|
FYI: You can still make hellbats without the upgrade, you just can't transform in and out of them until you get the upgrade. |
United Kingdom12021 Posts
On February 27 2013 04:31 Blamajama wrote:
Sequels should be new games that stand alone. Not retreads that repeat the same patterns. That's just lazy, unimaginative game development. That said, I think SC2 has a lot of short comings and the nostalgia from Brood War is not going to save it. Blizzard has lost a lot of luster for me. Best they cash in with movie adaptations while they still have the huge fan base.
Yes they should be, but HoTS isn't Starcraft 3, it's an expansion to Starcraft 2. So it should be relatively similar, just with a new story (which it's got) and slight changes to multiplayer to make it interesting again (which it has, HoTS is about 4 times as interesting to play and watch if not more).
|
On February 26 2013 17:23 dcemuser wrote:
Copy-pasting BW units is lazy design in the expansions. It would be completely unacceptable to the world outside of the 3 people who think it is "smrt" on TL.net.
Yet “innovation” for the sake of innovation is somehow smarter? Transforming the agile, reasonably cheap and flexible Goliath into the horribly clunky, unmicroable, expensive Thor with a 3x supply inflation is smarter? (Because having a big guy with super cannons on the field is cool and new and stuff, and too bad if he does not even fulfill his role.) Giving transformation gimmicks to all mech units—which just means copying an interesting feature of the siege Tank while totally missing why it was interesting in the first place on this particular unit—is smarter?
Besides, what do we even call “innovation”? Is it “innovation” or basically a half-disguised and badly executed copy paste to do what is mentioned above, or split old units into two (such as splitting the old Hydra into Roach + Hydra, Wraith into Viking + Banshee, Goliath into Thor + Viking, Dragoon into Stalker + Immortal) with inevitable overlapping/"pigeonholed" issues?
And when SC2 really innovates, it gives birth to the nameless aberration that is the Sentry, it comes up with Warpgate aka the living horror which crudely violates basic rules in RTS, it "enhances" creep with a bonus movement speed to Zerg ground units which makes them very difficult to balance since their efficiency drastically varies depending on whether they operate on or offcreep, it fills the game with supply/economic/production inflation so that all races can comfortably max in 14-15 minuts, after which the game can be decided by 4 seconds of sweeping lasers or green fungi/goo or whatever; what a true success indeed.
No, there are definitely more than “3 people” who would be glad if the hollow “innovation for innovation” motto was finally cast aside into oblivion with the contempt it rightfully deserves. Fairly sure that, for instance, the come back of (something close to) the Goliath would have been met with a standing ovation from the Terran players and not “lol ctrl-v BW” mockeries because there is no shame in bringing back basic, solid stuff which was proven to work instead of locking yourself into a never-ending hassle of gimmicks to fix things you broke alone in the first place because of the “innovation” requirement.
That said, Terran did not need either of the things you specify, especially your hilarious suggestion that they need help to do with mass zerglings or zealots. Hellions with blue flame OBLITERATE Zealots and Zerglings. Literally like 20 Hellions vs 20 Zealots or 80 Zerglings and you come out with 20 Hellions alive.
Yet this completely misses the point. On top of the most obvious issues such as Warpgate, asymmetric production capacities, SC2 economy growing at a rabid rate allowing tech switches with far too much ease, stupid abilities negating terrain such as Blink or Colossi cliffwalking and the fact that Protoss was blessed with an idiotic hardcounter to Tanks allowing them to charge sieged positions with little to no troubles, one of the core problems in TvP mech WoL is the inability to deal with Charge Zealots. It does not matter that 20 BFH easily kill 20 Zealots, what matters is how they do that, and in this case it means hitting & running across several screens which, of course, leaves your Tank completely vulnerable not only to Zealots (which also means self-splash) but also to the rest of Protoss army and therefore defeats the cannon fodder purpose that Hellions failed to fulfill anyway; plus did you even ask yourself if Terran was interested in having 40+ supply tied in BFH to (fail to) deal with Zealots while barely scratching what lies behind i. e. Archons, Immortals and Colossi? So yes mech needed something to deal with Zealots as BFH were not able to do the job properly.
|
On February 27 2013 04:31 Blamajama wrote:
Sequels should be new games that stand alone. Not retreads that repeat the same patterns. That's just lazy, unimaginative game development. That said, I think SC2 has a lot of short comings and the nostalgia from Brood War is not going to save it. Blizzard has lost a lot of luster for me. Best they cash in with movie adaptations while they still have the huge fan base.
