|
On July 17 2009 22:18 I3oxerfan wrote:
WC3 is hero-based and in SC2 will be defenitely no heroes.
There are a few WC3 builds that focus on not getting heroes. Regardless, heroes aren't any different than one important unit, or a group of important units, in SC. For instance reavers + shuttle. It's a very powerful combination that can, with the right micro, can do damage of heroic proportions. And obviously, you'll do everything you can to keep it alive.
The same goes for all units in WC3. On average, 1 WC3 supply = 2.25 SC supply. In WC3, where you pull back one archer if it takes damage, in SC you pull back a small group of hydras. It's the same concept with more units. The difference isn't nearly as big as you think.
The very obvious reason Moon should be on the level with Nada is MBS. It's not so much that Nada won't be able to use it -- more so that he will lose his macro advantage. And really, that's the only advantage he has.
|
last 13 posts are german lol
edit: goddamn sudo
|
On July 17 2009 22:39 imperator-xy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 22:35 Nuzes wrote:On July 17 2009 22:15 Sociopathic wrote:On July 17 2009 22:10 I3oxerfan wrote:On July 17 2009 22:08 Sociopathic wrote:
Starcraft is macro-based Wc3 is micro-based Sc2 is micro-based notice anything? Yeah. But WC3-micro is very different of SC-micro. And the SC-micro will be in SC2 too. Maybe it will be more similar to Sc than Wc3 or maybe it won't be... only beta will tell Yeah, sure.  So you are trying to tell me that I'll be able to use a town portal to my main hatch and that my queen will wear items? You Sir, failed. 3P1C F41L try reading his post again and then understand that he wasnt talking about units. as the macro in sc2 will be easier, it is just a logical conclusion that you will use more micro.
Yeah, but the micro will still be the same as we know it from SCBW, which means we won't see town portals, items like healingscolls and units with 1000HP (maybe fagtoss, but nvm).
The micro will focus on good unit-position, awesome flanks and shitty storms... 
|
On July 17 2009 22:37 Wurzelbrumpft wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 22:24 I3oxerfan wrote:
But the WCG is more prestige than the other WC3-tournaments. no its not, and even if it was so, it doesn't prove your point. and lol at i dont like moons playstyle, you obviously didn't ever follow wc3, because saying you dont like moons playstyle is like saying you dont like boxers playstyle.
Oh yes. The WCG is more prestige than any other WC3-solo-tournament.
It seems like you never followed the WC3-scene.
There are tons of people which don't like Moon (and his playstyle).
Back to topic.
|
On July 17 2009 22:42 sudo.era wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 22:18 I3oxerfan wrote:
WC3 is hero-based and in SC2 will be defenitely no heroes.
There are a few WC3 builds that focus on not getting heroes. Regardless, heroes aren't any different than one important unit, or a group of important units, in SC. For instance reavers + shuttle. It's a very powerful combination that can, with the right micro, can do damage of heroic proportions. And obviously, you'll do everything you can to keep it alive. The same goes for all units in WC3. On average, 1 WC3 supply = 2.25 SC supply. In WC3, where you pull back one archer if it takes damage, in SC you pull back a small group of hydras. It's the same concept with more units. The difference isn't nearly as big as you think. The very obvious reason Moon should be on the level with Nada is MBS. It's not so much that Nada won't be able to use it -- more so that he will lose his macro advantage. And really, that's the only advantage he has.
No. It is not the same.
The mciro you need to micro a group of grunts and a group of medic-marines is totally different.
|
[QUOTE]On July 17 2009 22:56 I3oxerfan wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 17 2009 22:37 Wurzelbrumpft wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 17 2009 22:24 I3oxerfan wrote:
But the WCG is more prestige than the other WC3-tournaments.[/QUOTE]
no its not, and even if it was so, it doesn't prove your point. and lol at i dont like moons playstyle, you obviously didn't ever follow wc3, because saying you dont like moons playstyle is like saying you dont like boxers playstyle.[quote]
Oh yes. The WCG is more prestige than any other WC3-solo-tournament.
It seems like you never followed the WC3-scene.
There are tons of people which don't like Moon (and his playstyle).
[/QUOTE]
Moon pretty much invented the modern nelf playstyle...
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On July 17 2009 22:58 I3oxerfan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 22:42 sudo.era wrote:On July 17 2009 22:18 I3oxerfan wrote:
WC3 is hero-based and in SC2 will be defenitely no heroes.
There are a few WC3 builds that focus on not getting heroes. Regardless, heroes aren't any different than one important unit, or a group of important units, in SC. For instance reavers + shuttle. It's a very powerful combination that can, with the right micro, can do damage of heroic proportions. And obviously, you'll do everything you can to keep it alive. The same goes for all units in WC3. On average, 1 WC3 supply = 2.25 SC supply. In WC3, where you pull back one archer if it takes damage, in SC you pull back a small group of hydras. It's the same concept with more units. The difference isn't nearly as big as you think. The very obvious reason Moon should be on the level with Nada is MBS. It's not so much that Nada won't be able to use it -- more so that he will lose his macro advantage. And really, that's the only advantage he has. No. It is not the same. The mciro you need to micro a group of grunts and a group of medic-marines is totally different.
