| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zzoram
Canada7115 Posts
On March 17 2008 06:15 SoleSteeler wrote: Yeah I saw that video... Colossus looked incredibly strong, when it went behind the minerals and owned a shit load of drones. That's just the new reaver drop. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On March 17 2008 08:13 ~OpZ~ wrote: Ok...I don't think I resorted to name calling, but I did insult your knowledge of RTS games. Which I was correct. War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold. Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game. So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock? And you said it wouldn't be copying war3 if it used heroes...Now...I'm not going to argue that it wouldn't be copying, CONSIDERING SC had it's own "Hero" units, but with that said, not one of SC's hero units gained experience. I support the "hero" units, one of a kind, IN single player. It's just wrong in multi. Generals has one of a kind hero units? (Also, I like StarCraft and WarCraft(s) BECAUSE no super weapons...) (Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much) I really can't believe you are comparing StarCraft to WarCraft 2 like they are the same. Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races. Not one....They REDID EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME when they realized it had a WarCraft feel to it. That is SPECIFICALLY why Artanis has the line in the game, "This isn't warcraft in space." -_- Then how can you say that sc2 is anything like wc3? The "Heroes" don't gain exp, the resource modell is exactly the same as sc, the units resemble starcraft units a ton, the lethality level is the same as starcraft, the popcap system is the same as starcraft... And just too War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold. Ofcourse i know that, i have played like vefry rts out there and i never forget stuff, its just that every mine gives the same income potential, the only difference is how much you can get untill they run out. A starcraft field however, dpending on the number of mineral fields, have different harvest caps on how fast they can be harvested. Also the hardcap on gas income, while also gas is the tech resource makes the economy spending a lot harder while in wc2 it was just to task as many wood guys as you needed in comparison to gold since neighter had any real limit. So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock? Nope, mana reggen is extremely slow, does not take a special building and the only reason to have it is to balance out the units powerfull abilities, and adds a lot of tactics depending on when to use the mana. Ammo is used to make the air behave in a remotely realistic way using runs instead of normal hover n shoot, and you never try to preserve the ammo since it reloads extremely quick once you get to an airport. Generals has one of a kind hero units? Yes, cl burton, black lotus and the GLA sniper. Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much) Ofcoure i can't get the names of every rts released the past 5 years but can you name any of them wich didn't have heroes? And if you wich bfme1/2 also have heroes, UAW had heroes, aoe3 had heroes, generals is exactly 5 years old now and supcom is barely 1 year old, how the fuck could you believe that supcom is over 5 years?? Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races. Just to quote you again: B. Warcraft and Warcraft 2 came out before Starcraft and were good successes, they made RTS games popular. My point is that when they made Starcraft, the only thing they kept similar between the games was their overall feel and style of an RTS (how you select & move units etc). They didn't copy or borrow ideas from their previous games. And they shouldn't have to now, Starcraft is its own successful universe not a lame space ripoff of Warcraft. So you call the queen/mothership a concept borrowed from wc3, eventhough they doesn't resemble anything from wc3 at all? Heroes in wc3 can't build structures, are all ground units, you get one for free at the begining of the game, gets experience to grow more powerfull, can use items, can be revived for a cheap cost at their previous powerlevel, are very strong offensive units fast and at last you can get 3 heroes in any one game just one of each type. Trust me, this starcraft2 "hero" type is atleast as different from wc3 heroes as anything in starcraft is different from wc2. And then the hero concept is in every damn game out there, its not a special thing with wc3 and these heroes looks the most to be like the heroes in cnc generals. So if starcraft is unique from wc2 then starcraft 2 is defenitely extrelemy unique from wc3 since the difference between those games are a ton larger than the difference between sc and wc2. Edit: Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game. If you wanted to get naval you had to get oil, if you didn't want to get naval you didn't need to get oil. Its kinda as if only air units in sc required gas, its not a choice but instead its just the gas for boats. Also lumber and gold is basically the same resource since you can transfer pesents between them at will meaning that you can always get the right ratios for the specifik units you want. | ||