In that case this game should not have marines, or siege tanks. Or zerglings, battlecruisers, carriers and zealots. By that logic it should not be called StarCraft at all.
SC:BW is great design. It's no shame at all to try to add new units to the mix. But to me, it just feels lame if you take a sleek and elegant unit with a clear purpose out of the game (firebat), then realize terrans need a relatively cheap and tanky AOE unit to deal with certain stuff (mass zealots in particular), and instead of putting the firebat back in or create a really new unit that deals with the problem in a new way, you create this mockery of a firebat on wheels that - lo and behold does AOE fire damage! - you can put that "brand new"-label on to. What Blizz has done with HotS is copy their own old ideas, but they are not honest enough to admit it. Firebat? Hellbat! Lurker? Swarm Host! Dark swarm? Blinding cloud!
Not a good idea. And yes I think Blinding cloud works. But we all know what it should be called.
|
Firebat? Hellbat! Lurker? Swarm Host! Dark swarm? Blinding cloud!
Lurkers and Swarm Hosts really don't fill the same role at all. They don't play the same, they don't have the same strategic function, their mechanics are not similar. Literally the only similarity comes down to "they both do their damage while burrowed."
Giving transformation gimmicks to all mech units—which just means copying an interesting feature of the siege Tank while totally missing why it was interesting in the first place on this particular unit—is smarter?
I think making transformation a mech thing is a good thing--it doesn't just give a consistent theme to the tech tree, it also provides some much needed flexibility to mech, which can otherwise be expensive and vulnerable to tech switches. It also makes it a lot easier to tweak units to be better in one area without making them too strong in another. For example, if Mech proves too weak against air switches, Blizzard can buff High Impact Payload to address the issue, without causing imbalances in other areas.
|
On February 27 2013 00:23 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 19:37 Rider517 wrote:
they should just remove the bio tag from hellbat and let them get the mech upg, it would make more sense overall, there is no point on promoting medivac usage in mech and they can still be usefull in bio play even without medivac heal due to their great damage and hp
and for god sake give mine manual detonation or target fire Mines have target fire once they've been activated. You're welcome.
it can still be baited with a single ling or a worker which is the annoying thing
|
On February 27 2013 05:24 awesomoecalypse wrote:Lurkers and Swarm Hosts really don't fill the same role at all. They don't play the same, they don't have the same strategic function, their mechanics are not similar. Literally the only similarity comes down to "they both do their damage while burrowed."
Fair enough though I still think the "attacking while burrowed" defines the role of a unit very much 
Firebat / Hellbat illustrates the issue very well though. To me this is not a new unit. It's a twisted (no pun intented) firebat and the way they put it in creates a hole lot of problems. The design is not clean. They can be repaired, the are bio (in one form). They take up 1 cargo in one form, 2 in the other. The profit from an upgrade in one form but not the other. It really is a mess. And all that for a unit that, once all the transformation stuff is done functions like a firebat.
|
On February 27 2013 04:59 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 17:23 dcemuser wrote:
Copy-pasting BW units is lazy design in the expansions. It would be completely unacceptable to the world outside of the 3 people who think it is "smrt" on TL.net. Yet “innovation” for the sake of innovation is somehow smarter? Transforming the agile, reasonably cheap and flexible Goliath into the horribly clunky, unmicroable, expensive Thor with a 3x supply inflation is smarter? (Because having a big guy with super cannons on the field is cool and new and stuff, and too bad if he does not even fulfill his role.) Giving transformation gimmicks to all mech units—which just means copying an interesting feature of the siege Tank while totally missing why it was interesting in the first place on this particular unit—is smarter?
Besides, what do we even call “innovation”? Is it “innovation” or basically a half-disguised and badly executed copy paste to do what is mentioned above, or split old units into two (such as splitting the old Hydra into Roach + Hydra, Wraith into Viking + Banshee, Goliath into Thor + Viking, Dragoon into Stalker + Immortal) with inevitable overlapping/"pigeonholed" issues?
