| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DeCoup
Australia1933 Posts
a) In general play have no impact on the battle b) Make EMP a more versatile ability as a counter c) Allow stalkers to use the current version of the mana battery for extra stalker micro (it would mainly be in defense as the obelisk is in your base, or used in combination with a proxy obelisk for assault). Forgetting the pro or anti cooldown debate. Consider the benefits of it not being cooldown based, even if the energy cost allows exactly 1 blink in total before recharge. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
| ||
|
danieldrsa
Brazil523 Posts
On June 21 2009 07:26 Archerofaiur wrote: Fun Fact: There is a goldfish in the Immortal! 5:21 in the unit portrait Ive pointed it out this before, at page 17: On June 20 2009 04:37 danieldrsa wrote: The same could be said of base building of SC1. It smell likes C&C. New mechanics could and should be implemented,as long as they prove good. And the blink costing 110 energy is unreal. Blink does more damage than psy storm? Why should cost so much more? The question is the cooldown time. Edit: there is a FISH inside the immortal jelly, with the protoss. I loled, but the portrait is very cool, the protoss look so badass. but since this topic is so hard to follow, i dont guilty you  Ppl also didnt notice | ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
So seriously, those who complain and straight out 'tell us' how specific abilities are "IMBA", stop trolling. You haven't even played the game, you don't know the costs, you have no idea how the game flows. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33723 Posts
On June 20 2009 07:27 GGTeMpLaR wrote: This might not be Battle Report 3 it could be one of the choices for Battle Report 2 that got leaked somehow it was just a few days ago they announced they were working on report 3 (yet the graphics updates/death animations/name changes had already been announced long before) not to mention that blizzard hasn't said anything on the matter yet, disruptor is still named nullifier, and graphics are all not updated (especially those of the zerg) I'm guessing that they had/have at least two (maybe more) drafts they choose from and then pick what they think is the best to release for the battle report. I could be mistaken but it's my guess. Yes they have: http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=493 Granted, it's a Korean blue, but still. | ||
|
ShawnWilkesBooth
United States13 Posts
On June 21 2009 23:41 MidKnight wrote: I would like to see the feedback from original starcraft.I am SURE people complained about Psyonic Storm being overpowered, for example. Psionic Storm was never tier 1.5 was it? | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On June 21 2009 23:25 danieldrsa wrote: but since this topic is so hard to follow, i dont guilty you Ppl also didnt notice Sorry man. I confess I didnt read the whole thing. Props go to you. | ||
|
beetlelisk
Poland2276 Posts
Is Blizz checking how fast will it spread on net without them releasing it properly? | ||
|
Shade692003
Canada702 Posts
On June 22 2009 01:08 beetlelisk wrote: LOL at the fish :D it was the best BR for me ^.^ and I wonder why there is no update in official Battle Reports thread yet...? Is Blizz checking how fast will it spread on net without them releasing it properly? They are probably simply finishing up the website for the BR3, as well as translating the transcript into the different languages. It takes some time. | ||
|
Dylancool2
81 Posts
| ||
|
danieldrsa
Brazil523 Posts
On June 22 2009 00:46 Archerofaiur wrote: Sorry man. I confess I didnt read the whole thing. Props go to you. No, dont need to sorry. I dont want props also. Noone paid attention i said it earlier, after you put the video more ppl saw, it was a good thing. | ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
On June 21 2009 22:26 FrozenArbiter wrote: I think I might start banning people who complain about blink-cooldown on the basis that it "reminds them of wc3". If you want to complain about it, then go ahead - just use a real argument. Although I don't think people need to point it out since it's obvious many people feel this way, don't you think "I'd rather many aspects of the game remain similar to BW because that is the game I know and love and it's existence is the reason I care so strongly about the sequel" is a "real" argument. | ||
|
OhNoItsTheMunch
United States96 Posts
On June 22 2009 04:39 Ancestral wrote: Although I don't think people need to point it out since it's obvious many people feel this way, don't you think "I'd rather many aspects of the game remain similar to BW because that is the game I know and love and it's existence is the reason I care so strongly about the sequel" is a "real" argument. Congrats; the first person to bring up this argument without sounding like a tool. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
On June 22 2009 04:39 Ancestral wrote: Although I don't think people need to point it out since it's obvious many people feel this way, don't you think "I'd rather many aspects of the game remain similar to BW because that is the game I know and love and it's existence is the reason I care so strongly about the sequel" is a "real" argument. The problem is, that is not the argument they are stating. The argument they are stating is that "WarCraft 3 is bad and anything that is similar to any of it`s features is also bad". However, that is not a "real" argument, since it is completely subjective what one considers good or bad. Besides, even if what you mention is their argument, it is still not exactly a valid counterpoint. Just beacuse a lot of us would like to see SC2 retain a lot of BW`s features does not mean it should be exactly the same in every aspect, nor does it mean that anything that is new is bad for the game. | ||
