 3 different spots it doesn't mean they all need need to happen at exactly the same second and even if they do it doesn't mean they require equal spectator attention - I don't need to watch the very last marine dieing to switch my screen to other location. The same thing that allows good players keep their macro going is applied here imo.
No, no, no. The definition of action happening in three spots is that they're happening at roughly the same time, if not *the* same time. You cannot pretend that the players will magically make it convenient and easy for the spectators to follow. As it is, there are times in SC1 already where the observers miss important things. Moreover, the more different things you have to watch the more crazy the screen gets.
Nono. Of course the important parts of several engagements can happen exactly simultaneously but that isnt the case always at all. For example if you do a multi pronged attack, its actually better to time it so that you can micro them all on their own a bit.
If its just 1 point of action all the time, I understand that as all your troops tied to 1 thing at a time.
Zooming in and out is a great feature that I wish SC2 had though.
Even if we are talking about action happening in 3 different spots it doesn't mean they all need need to happen at exactly the same second and even if they do it doesn't mean they require equal spectator attention - I don't need to watch the very last marine dieing to switch my screen to other location. The same thing that allows good players keep their macro going is applied here imo.
No, no, no. The definition of action happening in three spots is that they're happening at roughly the same time, if not *the* same time. You cannot pretend that the players will magically make it convenient and easy for the spectators to follow. As it is, there are times in SC1 already where the observers miss important things. Moreover, the more different things you have to watch the more crazy the screen gets.
You misunderstood me, I meant exactly what I wrote. JohannesH pretty much said it, it's not easy or even needed to engage at exactly the same time so those little amounts of time between each action happening can make it easier to spot and watch for everyone. It's like in Flash vs Movie OSL finals (vod marked at 27m)
Observer imo did a good job then. Well what helped him was all Protoss units weren't that far from each other (like opposite corners of a map).
During last WCG there was a thread in Broodwar about a site that allows to watch multiple you tube videos simultaneously - OP gave links to fpiews of both players from some of recorded matches and people found it cool -> it wasn't that annoying to watch 2, 400+ APM guys playing! It's not like Koreans never show fpiews during early stages of games also.
I can tell you right now that most players of starcraft 2 will not be able to follow one FPVOD, let alone two simultaneous FPVODs, if I and my friends are any indication. Your average spectator is not here on TL.net. He is behind me, a relatively cruddy player, saying that he's never seen anyone click that fast in SC before.
I know I had a hard time understanding what the FPVODs were showing and even now when watching them I often miss basic elements of BOs.There's a reason why the Koreans use FPV but not all the time: not everyone can understand them, but it's fun to see how crazy progamers are.
I didn't mean watching every game like that of course majority of people that would try to watch that wouldn't find it pleasant. I brought that as something opposite to what maybenexttime wrote, proof that there are people here that don't mind watching something going faster than what we can watch most of the time. If there are people that like watching 2fpvods playing simultaneously then for sure there are (imo even more) people who won't be as confused about action going on in multiple spots on a map as maybenexttime tried to state as fact.
Multiple observers aren't anything new, if the guy that controls main screen ever gets confused other that aren't as static as him can ping him location on minimap.
If both fpiews can be shown just like that (as I wrote earlier) then screens of 2 observers can be shown as well.
I find that two obs screens is about the limit for what I can handle without completely missing what's going on on one of the screens. There's nothing more annoying for me than those WoW PvP videos, combo videos, or SC videos where it splits into a million screens and I can't see what's going on.
Obviously there's a balance to be struck, but there's no way you're going beyond 2 screens, and even that can be disorienting to the average spectator at a moment of high action.
Even minimap itself can be used to break technical barrier to show 2 battles going at the same time at 1 screen, just like it's done in Supreme Commander where both main screen and minimap can be zoomed in and out. All it would take Blizzard is to ignore cool badwagon kids of pure SC feeling.