And when SC2 really innovates, it gives birth to the nameless aberration that is the Sentry, it comes up with Warpgate aka the living horror which crudely violates basic rules in RTS, it "enhances" creep with a bonus movement speed to Zerg ground units which makes them very difficult to balance since their efficiency drastically varies depending on whether they operate on or offcreep, it fills the game with supply/economic/production inflation so that all races can comfortably max in 14-15 minuts, after which the game can be decided by 4 seconds of sweeping lasers or green fungi/goo or whatever; what a true success indeed.
No, there are definitely more than “3 people” who would be glad if the hollow “innovation for innovation” motto was finally cast aside into oblivion with the contempt it rightfully deserves. Fairly sure that, for instance, the come back of (something close to) the Goliath would have been met with a standing ovation from the Terran players and not “lol ctrl-v BW” mockeries because there is no shame in bringing back basic, solid stuff which was proven to work instead of locking yourself into a never-ending hassle of gimmicks to fix things you broke alone in the first place because of the “innovation” requirement. Show nested quote +That said, Terran did not need either of the things you specify, especially your hilarious suggestion that they need help to do with mass zerglings or zealots. Hellions with blue flame OBLITERATE Zealots and Zerglings. Literally like 20 Hellions vs 20 Zealots or 80 Zerglings and you come out with 20 Hellions alive. Yet this completely misses the point. On top of the most obvious issues such as Warpgate, asymmetric production capacities, SC2 economy growing at a rabid rate allowing tech switches with far too much ease, stupid abilities negating terrain such as Blink or Colossi cliffwalking and the fact that Protoss was blessed with an idiotic hardcounter to Tanks allowing them to charge sieged positions with little to no troubles, one of the core problems in TvP mech WoL is the inability to deal with Charge Zealots. It does not matter that 20 BFH easily kill 20 Zealots, what matters is how they do that, and in this case it means hitting & running across several screens which, of course, leaves your Tank completely vulnerable not only to Zealots (which also means self-splash) but also to the rest of Protoss army and therefore defeats the cannon fodder purpose that Hellions failed to fulfill anyway; plus did you even ask yourself if Terran was interested in having 40+ supply tied in BFH to (fail to) deal with Zealots while barely scratching what lies behind i. e. Archons, Immortals and Colossi? So yes mech needed something to deal with Zealots as BFH were not able to do the job properly.
I'm not interested in joining your philosophy jerk-off of which design is better than what.
But I'm just a bit miffed at a few comparisons...
Goliath => Viking NOT Goliath => Thor
(The fact that Thor's and Goliaths both walk on legs does not mean that they are designed similarly.
Wraith => Banshee NOT Wraith => Viking/Banshee
(The fact that Vikings and Wraiths both shoot flying units does not make them similar)
Dragoons were not transformed into Stalkers--Stalkers behave and are designed *VERY* differently from Dragoons. One is a slow long range unit with a lot of hitpoints (for its cost) designed to use its range to outgun bunkers. Stalkers are mobility based map control unit that uses a combination of its fast speed and blink to engage enemy lines with hit and run strikes ala dark templar instead of through brute force like the zealot. The Stalker is the opposite of the Dragoon being that it has short range, is fragile, and depends on outrunning the enemy instead of outpowering the enemy.
This is like listening to people say that Swarm Hosts are similar to Lurkers just because they both burrow. It's infuriating.
Blueflame Hellions deal 19 Concussive damage in a line AoE--which is 1 less than a Lurker. It costs no gas and half the supply. If Hellions had a cloak mode where it turned invisible but couldn't move--it would be exactly like the Lurker in design. Why isn't the comparison made? Because the graphics look different.
I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad.
|
On February 27 2013 05:40 Pulimuli wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 00:23 RampancyTW wrote:On February 26 2013 19:37 Rider517 wrote:
they should just remove the bio tag from hellbat and let them get the mech upg, it would make more sense overall, there is no point on promoting medivac usage in mech and they can still be usefull in bio play even without medivac heal due to their great damage and hp
and for god sake give mine manual detonation or target fire Mines have target fire once they've been activated. You're welcome. it can still be baited with a single ling or a worker which is the annoying thing
Only if the Terran player is busy. The hold technique can prevent a mine from firing indefinetly even if they do run a ling in.
|
I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad.
For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top.
|
Are HotS servers up? Is there a quicker way to check? (like the server status on TL for SC2 WoL)
Edit: Apparently they are.
|
On February 27 2013 09:06 nyshak wrote:Show nested quote +I wish people would stop comparing units based on graphic similarities and instead actually talk about the game.
