|
Hey guys I'm new here and still a pretty big noob at Starcraft 2, but I really love the game so much and had a couple of general questions.
My first is how can I try and get my other friends to try SC or have some interest in it? 3 of my good friends are roomates and 2 of them are pretty big RTS fans. They mainly (and by mainly I mean only) play Age of Empires. They've played some lotr ones and dawn of war and what not, but they always go back to AoE. One of them doesn't have a computer good enough to run sc2 but when I try to show him it on mine or show him SC1 on his, he just bitches about how stupid it is and his other 2 roomates jump in agreeing with him about how easy of a game SC is, 2 resources blah blah 3 factions and just bitch the game out without even trying it. One of them used to play original SC too back in the day and agrees with them how easy it is (as I watch him play a skirmish in BW against a computer and get owned with 3 zerglings and sunken colonies up and 5 drones while the computer comes at him with an army). So my question is, how can I stop getting them to be so ignorant and actually give the game a chance and try to get them interested in it? Also they don't have internet at their house so I can't show them VODs or streams or anything, I'm stuck to replays and me playing the game.
My second question is related to the first but a bit off topic from the thread (just delete it if it shouldn't be here, sorry), but what are peoples thoughts on AoE? I've personally never played it but it seems like everything is on land, depends on RNG quite a bit and has an excessive amount of factions without much differences between them. Is it actually comparable to SC and worth checking out (for a fairly new person to the RTS genre in general)? I've even tried googling SC vs AoE but it just comes up with AoE forums with blatant fanboys making stupid arguments defending their game while never even having tried SC so that's why I bothered asking about it here, sorry if it's too off topic and shouldn't really be here.
|
On February 14 2012 08:00 Lunatics wrote:
Hey guys I'm new here and still a pretty big noob at Starcraft 2, but I really love the game so much and had a couple of general questions.
My first is how can I try and get my other friends to try SC or have some interest in it? 3 of my good friends are roomates and 2 of them are pretty big RTS fans. They mainly (and by mainly I mean only) play Age of Empires. They've played some lotr ones and dawn of war and what not, but they always go back to AoE. One of them doesn't have a computer good enough to run sc2 but when I try to show him it on mine or show him SC1 on his, he just bitches about how stupid it is and his other 2 roomates jump in agreeing with him about how easy of a game SC is, 2 resources blah blah 3 factions and just bitch the game out without even trying it. One of them used to play original SC too back in the day and agrees with them how easy it is (as I watch him play a skirmish in BW against a computer and get owned with 3 zerglings and sunken colonies up and 5 drones while the computer comes at him with an army). So my question is, how can I stop getting them to be so ignorant and actually give the game a chance and try to get them interested in it? Also they don't have internet at their house so I can't show them VODs or streams or anything, I'm stuck to replays and me playing the game.
My second question is related to the first but a bit off topic from the thread (just delete it if it shouldn't be here, sorry), but what are peoples thoughts on AoE? I've personally never played it but it seems like everything is on land, depends on RNG quite a bit and has an excessive amount of factions without much differences between them. Is it actually comparable to SC and worth checking out (for a fairly new person to the RTS genre in general)? I've even tried googling SC vs AoE but it just comes up with AoE forums with blatant fanboys making stupid arguments defending their game while never even having tried SC so that's why I bothered asking about it here, sorry if it's too off topic and shouldn't really be here.
Hm, mostly and attitude problem from what I can tell. If they instantly compare it to AoE, then it can get difficult. What I'd say what to do, is to maybe get them to try it one at a time? People new to the game can be difficult if they bunch up. Also, if they decide to focus on small, stupid or even irrelevant issues with the game, don't start to discuss those issues, but rather focus on other factors which define SC and SC2; asymmetrical balance, a strong blanced game play, no one-dimensional game play (i.e. macro) but other factors e.g. multi tasking and micro (iirc, AoE is mostly defined by macro, at least I could crunch my friends with pure macro mechanics). While AoE can be nice when two similar, but different colored armies meet, SC and SC2 really shows the beauty in having three different factions with unique strengths and weaknesses. SC is also nice due to the mindset that there is nothing that is impossible to beat, but rather you can improve so much that you can beat anything (except when putting yourself in an un-winnable position). SC is a bit faster gameplay wise than AoE as well. But be careful, and don't "hate" on their game, but rather show the difference between the two games.
