EPTThe point of this post is that War3 is for one kind of players and SC is for other. I personally love the latter 10x more than the former, but that's not a valid reason to bash an excellent game. Please stop.
MORE TERRAN NEWS!! - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
The point of this post is that War3 is for one kind of players and SC is for other. I personally love the latter 10x more than the former, but that's not a valid reason to bash an excellent game. Please stop. | ||
|
Gokey
United States2722 Posts
[QUOTE]On July 23 2007 11:25 aW]Nevermind wrote: [QUOTE]On July 23 2007 10:42 Nyovne wrote: [QUOTE]On July 23 2007 09:04 aW]Nevermind wrote: [QUOTE] Any game that means losing 1 grunt in a mirror mu meaning you lose or w/e is a shit game. It's so slow its pretty easy to master and it doesn't even have a macro aspect that you can actually quality as such :/. Multitasking and unit control in SC is just in another league entirely compared to warcraft.[/QUOTE] Wc3 is really hard to master because 1 focking small mistake like losing a grunt on mirror makes you lose, seems like u just lost too much and gave up.[/QUOTE] I used to be really hardcore into wc3 before switching to SC. This was probably my biggest complaint with the game. (well, actually random item drops were, but this is a close second). Most games tended to follow the landslide pattern. Small losses early on soon proved insurmountable when those extra exp points your opponent got were now overpowering you. It seems there is much less room for comebacks than in SC. An early disadvantage turned into a huge disadvantage late game. That all being said, I haven't played wc3 since 1.16, but at the time was within top 50 on east solo, so I'd like to think I'm not entirely ignorant on the subject.[/QUOTE] Agreed... I can appreciate the difficulty of WC3... It's a competitive game for sure, but it doesn't ooze with as much character and style as SC does... The pacing has a lot of problems as well, and creeping is more of a chore than any SC interface micro. Overall WC3 is a fine game, better than 90% of the RTS's out there. However, it just lacks that spark that makes SC so dynamic and FUN to play and watch. Btw, the best RTS to come out since Starcraft is definitely Company of Heroes... It's more of a tactical RTS, but the details, graphics, and mechanics of the game really really shine. They just need more factions and a better fanbase... | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On July 23 2007 14:27 BluzMan wrote: Well, first of all, you people vastly underestimate the amount of skill needed to play WC3 well. It's room for mastery is very high, probably rivaling that of SC and the amount of tricks possible is also very high. Sure, you can't comeback with fighting on high ground, a sneak at the enemy's base or defending a choke, but there are other possibilities. Hide an expo (scouting can become really hard in War3 with slow units/unit cap) and go high upkeep, follow an unusual creeping pattern risking to get some cool XP and uber items or just creepjack the guy when he tries it. There is a demand for high speed (although too much mouse action for may tastes, particularly regarding items) and there is strategy. The only thing that truely differs is the retarded economy model which simply doesn't allow you to expand at first opportunity and the unobviousness of what is happening. When you see someone win an unphill battle by terrain abuse, it's evident and it's pure tactical thinking. When you see someone win the battle microing his spellbreakers better and having better items, it's unevident. War3 is much less spectator sport than SC, that's all, perfect play doesn't guarantee spectacularity, but it's as hard to achieve as in SC. It's not that the players are slow, the gameplay you SEE is slow, not the people behind it. And some matches are even quite exciting to watch. The point of this post is that War3 is for one kind of players and SC is for other. I personally love the latter 10x more than the former, but that's not a valid reason to bash an excellent game. Please stop. Excellent post. | ||
|
tyndale
Australia20 Posts
| ||
|
Mammoth
United Kingdom49 Posts
And as for the radar dome, we dont really know how it works, but i suspect it wont have too large a range (maybe twice the range of a turret or so). That will prevent it being overpowered, but will still let it be useful, giving you some advance warning of an enemy attack. It may also help to allow the siege tank to attack at full range without needing a spotter unit for it (iirc the siege tank had a large attack range than sight range in SC). So lets wait and see how it works before making judgements. As for the other terran units, i have to say i like them all. I'm a bit unsure about the banshee's looks though - i just cant see it flying through space looking as cool as wraiths used to do in SC cinematics. A few more thoughts: i was thinking that with the banshee's and BC's aoe anti-ground attacks/abilities, it might be quite hard to counter terran air with ground units, especially for zerg (unless they get some sweet new units, which is likely i guess). I was also wondering which terran ground units will take the role of the goliath as anti-air. The thor doesnt attack air, and the viking seems to only attack air when in flight mode, so that leaves the cobra. Is the cobra resiliant enough to deal with large numbers of air units? And will its attack be damaging enough to deal with air units that marines aren't effective against? I guess we'll just have to wait for more details about terran units... By the way, i really like the idea of the new add-on buildings. It would be great to switch around the add-ons when you want to change your build. And i'm really hoping that the planetary fortress can fly and attack at the same time. That would be so damn cool! | ||
| ||