Rant finished, my bad. For the most part this is about Firebat / Hellbat. Graphics aside, both units end up standing on the ground shooting a low range AOE flame attack. This is design recycling at best, only that the hellbat has additional problems stacked on top.
Sort of--the only thing that's really making them comparable is that Hellbats can be healed.
Heck, I could also say that the Hellbat is short ranged roach that replaces speed with aoe.
|
On February 27 2013 04:37 nomyx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 04:31 Blamajama wrote:
Sequels should be new games that stand alone. Not retreads that repeat the same patterns. That's just lazy, unimaginative game development. That said, I think SC2 has a lot of short comings and the nostalgia from Brood War is not going to save it. Blizzard has lost a lot of luster for me. Best they cash in with movie adaptations while they still have the huge fan base. I think most of "we want old units back" isn't just nostalgia (which does play a part in it) but rather what blizzard has done for the new units. If all the new units were fun, cool, and imaginative, people would probably want more of them. Do you like the colossus over the reaver? Do you like the roach over the bw hydralisk? Do you like the swarm host over the lurker? Do you like the hellion over the vulture? I think blizzard got some of the new units right (Viking in TvT for instance, new reaper is fun and gives you something to do early game, Baneling provides awesome micro / spectator experience in ZvZ and ZvT, Blink stalker micro is cool to watch) but most of the new units in SC2 are rather boring and don't fit the races. Example would be the extremely beefy (125!? hp marauder / 145 hp roach) for terran and zergs. I do think with time a lot of cool stuff can happen. Swarm Host has the potential to be really cool but a lot of people are already turned off over the "free units" thing (mostly because of those boring months of a shit ton of brood lords / infested terrans). The viper also has this potential too. But a lot of really cool stuff was cut from brood war, such as vultures would provided a great micro opportunity and had access to the spider mine (which defined pretty much every terran match-up). I don't think the hellion is nearly as cool as the vulture. Scourge being removed has removes micro potential. If we had a new unit that replaced an old one, but was cool enough to make up for it, there would be less blame at blizzard. but a lot of the new units are just "dumb" down graded versions of their brood war counter-parts. A big point here is a lot of units that did provide great micro experiences (whether watching or playing) were removed and replaced with an inferior product. Not all, but a lot.
It's a different game. Accept that. Remaking or "re-imagining" BW may come across as solid, safe, game development that appeals to a core fanbase. It's also rehashing a brand and a flat out money grab.
SC2 still tried to be too similar to BW and did not do enough to differentiate itself. An underwhelming campaign ten years in the works was the least of its concerns. They made the same game, and added so new "elegant" units and simplified features for the next generation. That's why you have death balls and hard counters. Because that's what the modern gamer understands and can work with.
They played it safe. It's not good enough. They have alienated much of the core fanbase. But that fanbase is older and many have become disinterested in PC games. Blizzard has probably long since moved on from that target audience. What I wanted was extreme variation and entirely new mechanics that gave me a brand new experience as revolutionary as BW. They made a rehash. Just took them a lot longer than we have come to expect relative to releases of other highly anticipated sequels to popular original titles.
|
On February 26 2013 17:23 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 10:47 Warpish wrote:
Blizzard didn't wanted to reintroduce the Firebat and/or the Goliath simply because they were BW units Both these units were needed, one to fight against mass zerglings and zealots and the other to be an all around anti-air unit. Moreover, Blizzard wanted to promote mech play in Hots.
To solve some of these problems, Blizzard created this abomination called the Hellbat also know as the Messbat or the Frankenbat. It plays like a bio unit, it can be healed like a bio unit, it comes from a factory but i can turn into biological, it occupies variable cargo space, it can transform but it only benefits from an upgrade in a certain form, etc.
It is a complete mess right now. I have to agree with the opinion of many others in this thread, given that there's no time to rework this expansion, assuming this unit as a Firebat would be a better solution.