Furthermore, let time take its toll. Probably you won't leave the world of SC anytime soon, so perhaps they will mature (don't know the age of them) and try it out someday, whether it be when they get a new computer or what now. Don't nag on them to try SC2, it is never a good idea. Stay strong!
However, I noticed something in your post:
" One of them doesn't have a computer good enough to run sc2" and "Also they don't have internet at their house"
If they don't have internet, then they won't be able to play it anyway :/ just saying
AoE is a nice game, I would suggest trying it out with them some time. Ofc, as I mentioned, constantly producing workers is pretty easy, and can give a huge lead in the game (as mentioned before) but it still is a nice game. I don't know how much they play it competitively, but if they don't you can get away with most unit comps. Archers tend to be pretty imba if the enemy don't know how to deal with them for ex. (think of TvP, MMM melts Protoss stuff if they lack any sort of aoe units. Pretty much the same thing happens in AoE if the opponent doesn't counter ranged units).
Anyway, just my two cent. Probably some other people have better suggestion. But the most important thing is to not be nagging them about trying SC2 and trying to compare SC2 to AoE, and trying to show them that it is a better game.
VODs can give some results as well, if you ever get the opportunity
|
Ever felt like the only way to win as Zerg was to either have a large skill gap (See: Nestea) or get lucky with your selected tactics? Just as a detective, after staring at a cold case for months or years, will suddenly get hit with the little piece of the puzzle that's been missing and solve the case, it's come to me why Zerg feels so...weak.
After over a thousand games or so I've come to what I think is the biggest problem for Zerg vs the other two races: Healing. Protoss shields, with no research, regenerate insanely fast; so when you throw your army at Protoss and they still have units left, by the time they get to your base they've recovered massive amounts of HP, making their army super cost effective.
Now for Terran same thing except many fold worse. First they get medivacs. Have you ever thrown zerglings at stimmed marines that are getting healed by even 1 medivac? You lose BIG time almost every time. Then you have things like repairing their buildings and machines at speeds only limited by how many SCV's can fit around the item in question at minimal cost.
What healing does Zerg have? Micro intensive queen transfuse which few units live long once under fire for you to transfuse effectively in large part due to lag. Should I even mention the transfuse cool-down nerf? Then there is the issues of buildings. Protoss and Terran buildings do very well after an attack is staved off but that hatchery you were able to save with 200 hit points on it is as good as dead in the next attack unless you happen to have a few spare full energy queens available and because of the cool-down thing several seconds of your time while you babysit them as queuing up the transfuses isn't always reliable anymore.
Now for the humble roach, the only other healing unit Zerg possesses. It only heals when it is vulnerable to attack, and that is when it's buried. When you have a roach/hydra composition for example and you get stormed you can heal up your roaches quite nicely, but what are you going to do about all the red hydra's? Transfuse all 10-20 of them? No, that's actually stupid of you to even think that.
[tl;dr]In summery, Protoss has units left over after a fight? Shields, not a problem. Terran has units left over after a fight? Repair/medivacs, not a problem. Zerg has units left over after a fight? Well, lets just hope they are fully upgraded roaches.
Possible solutions(Please note: this list is not definate, just throwing ideas out there and giving suggestions on what 'I' personally think 'MIGHT' work. I'm not suggesting all items necessarily be implemented at once, together, or at all)
*Increase regeneration rate across all units: In Starcraft of old Zerg regen and Protoss shield regen was similar (maybe the same?), why is there such a large difference in SC2?
*Make transfuse an AOE: Of course changes would have to be made to accommodate the changed mechanic, but this seems like it could be do-able.
*Buildings mutate to full health: When a 1hp overlord is morphed it hatches at full health, why not allow hatcheries and spires to do the same? Perhaps an option to allow a building to remake itself? That low health hatchery can be regenerated to full health in a similar way that it morphs to lair. I'd Happily pay *400* minerals to remake a hatchery rather than wait for it to get sniped and rebuild it.
*Queen regenerates building health like injecting larve: A queen can 'Inject' a building to allow it to heal after a certain amount of time has passed, just like larva inject.
*Allow ALL units to rapid heal while burrowed: Why is this limited to only the roach? The roach can keep it's super healing and burrowed movement but give everything else the base rapid heal rate when burrowed.