|
Yenzilla
Canada84 Posts
On June 22 2009 05:11 Tom Phoenix wrote:Besides, even if what you mention is their argument, it is still not exactly a valid counterpoint. Just beacuse a lot of us would like to see SC2 retain a lot of BW`s features does not mean it should be exactly the same in every aspect, nor does it mean that anything that is new is bad for the game. +1 I would like SC2 to retain the spirit of the original, but whether or not a largely arbitrary feature such as 'no cooldown whatsoever' is of little consequence (not to mention, 'no gd cooldowns' wasn't a point of the original, so much as it was either not thought of, or impractical to implement). | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
On June 22 2009 04:39 Ancestral wrote: Although I don't think people need to point it out since it's obvious many people feel this way, don't you think "I'd rather many aspects of the game remain similar to BW because that is the game I know and love and it's existence is the reason I care so strongly about the sequel" is a "real" argument. The problem is that Blizzard wants this game to seem as diferent as posible from BW. Look at any SC2 related article in a neutral website, what is the number one thing people complain about?, the game is way too similar to BW. They will talk about all the innovation in DoW 2 and how SC2 is just the same process of build your base, make soldiers, send the to the enemy base and win. Now, anyone in TL knows that BW is far more complex and deep than that, but the average gamer doesnt, and those are the people that are going to boy most of the copies of the game. If Blizzard wanted to make the best competitive game posible, then SC2 would be BW with updates graphics, new units and abilities, but that wont make them enough money, so they have to reach a middle ground by saying to hardcore gamers, "look you retards, it has all the complexity you like, its really competitive!", while saying to the average PC gamer, "look you retards, it has all the innovation you like, its really fun!" Cooldowns are not "bad" or "good" by themselves, they are just a tool to archieve balance, and just because they were in WCIII it does not mean that it would make the games similar. I really enjoyed WCIII, mostly for the campaing, and while me may all agree that BW is far better from a competitive multiplayer standpoint, i just cant help to be really annoyed by the retarded elitisism of some posters regarding this issue. /Rant. | ||
|
HomieZ
45 Posts
| ||
|
Idle
Korea (South)124 Posts
On June 22 2009 05:11 Tom Phoenix wrote: The problem is, that is not the argument they are stating. The argument they are stating is that "WarCraft 3 is bad and anything that is similar to any of it`s features is also bad". However, that is not a "real" argument, since it is completely subjective what one considers good or bad. Besides, even if what you mention is their argument, it is still not exactly a valid counterpoint. Just beacuse a lot of us would like to see SC2 retain a lot of BW`s features does not mean it should be exactly the same in every aspect, nor does it mean that anything that is new is bad for the game. I don't think the WC3 is "bad" (well, technically I do but that's not the basis for my resentment of teh cd mechanic here) but at the same time I completely agree. I want sc2 to feel like bw. Cooldowns are something from warcraft, where sc has the energy management mechanics. I don't feel like cooldowns add the same complexity that an energy management system adds. If the cds are short, there tends to be no thought to using them, just hit it whenever it comes up. These types of abilities tend to be spammed. If the cds are extremely long, you end up with abilities that are either saved and rarely used, or if they are very useful abilities you lose out on the ability to use multiple times in a key situation. Think how different bw would be if you could only use storm or irradiate once every 3 minutes. Or if scan was on a 30 second cd instead of an energy cost. You could scan on cd for the first few minutes, then as soon as you see cloaked units / lurkers scan goes from being something spammed on cd to something that is so incredibly valuable that you can't afford to use it. I just find cds tend to discourage creative gameplay and force the player into a specific playstyle. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On June 21 2009 12:22 Archerofaiur wrote: Its a goldfish. Look at it in high def with full screen. yea, no, goldfish do not have that long of fins. ![[image loading]](http://pond.dnr.cornell.edu/nyfish/cyprinidae/goldfish.jpg) | ||
|
danieldrsa
Brazil523 Posts
no need to look exact like one be one type of SC goldfish also goldfish has subspecies like that : ![[image loading]](http://serfranco.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/kinguio.jpg) or that ![[image loading]](http://z.about.com/d/freshaquarium/1/0/u/J/goldfish16G.jpg) its called kinguio here on Brazil, and i think its goldfish on USA The google search show it as a goldfish | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
ByuN vs Lambo
MaxPax vs Bunny
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
SHIN vs GuMiho
Clem vs Classic
WardiTV Invitational
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