Copy-pasting BW units is lazy design in the expansions. It would be completely unacceptable to the world outside of the 3 people who think it is "smrt" on TL.net. That said, Terran did not need either of the things you specify, especially your hilarious suggestion that they need help to do with mass zerglings or zealots. Hellions with blue flame OBLITERATE Zealots and Zerglings. Literally like 20 Hellions vs 20 Zealots or 80 Zerglings and you come out with 20 Hellions alive. The Battle Hellion was actually a good idea. I have no idea why they thought it needed the biological tag though, when it worked perfectly in its Terran Mech role of absorbing damage that Hellions could not handle.
Why do you think it is good to replace something that works with something new that might not work? + Show Spoiler +Yes, obviously the Firebat wasnt in SC2 so "replace" is the wrong word, but I am talking about the crappy design decisions they made at the start of SC2. If they had started with BW units AND mechanics (!) and then added / evolved them it would have been a much smoother game since they would have started with a pretty much balanced game. They didnt do it and "had to" make something new on their own with only very very very reluctantly adding a few units from the old game. Just think back on how long they took to "balance" WoL and you know I am right.
Who would engage 20 Hellions with Zealots or Zerglings and who would build these units to fight the Hellions in the first place? Since both Protoss and Zerg have faster production than Terrans it wont be an "oh they have lots of Zealots/Zerglings, so lets get to mass producing Hellions" reaction.
Your own assessment of the Battle Hellion shows that you see the problem with the current dev team and yet you cant bring yourself to acknowledge that BW was better from its unit / mechanics design and rather show the pathetic hatred towards the old game which so many non-BW-players do? Too bad.
On February 27 2013 13:09 Blamajama wrote:
It's a different game. Accept that. Remaking or "re-imagining" BW may come across as solid, safe, game development that appeals to a core fanbase. It's also rehashing a brand and a flat out money grab.
Typical BS, because there would be improved graphics and utility with the "remake" AND they could have added a few units to the game to add new impulses. Totally worth it and they would have saved on development time ... which would have cut the cost of the game.
Apparently you prefer to be "milked" by Blizzard in the same way that Microsoft does it ... being sold an unfinished (unbalanced) product and suffer a mix up of the balancing every few months because their stupid design makes it impossible to achieve a stable balance.
The new game *should have been* an EVOLUTION instead of a completely new design. Do you want to know why? Because there are only a LIMITED NUMBER of unit designs available. Just think about it:
- damage types: 2 (attack, spell)
- damage delivery types: 2 (melee, ranged)
- damage area types: 2 (single target, area)
- damage effect duration types: 2 (instant, duration)
- ...
Even with non damage spells you only have a rather limited amount of variables to design new stuff, but with a blind "dont add BW units, because that would be lazy" attitude they are basically "not allowed" to add a Goliath and the Thor is a gigantic failure when it comes to mech-anti-air. Thats what you get from "IT MUST BE NEW DESIGN" nonsense. The same is true for the Hellion and its transformer mutation ... it simply doesnt work or is extremely weird at the least.
|
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
|
SC2 is real time game indeed, but not based on strategy, i'm sorry
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 27 2013 19:11 Rider517 wrote:
SC2 is real time game indeed, but not based on strategy, i'm sorry
Soooo true (sadly) ... it is economy based.
|
On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
Wait, isn't that one of the main roles of pawns? I mean if you have another pawn ready to kill anything that takes out the first pawn, block away.
|
On February 27 2013 22:00 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
Wait, isn't that one of the main roles of pawns? I mean if you have another pawn ready to kill anything that takes out the first pawn, block away.
Yes, that's a higher level of strategy, baiting or mind games or as we call it, metagame.
The same way we produce mass lings to force a reaction (specific techpath/contain/etc) on the opponent.
Edit: I was using the specific comparison of rooks vs. a line of pawns (with no other units backing them) the same way mass slowlots vs. micro'd hellions of equal nos. Mano a Mano will stand no chance.
Thus two pawns in formation to block a rook from taking the "open" pawn limits the options of the rook, as rooks need a clear path to move/attack.