Well you've heard my suggestions, can you think of any?
|
On February 14 2012 17:22 Mr.X546 wrote:
However, I noticed something in your post:
" One of them doesn't have a computer good enough to run sc2" and "Also they don't have internet at their house"
If they don't have internet, then they won't be able to play it anyway :/ just saying
Yeah but there's still ways to play. We can play SC1 lan or they can still try sc2 single player offline/versus AI, and also try the same on my laptop. It's not optimal but they're going to be getting internet and another computer capable of playing, so I was hoping to get them into the single player/vs ai part so when they did get internet, they could actually see the multiplayer, and have some understanding of the game going into it. Not optimal, but there are ways of getting them to play it! The problem is convincing them to.
|
I have a question that has been floating around in my head for a few days now. Would changing every natural expansion into a gold base demote 1-base all-ins? With the change of mules in 1.4.3 makes it so that no race has a clear macro mechanic advantage for the gold so it seem to me that this is a good idea.
Im just a gold level player and really don't know about the complex intricacies of the game and if there is anything that I overlooked or any negatives or even more positives about this idea please let me know.
|
Random question due to SC being down for maintenance right now. If I were to work on campaign stuff in offline mode, say finishing a map and continuing to the next mission in the campaign, would I get credit for it when the server came back online? would it "sync" or anything with it and update the bnet campaign with my newer one? I assume if I did any specific hard mode achievements I wouldn't get credit, I'm just wondering about general progression through the campaign.
Also I know I'm new here, I just wanted to say though that I really love how if you go into a thread that hasn't been posted in for >2 months, you get a stern warning to not bump it unless it's important. More forums should implicate this sort of thing.
|
On February 12 2012 05:54 SCVerdict wrote:
I have a huge problem... I'm not a noob/newb, by any means. I know and understand the game as much as a silver player, and my skill is pretty good. But I was placed in bronze in season 1. I was initially gold, but took a long break and got reranked to bronze in 4v4/3v3...
It's like i'm in a black hole I can't get out of. I'm constantly being matched up with the stupidest/worst players in known existence, and I clearly don't belong here. A master has been teaching me for a few weeks, and my skill has drastically gone up. i 1v1 gold players and beat them, even though my 1v1 is bronze (black hole, can't escape...)
But my goal is to get to silver/gold in 4v4... I'm so good at 4v4, my macro is incredible... but I get the WORST partners. Examples of worst partners:
-Cannon rush, fail then quit
-Don't know what "banelings" are and therefore don't make them when enemy makes mass rines..
-try to mass one unit and make no army the entire game
-I had a guy PREACH THE BIBLE and refuse to play and fight on our team, and refused to leave. He claimed he refused to participate in violence, and we should all love each other
-Team killers, who tech up and then decide to kill you.
But I've noticed that I'm pitted against much diversity. I face off against golds, silvers... And I'm on the score sheet at the top of almost EVERY game. But I'm not just going off of that, of course not. I also top the "army" and "resources" graphs due to exceptional Macro. But why do I lose? Well for one, I can sweep in and kill one or two of the enemy players in any given 4v4, and all 3 of my other allies are doing god knows what... and the other 2-3 enemy's left will have massed something that completely counters MY army. Such as mass voids/carriers/archons... Mass marines, mass colossi, etc. I can't possibly consider winning 40-50 matches 1v4, which is usually what it feels like I'm playing...
So my question...? How do I get out of this bronze blackhole, considering my skill is growing exponentially (as stated, master is teaching me and I'm learning more than a bronze should know...) ?? am I going to be stuck here forever?
your obviously a troll
but i am going to preach non violence from the bible next time i play 4v4, it sound brilliant
|
On February 14 2012 21:12 Lunatics wrote:
Random question due to SC being down for maintenance right now. If I were to work on campaign stuff in offline mode, say finishing a map and continuing to the next mission in the campaign, would I get credit for it when the server came back online? would it "sync" or anything with it and update the bnet campaign with my newer one? I assume if I did any specific hard mode achievements I wouldn't get credit, I'm just wondering about general progression through the campaign.
Also I know I'm new here, I just wanted to say though that I really love how if you go into a thread that hasn't been posted in for >2 months, you get a stern warning to not bump it unless it's important. More forums should implicate this sort of thing.