Yeah, the minimap helps people see the big picture, but it unfortunately is missing a lot of the eye candy and interesting detail. It wasn't until Day[9] daily that I ever started watching the minimap at all as a spectator, and unless you're someone who is a really technical spectator the lack of detail just isn't as interesting.
I don't mean to completely rain on your parade. But I feel like you are being unrealistically optimistic.
OK what I meant is 2 observers in game but screen of only 1 being shown - if this 1 gets confused he can ask for help. Pretty fitting for commentators who are observers at the same time (at least 1 of them). I think commentators were asking observer to show specific spots pretty few times during games of this TSL.
I meant splitting screen as something that would happen in exactly the same manner showing 2 fpviews happens now, i.e. not permament but temporary split!
I'm not sure if you played Supreme Commander, you can zoom in minimap so much you can see units clearly, it becomes little copy of main screen.
first off u forget that zerg will have a huge disadvantage here because they have a weaker force. In sc1 terran and protoss armies had an advantage in units that they can just sit in a ball and steamroll their way out into winning when they come into a specific size. zergs on the other hand have many units but with small hp so they had to flank in order to take on such force or they would just evaporate in single files. So why would unit selection be important? So that terran and protoss players would have to put more hotkeys and focus over them to control a large force instead of amove 12384102347 units that can steamroll nething with just a click of a button.
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second. half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage.
As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously.
To add to what IdrA said.
1. Is it physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously?
No, it's not. You can only be in one place at a time and if you leave your other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and you're not using them efficiently. You might as well do this in SC2.
2. Is it viable in-game?
Not really. You'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off.
3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport?
Hardly. The screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will the audience miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to them.
Why do you try to speak for everyone when you speak for yourself? Especially when you are terran? Let's fix your post
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second. half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage.
As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously.
To add to what IdrA said.
1. Am I physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously?
No, I'm not. I can only be in one place at a time and if I leave my other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and I'm not using them efficiently. I might as well do this in SC2.
2. Is it viable in-game?
For me not really. I'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off.
3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport?
Hardly. I like it more when the screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will I miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to me.
Maybenexttime said simultaneous, what you are describing in your later posts in this thread isn't what he meant. With macro you have some room to do other things while the units are building, micro requires you to react to the opponent's micro actions/mistakes when they happen. If you are microing at three spots instead of one it is very easy to make mistakes because your screen cannot show more than one spot, if you happen to be watching one spot while your opponent is acting in another one you can't react to him as fast. Macro happens in cycles, and requires only attention at those moments, micro isn't like that..
Just reread what IdrA said:
On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. if you're the harasser you control when you engage, meaning you go back and macro and then send your shuttle in. your opponent has to be constantly aware of the shuttle and has to go respond to it when you choose, which is likely to disrupt his macro. and things like big battles, that are based solely on the quality of your control and positioning, already get players full attention in sc1, even with manual macro.
Proper micro demands nearly constant attention, it is physically impossible to watch more than one spot constantly in BW/SC2, so you will have to switch between multiple locations rapidly. The more locations you attempt to monitor at once the greater the chance that you will miss something important and are too late to respond. Therefore engaging at multiple locations at once increases the risks of mistakes, nevermind that splitting your army is itself a risk because if your opponent doesn't he can beat your army by attack-moving over each small group. So yes, multiple simultaneous engagements change the risk-reward ratio, even if you have the skill to actually do it well. If your opponent splits his army in three parts, you can split yours in two and crush two of his armies at once and then destroy the last one with the leftovers. This is strategically superior even if you actually have the ability to win the three battles at once through micro. This is not a new argument, pretty much every later MBS thread had people come in and claim that people would now battle at multiple spots at once, Maybenexttime has made the above argument to so many times that it's not strange he got sick of repeating it to people who don't want to understand what he's saying.