|
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On March 17 2008 09:11 Klockan3 wrote: + Show Spoiler + On March 17 2008 08:13 ~OpZ~ wrote: Ok...I don't think I resorted to name calling, but I did insult your knowledge of RTS games. Which I was correct. War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold. Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game. So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock? And you said it wouldn't be copying war3 if it used heroes...Now...I'm not going to argue that it wouldn't be copying, CONSIDERING SC had it's own "Hero" units, but with that said, not one of SC's hero units gained experience. I support the "hero" units, one of a kind, IN single player. It's just wrong in multi. Generals has one of a kind hero units? (Also, I like StarCraft and WarCraft(s) BECAUSE no super weapons...) (Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much) I really can't believe you are comparing StarCraft to WarCraft 2 like they are the same. Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races. Not one....They REDID EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME when they realized it had a WarCraft feel to it. That is SPECIFICALLY why Artanis has the line in the game, "This isn't warcraft in space." -_- Then how can you say that sc2 is anything like wc3? The "Heroes" don't gain exp, the resource modell is exactly the same as sc, the units resemble starcraft units a ton, the lethality level is the same as starcraft, the popcap system is the same as starcraft... And just too War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold. Ofcourse i know that, i have played like vefry rts out there and i never forget stuff, its just that every mine gives the same income potential, the only difference is how much you can get untill they run out. A starcraft field however, dpending on the number of mineral fields, have different harvest caps on how fast they can be harvested. Also the hardcap on gas income, while also gas is the tech resource makes the economy spending a lot harder while in wc2 it was just to task as many wood guys as you needed in comparison to gold since neighter had any real limit. So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock? Nope, mana reggen is extremely slow, does not take a special building and the only reason to have it is to balance out the units powerfull abilities, and adds a lot of tactics depending on when to use the mana. Ammo is used to make the air behave in a remotely realistic way using runs instead of normal hover n shoot, and you never try to preserve the ammo since it reloads extremely quick once you get to an airport. Generals has one of a kind hero units? Yes, cl burton, black lotus and the GLA sniper. Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much) Ofcoure i can't get the names of every rts released the past 5 years but can you name any of them wich didn't have heroes? And if you wich bfme1/2 also have heroes, UAW had heroes, aoe3 had heroes, generals is exactly 5 years old now and supcom is barely 1 year old, how the fuck could you believe that supcom is over 5 years?? Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races. Just to quote you again: B. Warcraft and Warcraft 2 came out before Starcraft and were good successes, they made RTS games popular. My point is that when they made Starcraft, the only thing they kept similar between the games was their overall feel and style of an RTS (how you select & move units etc). They didn't copy or borrow ideas from their previous games. And they shouldn't have to now, Starcraft is its own successful universe not a lame space ripoff of Warcraft. So you call the queen/mothership a concept borrowed from wc3, eventhough they doesn't resemble anything from wc3 at all? Heroes in wc3 can't build structures, are all ground units, you get one for free at the begining of the game, gets experience to grow more powerfull, can use items, can be revived for a cheap cost at their previous powerlevel, are very strong offensive units fast and at last you can get 3 heroes in any one game just one of each type. Trust me, this starcraft2 "hero" type is atleast as different from wc3 heroes as anything in starcraft is different from wc2. And then the hero concept is in every damn game out there, its not a special thing with wc3 and these heroes looks the most to be like the heroes in cnc generals. So if starcraft is unique from wc2 then starcraft 2 is defenitely extrelemy unique from wc3 since the difference between those games are a ton larger than the difference between sc and wc2. Edit: Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game. If you wanted to get naval you had to get oil, if you didn't want to get naval you didn't need to get oil. Its kinda as if only air units in sc required gas, its not a choice but instead its just the gas for boats. Also lumber and gold is basically the same resource since you can transfer pesents between them at will meaning that you can always get the right ratios for the specifik units you want. That quote "B. Warcraft and Warcraft 2 came out before Starcraft and were good successes, they made RTS games popular. My point is that when they