But the micro you need to micro a group of zealots isn't very different [from a group of grunts].
Archers are a lil different from marines, but in low numbers I think they are pretty similiar.
|
On July 17 2009 22:56 I3oxerfan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 22:37 Wurzelbrumpft wrote:On July 17 2009 22:24 I3oxerfan wrote:
But the WCG is more prestige than the other WC3-tournaments. no its not, and even if it was so, it doesn't prove your point. and lol at i dont like moons playstyle, you obviously didn't ever follow wc3, because saying you dont like moons playstyle is like saying you dont like boxers playstyle. Oh yes. The WCG is more prestige than any other WC3-solo-tournament. It seems like you never followed the WC3-scene. There are tons of people which don't like Moon (and his playstyle). Back to topic.
wtf dude you brought the thread in this direction, there are several other tournaments that have bigger prizepools than wcg, wcg is certainly not the highest achievement in wc3, and exactly that was your point, arguing that grubby hat 2 wcg titles and moon had none. moon is the most accomplished player in wc3 and you argued he isn't which is plain wrong. writing, "why moon that wc3 nerd?", and then claiming you know stuff about wc3 is not gonna be taken seriously.
edit: ok after looking at your post history i realise your just a troll
|
this is gonna be the shit
|
I just find it super ironic that someone named BOXER fan, isnt a fan of Moon (aka the revolutionary-excitement equivilant to Boxer)
|
lol at the Moon hate.
Moon gonna wow you guys, promise you that. He's incredible RTS player.
|
On July 17 2009 23:16 Skyze wrote:
I just find it super ironic that someone named BOXER fan, isnt a fan of Moon (aka the revolutionary-excitement equivilant to Boxer)
I would say Sky is the WC3 equivalent to Boxer. But I guess that is up for debate.
I'm a big Sky fan myself when it comes to WC3.
|
I wish Iamgrunt from AoE III would come and play SC2 and dominate (He's Korean also). Or NaturePhoenix....would be interesting to see how these top players do. Perhaps H2O also.
Or Arch_Koven comeback for SC2.....juicy.
|
On July 17 2009 22:18 I3oxerfan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 22:15 Sociopathic wrote:On July 17 2009 22:10 I3oxerfan wrote:On July 17 2009 22:08 Sociopathic wrote:
Starcraft is macro-based Wc3 is micro-based Sc2 is micro-based notice anything? Yeah. But WC3-micro is very different of SC-micro. And the SC-micro will be in SC2 too. Maybe it will be more similar to Sc than Wc3 or maybe it won't be... only beta will tell WC3 is hero-based and in SC2 will be defenitely no heroes.
lol why not... there are heroes in sc
+ Show Spoiler +On November 26 2008 02:41 chameleonia wrote:wowow just played this ![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3292/3058569147_cbd3eb07cf.jpg?v=0) ![[image loading]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/3059405606_246575bc32.jpg?v=0)
|
On July 17 2009 10:40 FrozenArbiter wrote:So awesome, cant wait :D Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 10:40 ActualSteve wrote:
Why Moon?
... and why NaDa?
They both kick ass at what they do, but why those two individuals? Most accomplished SC player of all time vs Most accomplished WC3 player of all time + Both are on WeMade Fox (team).
Moon also busted out mass nukes the first time he ever played SC2, which makes him awesome.
|
To me this game is the final judgement of sc vs w3.All comes down to this,whoever win, wins the whole "holy war" :D
I really hope Nada wins! But I wouldnt be surprised if Moon could deliver....Anyway nice stuff! Thx for sharing
Ps:Any1 knows something about that july17 beta comes out stuff? I remember reading somewhere that its coming out today?Guess I was wrong? lol
|
On July 17 2009 23:39 Kyo Yuy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2009 23:16 Skyze wrote:
I just find it super ironic that someone named BOXER fan, isnt a fan of Moon (aka the revolutionary-excitement equivilant to Boxer) I would say Sky is the WC3 equivalent to Boxer. But I guess that is up for debate. I'm a big Sky fan myself when it comes to WC3.
I think Sky was one of the most unoriginal WC3 players ever, so definitely can't compare him to Boxer. He took some strategies and perfected them, essentially. I don't think he was creative. People have always been tower rushing (and that's like ALL he did for a long time ...) etc.
Anyway, War3 isn't like SC2. I haven't read a single thing from people who've played the game that says so. In fact, most make the effort to point out that they ARE very different, and SC2 feels completely like SC.
|
maybe its my bias towards hating humans (and terrans for that matter) but I dont like Sky. quote the post above me.
Humans deserve no respect, damn towers so gay.
|
I played Human in WC3, but I still didn't like Sky either. He just did the same thing over and over and over ... So boring to watch.
|
Train <- This Thread -> Rail
edit: I was enjoying this thread and the anticipation people were showing for pro-gamers playing SC2 (woot!) until it got derailed and turned into a WC3/WC3-SC comparisons thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