The way you mangled his point 3 is either means malicious intent or completely missing his point. He's not arguing against multiple views, he's arguing that having many simultaneous battles is more confusing for the audience. He's not talking about technical barriers, he's talking about human limitations, with a proper studio setup anyone can do the screen within a screen thing. Some leagues already do the double fpview, but only earlygame because there isn't that much going on then. If the game is set up so that multiple simultaneous battle occur frequently, it's going to to make the game harder to follow for more casual spectators which will reduce appeal for them. It doesn't really matter if they show all the battles at once or only show one, it would be more demanding on the viewer either way. You can't argue against this by stating that some people on this site watched two fpvods at the same time and liked it, the people that come to this site are not really representative of the total potential playerbase. He's saying that the game will be more confusing to those people who don't play/watch a lot of SC2.
The more casual players/viewers will be a large part of the potential audience and if you alienate them the game will fail to get sponsors after a while because the audience will be too small to make money from broadcasting the games.
On January 24 2010 02:12 beetlelisk wrote:
Be honest with yourself -_- the biggest problem here is some people can't imagine something they don't see in BW or even more - they don't really care even after they played SC2 like CharlieMurphy in DT viability thread. Show that you care, show that you try to imagine how changes affect SC2 comparing it to BW AND THEN try to speak for everyone.
So because you don't like the reality he is describing he should use his imagination? You 'fixing' his post and suggesting it is a lack of skill and playing Terran that prevents him from agreeing with you is hilarious when he quoted IdrA saying the same thing. IdrA plays Terran for CJ, don't you think he would know a thing or two about attacking multiple spots as TvZ bionic is all about that lategame?
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second. half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage.
As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously.
To add to what IdrA said.
1. Is it physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously?
No, it's not. You can only be in one place at a time and if you leave your other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and you're not using them efficiently. You might as well do this in SC2.
2. Is it viable in-game?
Not really. You'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off.
3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport?
Hardly. The screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will the audience miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to them.
Why do you try to speak for everyone when you speak for yourself? Especially when you are terran? Let's fix your post
On January 23 2010 02:57 maybenexttime wrote:
On January 22 2010 21:51 Aim Here wrote:
On January 22 2010 19:24 IdrA wrote:
what they dont realize is that micro games are gonna become a whole lot more boring. alot of micro tactics depend on taking advantage of your opponents mistakes, many of which are caused by the fact that their attention is split 10 different ways. muta micro would be nearly worthless if terran could keep their screen on their mm group every single second. half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage.
As possibly the most skilless nooby on TL.net, I might be talking crap here, but doesn't the multitasking advantage still occur, regardless of whether it's micro or macro? Someone who can micro 3 control groups of mutas should still have a harassment advantage over a terran who can only focus on his one marine medic blob, and hasn't enough attention span left to defend two or three different places simultaneously.
To add to what IdrA said.
1. Am I physically viable to micro 3 groups of units simultaneously?
No, I'm not. I can only be in one place at a time and if I leave my other units (most probably important ones like HTs) uncontrolled - they're an easy prey and I'm not using them efficiently. I might as well do this in SC2.
2. Is it viable in-game?
For me not really. I'd have to invest too much resources and attention for too little pay-off.
3. Is this actually good for SC2 as a spectator sport?
Hardly. I like it more when the screen view can only show one place at a time. Not only will I miis out on a lot of the action but the game will also become confusing to me.
Maybenexttime said simultaneous, what you are describing in your later posts in this thread isn't what he meant. With macro you have some room to do other things while the units are building, micro requires you to react to the opponent's micro actions/mistakes when they happen. If you are microing at three spots instead of one it is very easy to make mistakes because your screen cannot show more than one spot, if you happen to be watching one spot while your opponent is acting in another one you can't react to him as fast. Macro happens in cycles, and requires only attention at those moments, micro isn't like that..
half the reason harass is useful is because it gives you a multitasking advantage. if you're the harasser you control when you engage, meaning you go back and macro and then send your shuttle in. your opponent has to be constantly aware of the shuttle and has to go respond to it when you choose, which is likely to disrupt his macro. and things like big battles, that are based solely on the quality of your control and positioning, already get players full attention in sc1, even with manual macro.