made Starcraft, the only thing they kept similar between the games was their overall feel and style of an RTS (how you select & move units etc). They didn't copy or borrow ideas from their previous games. And they shouldn't have to now, Starcraft is its own successful universe not a lame space ripoff of Warcraft." Is not me...The chiui so the last argument you had...has nothing to do with me, so don't argue someone elses view with me. K? Thanks...I actually was asking if Generals had heroes... AND WOW...I just realized I said supcom was 5 years old...got my games mixed up. My bad on that one... No sense fucking arguing. We both think we're right. And all you did about oil, was validate my point that it adds depth. Unit choice is depth..."if you wanted naval you had to get oil"...Ok...If I want naval I have to get oil...So my choice here (here's the depth) I have to invest to get oil.... | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On March 17 2008 11:20 ~OpZ~ wrote: No sense fucking arguing. Agree! And sorry for misinterpreting that you did that quote. But anyway, at least hero like units is the norm and not the exception of RTS games today so thats hardly borrowing from wc3, its just following a general RTS trend. | ||
|
Wuselmops
Germany346 Posts
On March 13 2008 10:49 Ancestral wrote: I don't understand the argument that it diversifies openings. Before, vs Terran Zerg would have to build lots of sunkens to fend off a timing attack when going for mutas. But now, what if they always have to build a queen to fend off timing attacks when going for mutas? That doesn't diversify the possible openings, it just replaces one with another. My sole argument though, is that only being able to have one of something is stupid. If it's just a moving building, you can have multiple of each building right? Why can't they just balance it so it's not imbalanced to have several? Or perhaps even good. Make it so having few is strategically viable, but having many just isn't. You don't build 20 Arbiters. Why create an artificial limit of 1? Create a real limiting strategic factor. agreed. if the queen is so strong that you need a limit of 1 queen, there is not much to decide, because you're gonna build her anyway. replacing sunkens by a queen's ability not only NOT diversifies openings, it rather takes away some options. if you have the option to build sunkens or save the drones for a better eco, this already provides diversity. but if your queen, that you will build anyway, replaces stationary defense, you have less flexibility in the early game. and that's one of the key features that make the zerg unique and fun to play: huge flexibility between mass and economical power. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On March 17 2008 20:49 Wuselmops wrote: agreed. if the queen is so strong that you need a limit of 1 queen, there is not much to decide, because you're gonna build her anyway. replacing sunkens by a queen's ability not only NOT diversifies openings, it rather takes away some options. if you have the option to build sunkens or save the drones for a better eco, this already provides diversity. but if your queen, that you will build anyway, replaces stationary defense, you have less flexibility in the early game. and that's one of the key features that make the zerg unique and fun to play: huge flexibility between mass and economical power. Um, you only need to get the queen if you want to build the new sunkens, otherwise she is just a huge waste of money that you could use on combat units, gatherers or new hatcheries instead. Queen costs 150 min and is weaker/slower than a zealot but as big as an ultra making her die extremely easy, can build defensive structures costing 75 min each and those warp in so you can build as many as you wish. If you have no plan on building those then there is no reason at all to build the queen since she provides very little strength per space and strength per minerals. With the queen zerg can do a single hatchery tech strat, without that strat would be impossible. All old strats wich didn't use sunkens wont use the new queen either while all old strats wich used sunkens will be more diverse today. | ||
|
Wuselmops
Germany346 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 17 2008 21:26 Wuselmops wrote: ok, i don't know how cost-effective the queen really is. but if she really is that expensive, weak and only useful for defensive strategies, why do we need a limit of 1 queen at a time then? so SC2 can be more like War3 and piss tl.net off even more. | ||
|
Seelys
France104 Posts
| ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
On March 17 2008 21:30 MyLostTemple wrote: so SC2 can be more like War3 and piss tl.net off even more. Yes, because we all know every single feature War3 has and SC doesn't is bad and must be rejected off the bat. It doesn't even matter the queen acts nothing like a hero; it barely vaguely almost resembles something that could remind you of a flavor of War3 if you squint your eyes and look sideways, therefore it must be complete and utter shit. I'm glad you're not suffering from war3phobia and are clearheaded about this. | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