I did not get any credit when I finished the campaign offline.
|
Hi all
I just got an interesting idea. What if lings were given ability to jump down the cliffs? IMHO it wouldn't brake the balance, would just cause lings to be able to reinforce faster and what most important would stop abuse of ffing the ramp by toss players early game which is really frustraiting as zerg can only watch not being able to do anything. The same situation with siege tanks.
What do you think?
|
On February 14 2012 21:12 Lunatics wrote:
Random question due to SC being down for maintenance right now. If I were to work on campaign stuff in offline mode, say finishing a map and continuing to the next mission in the campaign, would I get credit for it when the server came back online? would it "sync" or anything with it and update the bnet campaign with my newer one? I assume if I did any specific hard mode achievements I wouldn't get credit, I'm just wondering about general progression through the campaign.
Also I know I'm new here, I just wanted to say though that I really love how if you go into a thread that hasn't been posted in for >2 months, you get a stern warning to not bump it unless it's important. More forums should implicate this sort of thing.
You won't get any achievements. None at all. But progress is saved, so gogo!
|
How many hitpoints does structures have during building/morphing/warping? Do they get their full health immediately or do they progressively get more and more hitpoints? For example if I want to wall in, does a half-finished supply depot have as many hitpoints as a completed one?
|
On February 15 2012 06:40 dala wrote:
How many hitpoints does structures have during building/morphing/warping? Do they get their full health immediately or do they progressively get more and more hitpoints? For example if I want to wall in, does a half-finished supply depot have as many hitpoints as a completed one?
Hit points follow building completion progress.
So a building that is 1% done will have 1% of its HP 
|
On February 11 2012 13:48 wklbishop wrote:
Hmm, lately my hands have been shaking each time I play 10 minutes into a game. Normally I'd attribute it to adrenaline or something, but it's a new thing so it's odd for me. And my hands feels numb and I can barely control them with the numbing lasting a bit afterwards.
Anyone got an idea as to how to remedy this?
it happens to me also, I guess it is normal.
|
|
|
This is random but does anyone know if hallucinated units use up point defense drones?
|
On February 15 2012 12:22 esaul17 wrote:
This is random but does anyone know if hallucinated units use up point defense drones?
Hallucinated units always use up PDD energy even when detected.
|
On February 15 2012 06:02 bolo272 wrote:
Hi all
I just got an interesting idea. What if lings were given ability to jump down the cliffs? IMHO it wouldn't brake the balance, would just cause lings to be able to reinforce faster and what most important would stop abuse of ffing the ramp by toss players early game which is really frustraiting as zerg can only watch not being able to do anything. The same situation with siege tanks.
What do you think?
would be insanely imbalanced, you can't even wall off anymore. I get what you are talking about but that isn't definitly way too powerful
|
On February 15 2012 06:50 BearDK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:40 dala wrote:
How many hitpoints does structures have during building/morphing/warping? Do they get their full health immediately or do they progressively get more and more hitpoints? For example if I want to wall in, does a half-finished supply depot have as many hitpoints as a completed one? Hit points follow building completion progress. So a building that is 1% done will have 1% of its HP
Thanks.
|
On February 15 2012 12:45 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 06:02 bolo272 wrote:
Hi all
I just got an interesting idea. What if lings were given ability to jump down the cliffs? IMHO it wouldn't brake the balance, would just cause lings to be able to reinforce faster and what most important would stop abuse of ffing the ramp by toss players early game which is really frustraiting as zerg can only watch not being able to do anything. The same situation with siege tanks.
What do you think? would be insanely imbalanced, you can't even wall off anymore. I get what you are talking about but that isn't definitly way too powerful
I mean that lings could jump DOWN only. Wall in still would be efficient
|
On February 15 2012 18:12 bolo272 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 12:45 ETisME wrote:On February 15 2012 06:02 bolo272 wrote:
Hi all
I just got an interesting idea. What if lings were given ability to jump down the cliffs? IMHO it wouldn't brake the balance, would just cause lings to be able to reinforce faster and what most important would stop abuse of ffing the ramp by toss players early game which is really frustraiting as zerg can only watch not being able to do anything. The same situation with siege tanks.
What do you think? would be insanely imbalanced, you can't even wall off anymore. I get what you are talking about but that isn't definitly way too powerful I mean that lings could jump DOWN only. Wall in still would be efficient
Pretty interesting idea for flanking, but I'd say it depends on the cliff size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