Proper micro demands nearly constant attention, it is physically impossible to watch more than one spot constantly in BW/SC2, so you will have to switch between multiple locations rapidly. The more locations you attempt to monitor at once the greater the chance that you will miss something important and are too late to respond. Therefore engaging at multiple locations at once increases the risks of mistakes, nevermind that splitting your army is itself a risk because if your opponent doesn't he can beat your army by attack-moving over each small group. So yes, multiple simultaneous engagements change the risk-reward ratio, even if you have the skill to actually do it well. If your opponent splits his army in three parts, you can split yours in two and crush two of his armies at once and then destroy the last one with the leftovers. This is strategically superior even if you actually have the ability to win the three battles at once through micro. This is not a new argument, pretty much every later MBS thread had people come in and claim that people would now battle at multiple spots at once, Maybenexttime has made the above argument to so many times that it's not strange he got sick of repeating it to people who don't want to understand what he's saying.
The way you mangled his point 3 is either means malicious intent or completely missing his point. He's not arguing against multiple views, he's arguing that having many simultaneous battles is more confusing for the audience. He's not talking about technical barriers, he's talking about human limitations, with a proper studio setup anyone can do the screen within a screen thing. Some leagues already do the double fpview, but only earlygame because there isn't that much going on then. If the game is set up so that multiple simultaneous battle occur frequently, it's going to to make the game harder to follow for more casual spectators which will reduce appeal for them. It doesn't really matter if they show all the battles at once or only show one, it would be more demanding on the viewer either way. You can't argue against this by stating that some people on this site watched two fpvods at the same time and liked it, the people that come to this site are not really representative of the total potential playerbase. He's saying that the game will be more confusing to those people who don't play/watch a lot of SC2.
The more casual players/viewers will be a large part of the potential audience and if you alienate them the game will fail to get sponsors after a while because the audience will be too small to make money from broadcasting the games.
Be honest with yourself -_- the biggest problem here is some people can't imagine something they don't see in BW or even more - they don't really care even after they played SC2 like CharlieMurphy in DT viability thread. Show that you care, show that you try to imagine how changes affect SC2 comparing it to BW AND THEN try to speak for everyone.
So because you don't like the reality he is describing he should use his imagination? You 'fixing' his post and suggesting it is a lack of skill and playing Terran that prevents him from agreeing with you is hilarious when he quoted IdrA saying the same thing. IdrA plays Terran for CJ, don't you think he would know a thing or two about attacking multiple spots as TvZ bionic is all about that lategame?
This thread is basically another MBS debate. Most of the players that achieved something in BW (and had chance to play SC2) agree that macro handicaps will make the game easier. Now add new pathing AND ~255 not 12 units that you can select at once and suddenly you get HUGE amount of time to do things freed.
I don't understand why you need to imagine action happening in more than 1 place as something that always has to sacrifice power of your army and happen in exactly the same time at all spots. Saying that it won't happen for example in case of muta harassment because zerg most of the time make 11 mutas [edit - like randombum wrote on page 18] is ridiculous to me. OF COURSE NO ONE IS GOING TO BLATANTLY SACRIFICE ANYTHING FOR SUCH A SMALL GAIN. Don't you remember games where zerg was microing 2 groups of mutas in different spots and killing terran with them? Action happening in multiple spots doesn't have to mean battles, it can as well mean better scouting.
You described micro and unit control the way it happens in BW - it's limited to 12 units at once and since the most important thing to keep doing is macro it's really hard to split your force and still use in efficent way - this is what I meant by lack of imagination. Splitting your force is mostly limited to Storm drops, recalls, sacrificing cheap units like lings or vultures to damage expos and destroy peons. Now notice a lot of changes done to units in SC2 - warp in mechanic, Stalkers and blink, Colossi ignoring cliffs, Reapers, increased need fro Dropships because only they can heal and among many more other things Banshees having (in last builds) almost 3 times as strong attack as Wraiths have - 2 Banshees can be equivalent to 5 mutas!