In SC2 terms, this would be using speedlings to kill off hellion harass by pre-splits to surround, prevent flames from lining up, trap and kill off the hellions.
|
On February 27 2013 13:09 Blamajama wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 04:37 nomyx wrote:On February 27 2013 04:31 Blamajama wrote:
Sequels should be new games that stand alone. Not retreads that repeat the same patterns. That's just lazy, unimaginative game development. That said, I think SC2 has a lot of short comings and the nostalgia from Brood War is not going to save it. Blizzard has lost a lot of luster for me. Best they cash in with movie adaptations while they still have the huge fan base. I think most of "we want old units back" isn't just nostalgia (which does play a part in it) but rather what blizzard has done for the new units. If all the new units were fun, cool, and imaginative, people would probably want more of them. Do you like the colossus over the reaver? Do you like the roach over the bw hydralisk? Do you like the swarm host over the lurker? Do you like the hellion over the vulture? I think blizzard got some of the new units right (Viking in TvT for instance, new reaper is fun and gives you something to do early game, Baneling provides awesome micro / spectator experience in ZvZ and ZvT, Blink stalker micro is cool to watch) but most of the new units in SC2 are rather boring and don't fit the races. Example would be the extremely beefy (125!? hp marauder / 145 hp roach) for terran and zergs. I do think with time a lot of cool stuff can happen. Swarm Host has the potential to be really cool but a lot of people are already turned off over the "free units" thing (mostly because of those boring months of a shit ton of brood lords / infested terrans). The viper also has this potential too. But a lot of really cool stuff was cut from brood war, such as vultures would provided a great micro opportunity and had access to the spider mine (which defined pretty much every terran match-up). I don't think the hellion is nearly as cool as the vulture. Scourge being removed has removes micro potential. If we had a new unit that replaced an old one, but was cool enough to make up for it, there would be less blame at blizzard. but a lot of the new units are just "dumb" down graded versions of their brood war counter-parts. A big point here is a lot of units that did provide great micro experiences (whether watching or playing) were removed and replaced with an inferior product. Not all, but a lot. It's a different game. Accept that. Remaking or "re-imagining" BW may come across as solid, safe, game development that appeals to a core fanbase. It's also rehashing a brand and a flat out money grab. SC2 still tried to be too similar to BW and did not do enough to differentiate itself. An underwhelming campaign ten years in the works was the least of its concerns. They made the same game, and added so new "elegant" units and simplified features for the next generation. That's why you have death balls and hard counters. Because that's what the modern gamer understands and can work with. They played it safe. It's not good enough. They have alienated much of the core fanbase. But that fanbase is older and many have become disinterested in PC games. Blizzard has probably long since moved on from that target audience. What I wanted was extreme variation and entirely new mechanics that gave me a brand new experience as revolutionary as BW. They made a rehash. Just took them a lot longer than we have come to expect relative to releases of other highly anticipated sequels to popular original titles.
The core fanbase was about six people and one dog who were still watching Korean tournament streams. The real core fanbase was people like me, who played Brood War and Warcraft 3 and TFT and were never able to enjoy it online because we were either late to the party or were unable to penetrate the incredibly closeted and frankly antisocial community that developed around the game.
I am playing SC2 now not because of TeamLiquid but because of TotalBiscuit and Day9. I am improving because of FilterSC and Apollo. As far as I know, only one of those four ever played any serious Brood War.
You have to face the fact that Brood War simply never took off here. It took off in Korea, but its success in Korea was never worth alienating everyone else. There are plenty of insanely popular Korean games that are simply shite. I refuse to lump BW in with those games (I enjoyed single player BW very much) but you have to admit that SC2 is a much more enjoyable, much more accessable game with a well designed interface and a really enjoyable metagame.
What I wanted was a Blizzard RTS in the vein of WC3 and BW. That's what I got.
|
On February 27 2013 14:31 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:
For the guys who bitch about some units are IMBA against other units, let me remind everyone that
Starcraft 2 is a Real Time Strategy Game.
With emphasis on STRATEGY.
Just as you wouldn't block a rook by placing a pawn in its attack/move path, please don't complain about slowlots losing to micro'd hellions. It shows how lacking your understanding of this game is.
I think "blocking some units with stuff" is more a TACTIC ("implementation of a specific mission") and not a STRATEGY (long term goal). The strategy would be to "defend until I have the superawesome army and then win" or "to win with air attacks" while the tactic is the unit-wise implementation on the battlefield. Just read the wiki entrys to check their definitions ... maybe you agree with me.
Sadly Strategy plays a far less important role than tactics do in SC2 ... at least in my opinion. This is the case because there are too many units involved in each battle and the economics of the game make reproducing your units almost more important than being able to use them well. If the game was about strategy it would involve a lot of units which have seen many battles and defensive positions which are hard to crack, but that isnt the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