On March 17 2008 18:33 Klockan3 wrote: But anyway, at least hero like units is the norm and not the exception of RTS games today so thats hardly borrowing from wc3, its just following a general RTS trend. Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. First of all, WC3 is a hybrid. It isn't a straight up RTS. The mothership is definitely going to be toned down some more and it will resemble the Arbiter a lot more. I highly doubt they'll limit it to one as well. Instead they'll just nerf it down. We can agree on one thing though: the queen doesn't resemble a Hero unit at all, which I'm glad to say. Her functions will be vital to the zerg and it is a very good concept. The fact she can transport herself from creep to creep is good as well. When I first heard about her I thought it would be best to have 1 per base, but this would be too overwhelming. I don't think the Queen should be able to transport to an Enemies base though. I think that is too imbalanced. Maybe they should add some creep colour as a texture so people know who's creep it is. | ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
On March 17 2008 05:35 GinNtoniC wrote: Your post holds a lot of credit - a player shouldn't be FORCED to get ANY specific unit beside the drone/overlord. Forcing build orders/unit choices is never a good start. Modern RTSes tend to get cookie-cutter enough on their own.. Actually from the play testing there were much much better things to get than the queen. Did you even read the teamliquid play testing report? You state things as "facts" when you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On March 17 2008 23:25 Showtime! wrote: Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. First of all, WC3 is a hybrid. It isn't a straight up RTS. Name one RTS made after wc3 that have no "one at a time" special units? Because really, that is the only thing that would make the mothership or queen a hero. And yes i agree that the queen is as far away from hero its possible to get with a one at a time kind of unit. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On March 17 2008 06:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Have you guys seen the gameplay video with a BO3 between zerg and toss? The queen is most definently not a hero, it get's owned by 3 zealots at it's first level (and I mean owned, not just defeated). I think it's main benefit early on is that you don't have to sacrifice drones to build defense anymore. It's certainly not going to be used offensivly, it got owned very quickly most of the time and it's really slow. It's the zergs version of both mobile defense and constructor of static defense. I think it's pretty cool. Is this for real? Where is this video? Some kind moderator might need to organize a post with all the recent video links (I don't think we've had one like that for a long long time). | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5830 Posts
Should be this one. | ||
|
bp1696
United States288 Posts
On March 18 2008 04:15 maybenexttime wrote: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/188205.html Should be this one. Nice gameplay vid | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
Thank you!! On March 17 2008 21:26 Wuselmops wrote: ok, i don't know how cost-effective the queen really is. but if she really is that expensive, weak and only useful for defensive strategies, why do we need a limit of 1 queen at a time then? I think b/c the only way to make her balanced/useful right now is making her cost minerals but no supply (since her main point is taking over suken production and freeing up larva). And if you can build queens inifinitely without building overlords, there would be some build order that capitalizes on this and ends up being broken, is my bet. Or even in the odd 200/200 max supply situation, keep building queens for free to get an effective 220/200 advantage. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5830 Posts
| ||
|
MannerGent
United States326 Posts
On March 18 2008 04:15 maybenexttime wrote: http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/188205.html Should be this one. Wow that queen got obliterated at the begining. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2824 Posts
Sure the queen gets pretty owned at it's first and second level by a few units. But a group of lair queens or hive queens (apparantly 600 hp) could kill any kind of harassment option and deep tunnel anywhere on the map instantly. As it stands now it's a decent defence against a weak harass, has a lot of usefull abilities and can travel to places quickly to build defences. But it can't stop a dedicated attack from a small army. But if you could have 6 queens, regardless of the cost, the enemy would have to bring their entire army anytime they wanted to attack an expansion, basically killing their mobility. At the same time those abilities is what makes it an intresting unit so they should still be there IMHO. Otherwise just remove it. It's a fresh new intresting mechanic. It's not a hero. I like it.  | ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
Bombastic Starleague
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Bombastic Starleague
The PondCast
HomeStory Cup
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