In short there is going to be so many new ways to use your units that, for me, saying you are limited to one spot at a time (after hundreds of threads bashing mbs) shows at least limited imagination. If someone acts like he's the shit on top of that, asking himself like a Korean progamer and answering to himself it simply pisses me off.
edit: I wrote about average spectator getting confused in my previous post.
On January 24 2010 09:39 TeWy wrote: I've plaid a lot of Warcraft3 before switching back to Starcraft so let me explain why all these fears about Starcraft2 being "War3 in space" are non-sense.
The reason why War3 is kind of boring spectator wise, is that War3 is slow and that the unit combinaisons fighting each other are most of the time the same, not to mention that they're very few scenarios where 2 battles are going on in the same time.
1). The reason why the unit combinaisons are stereotyped at the high level, is not due to poor macro or whatever, it is due to the HEROES. When you opt for a certain hero in War3, you can't change it anymore, and all your strategies have to revolve around him. For instance if you're a HU player and that you don't choose Archmage as first hero, you wouldn't have the Archmage's mana aura and the Water elementals DPS to effectively play casters at tier2, and if you've no casters at tier2 you will be vulnerable at this point of the game, so the only way to not play AM first as HU is to take an early expansion, mass towers to prevent any kind of tier2 push and go for the high tech.
2).The reason why there's almost never 2 real battles going on in the same time, is also kind of linked to the heroes (hero spells synergize with the armie as mentionned above) but also due the fact that War3 has a fourth ressource called experience. You can't suicide your units to disturb your opponent economies because even if you successfuly disturb your opponent's economy, he will straight push your expansion/main base and beat you due to superior hero levels (losing units/time means more experience for your opponent heroes) and the fact that he has more units ; so spending time/units to disturb your opponent's economy is most of the times a bad choice, unless you're playing a mass expansions/mass towers/tanks strat which is considerd to be an epically lame strat, and which has been nerfed.
3).The reason why War3 is slow is that well, they wanted to make something more unique than Starcraft in the forest. And for those who haven't plaid it, let me make a revelation folks, Starcraft is Warcraft2 in space.
Hey... i was going to explain to you how you were wrong, but this game pretty much disproves alot of you've said, its a good game too. The game definately isn't 'slow'... It's also not boring... though some games can be, as in all sports. As for the Archmage debate, its entirely situational to race matchup and personal preference. I prefer MK vs orc every game no matter what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09m4WhrtuY&feature=related (it's funny in the background you can hear them talking about SC2. Probably talking about Moon who is rumoured to be one of the SC2 bonjwas in the future, and taken on by WemadeFox)
Anway... SC2 will obviously be alot different than Wc3 in many aspects, why i originally brought it up was because of the "interface"
Just watched game 1 and 2. It's DAMN SLOW OH MY GOD. And SC2 isn't close to Wc3 in any aspect. Only people who didn't play it says that.
On January 24 2010 09:39 TeWy wrote: I've plaid a lot of Warcraft3 before switching back to Starcraft so let me explain why all these fears about Starcraft2 being "War3 in space" are non-sense.
The reason why War3 is kind of boring spectator wise, is that War3 is slow and that the unit combinaisons fighting each other are most of the time the same, not to mention that they're very few scenarios where 2 battles are going on in the same time.
1). The reason why the unit combinaisons are stereotyped at the high level, is not due to poor macro or whatever, it is due to the HEROES. When you opt for a certain hero in War3, you can't change it anymore, and all your strategies have to revolve around him. For instance if you're a HU player and that you don't choose Archmage as first hero, you wouldn't have the Archmage's mana aura and the Water elementals DPS to effectively play casters at tier2, and if you've no casters at tier2 you will be vulnerable at this point of the game, so the only way to not play AM first as HU is to take an early expansion, mass towers to prevent any kind of tier2 push and go for the high tech.
2).The reason why there's almost never 2 real battles going on in the same time, is also kind of linked to the heroes (hero spells synergize with the armie as mentionned above) but also due the fact that War3 has a fourth ressource called experience. You can't suicide your units to disturb your opponent economies because even if you successfuly disturb your opponent's economy, he will straight push your expansion/main base and beat you due to superior hero levels (losing units/time means more experience for your opponent heroes) and the fact that he has more units ; so spending time/units to disturb your opponent's economy is most of the times a bad choice, unless you're playing a mass expansions/mass towers/tanks strat which is considerd to be an epically lame strat, and which has been nerfed.
3).The reason why War3 is slow is that well, they wanted to make something more unique than Starcraft in the forest. And for those who haven't plaid it, let me make a revelation folks, Starcraft is Warcraft2 in space.
Hey... i was going to explain to you how you were wrong, but this game pretty much disproves alot of you've said, its a good game too. The game definately isn't 'slow'... It's also not boring... though some games can be, as in all sports. As for the Archmage debate, its entirely situational to race matchup and personal preference. I prefer MK vs orc every game no matter what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09m4WhrtuY&feature=related (it's funny in the background you can hear them talking about SC2. Probably talking about Moon who is rumoured to be one of the SC2 bonjwas in the future, and taken on by WemadeFox)
Anway... SC2 will obviously be alot different than Wc3 in many aspects, why i originally brought it up was because of the "interface"
Just watched game 1 and 2. It's DAMN SLOW OH MY GOD. And SC2 isn't close to Wc3 in any aspect. Only people who didn't play it says that.
"isn't close in any aspect", is far too extreme... Both game may look different but after all, they share the same basics (macro/micro/multitask/strategic sense)...
On January 24 2010 09:39 TeWy wrote: I've plaid a lot of Warcraft3 before switching back to Starcraft so let me explain why all these fears about Starcraft2 being "War3 in space" are non-sense.
The reason why War3 is kind of boring spectator wise, is that War3 is slow and that the unit combinaisons fighting each other are most of the time the same, not to mention that they're very few scenarios where 2 battles are going on in the same time.
1). The reason why the unit combinaisons are stereotyped at the high level, is not due to poor macro or whatever, it is due to the HEROES. When you opt for a certain hero in War3, you can't change it anymore, and all your strategies have to revolve around him. For instance if you're a HU player and that you don't choose Archmage as first hero, you wouldn't have the Archmage's mana aura and the Water elementals DPS to effectively play casters at tier2, and if you've no casters at tier2 you will be vulnerable at this point of the game, so the only way to not play AM first as HU is to take an early expansion, mass towers to prevent any kind of tier2 push and go for the high tech.
2).The reason why there's almost never 2 real battles going on in the same time, is also kind of linked to the heroes (hero spells synergize with the armie as mentionned above) but also due the fact that War3 has a fourth ressource called experience. You can't suicide your units to disturb your opponent economies because even if you successfuly disturb your opponent's economy, he will straight push your expansion/main base and beat you due to superior hero levels (losing units/time means more experience for your opponent heroes) and the fact that he has more units ; so spending time/units to disturb your opponent's economy is most of the times a bad choice, unless you're playing a mass expansions/mass towers/tanks strat which is considerd to be an epically lame strat, and which has been nerfed.
3).The reason why War3 is slow is that well, they wanted to make something more unique than Starcraft in the forest. And for those who haven't plaid it, let me make a revelation folks, Starcraft is Warcraft2 in space.
Hey... i was going to explain to you how you were wrong, but this game pretty much disproves alot of you've said, its a good game too. The game definately isn't 'slow'... It's also not boring... though some games can be, as in all sports. As for the Archmage debate, its entirely situational to race matchup and personal preference. I prefer MK vs orc every game no matter what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09m4WhrtuY&feature=related (it's funny in the background you can hear them talking about SC2. Probably talking about Moon who is rumoured to be one of the SC2 bonjwas in the future, and taken on by WemadeFox)
Anway... SC2 will obviously be alot different than Wc3 in many aspects, why i originally brought it up was because of the "interface"
Just watched game 1 and 2. It's DAMN SLOW OH MY GOD. And SC2 isn't close to Wc3 in any aspect. Only people who didn't play it says that.
"isn't close in any aspect", is far too extreme... Both game may look different but after all, they share the same basics (macro/micro/multitask/strategic sense)...
I gave Warcraft 3 a chance after watching the second game and I have to say that it seemed to go to slow. You shouldn't be able to attack for that long and destroy that little. If the big rock throwing units were replaced by zealots they would have been able to destroy a players ability to fight if attacked as little as they (the sieging units) were in less time. Especially if the players know what they're doing and don't have a bunch of money sitting in the bank to power unit production after they lost their income.
On January 24 2010 09:39 TeWy wrote: I've plaid a lot of Warcraft3 before switching back to Starcraft so let me explain why all these fears about Starcraft2 being "War3 in space" are non-sense.
The reason why War3 is kind of boring spectator wise, is that War3 is slow and that the unit combinaisons fighting each other are most of the time the same, not to mention that they're very few scenarios where 2 battles are going on in the same time.
1). The reason why the unit combinaisons are stereotyped at the high level, is not due to poor macro or whatever, it is due to the HEROES. When you opt for a certain hero in War3, you can't change it anymore, and all your strategies have to revolve around him. For instance if you're a HU player and that you don't choose Archmage as first hero, you wouldn't have the Archmage's mana aura and the Water elementals DPS to effectively play casters at tier2, and if you've no casters at tier2 you will be vulnerable at this point of the game, so the only way to not play AM first as HU is to take an early expansion, mass towers to prevent any kind of tier2 push and go for the high tech.
2).The reason why there's almost never 2 real battles going on in the same time, is also kind of linked to the heroes (hero spells synergize with the armie as mentionned above) but also due the fact that War3 has a fourth ressource called experience. You can't suicide your units to disturb your opponent economies because even if you successfuly disturb your opponent's economy, he will straight push your expansion/main base and beat you due to superior hero levels (losing units/time means more experience for your opponent heroes) and the fact that he has more units ; so spending time/units to disturb your opponent's economy is most of the times a bad choice, unless you're playing a mass expansions/mass towers/tanks strat which is considerd to be an epically lame strat, and which has been nerfed.
3).The reason why War3 is slow is that well, they wanted to make something more unique than Starcraft in the forest. And for those who haven't plaid it, let me make a revelation folks, Starcraft is Warcraft2 in space.
Hey... i was going to explain to you how you were wrong, but this game pretty much disproves alot of you've said, its a good game too. The game definately isn't 'slow'... It's also not boring... though some games can be, as in all sports. As for the Archmage debate, its entirely situational to race matchup and personal preference. I prefer MK vs orc every game no matter what.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09m4WhrtuY&feature=related (it's funny in the background you can hear them talking about SC2. Probably talking about Moon who is rumoured to be one of the SC2 bonjwas in the future, and taken on by WemadeFox)
Anway... SC2 will obviously be alot different than Wc3 in many aspects, why i originally brought it up was because of the "interface"
Just watched game 1 and 2. It's DAMN SLOW OH MY GOD. And SC2 isn't close to Wc3 in any aspect. Only people who didn't play it says that.
"isn't close in any aspect", is far too extreme... Both game may look different but after all, they share the same basics (macro/micro/multitask/strategic sense)...
That's like saying Starcraft Broodwar and WC3 share the same basics. Sure they do really deep down but they're still so so so so so so different. If we just go deep enough ALL games share a lot of aspects.
I like to watch Programmer matches because of thier insane ability. There is a reason I watch SC instead of say, Dawn of War, for instance. It just takes soooo much skill, because of the interface and the hard coded limits. I dislike MBS, despite how much that would help me play at a better level, but I find that unit selection limits barely change anything except letting a D level macro player do slightly better.
EPT
of course majority of people that would try to watch that wouldn't find it pleasant. I brought that as something opposite to what maybenexttime wrote, proof that there are people here that don't mind watching something going faster than what we can watch most of the time. ![[image loading]](http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7523/everypeen.png)
