The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
[Starcraft 2] Only 2 weeks left! Sign up to the PA friend list in the OP now!
Doesn't zerg/zerg still dominate 2v2 pretty heavily in BW?
I don't think you can ever take 2v2/3v3/4v4/XvX very seriously, because it is unrealistic for Blizzard to attempt to balance the game for those modes. So it's fun and all, but I don't know that competitive 2v2 is ever going to be all that interesting from tournament/competitive perspective. The game should be focused on 1v1 for those things.
2v2's are fun in SC2, just as they were fun in BW. Harumpf.
Dunno if this was posted or not but i thought it was interesting read. My past history with competitive RTS' always involved 1v1 AND 2v2. I agree with the shared unit control anyway.
This is like the people who argue that BW is better because it requires higher APM and more cilcking.
Shared Unit Control is really only a good thing, it allows you to do everything you could in BW but you also allow your team to kind of specialize. Making things "easier" is NOT a bad thing, it allows you to focus on things that make the game more interesting. You still can't see how many resources your teammate has or anything like that. You still have to watch your own resources and work with your teammates. Two great players in a 2v2 against two other great players will be a great match, it's still requires good strategy/tactics from either side.
I think team play should exist for fun and be competitive. This article just argues that the "sharing" mechanic kind of distorts the game and pretty much makes it a 1v1 but with more resources. I just dont get the reason to add the unit control.
The shared resources makes sense so as to help your teamate but the unit controll seems meh to me.
I guess I agree with this because of that quote he threw out, "a team is only as strong as its weakest member". When thinking about anything team based, that quote just says it all.
An example here. Husky keeps saying "we" as in he is actually really contributing to the win when it is mostly TLO whos just dominating with his macro/micro of the phoenixes.
Yeah, but the sharing of resources is transaction based, it's not like you just have an open pool of resources between the two of you (unless I completely missed something when I was playing). Shared unit control just allows you to have multiple forces of mixed units being used by multiple players. If one player is good enough to handle the entire war on his own, then he would be doing the exact same thing even if you didn't have shared control.
The whole point is that it doesnt encourage coordination like a team game should. Instead of having to micro or actually pay attention to the "x" units youve sent with your teamates force, theyr just all controlled by one player.
Im just saying me personally, as a player would rather be controlling my own units and my opponents haveing to coordinate theyr own units than feel obligated to surrender my control or control the entire group.
And right the problem with the sharing of resources is the whole feeding/super quick teching issue. Where one player can build up his army/defenses/base with pure minerals and give his teamate a huge clump of gas so he can quick tech. It seems to mess with the pace of the game is all.
I just dont get the reason Blizzard put these elements into the team system. Is it some type of modern rts thing? Do all rts' have shared mechanics now?
StokedUp on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Gamertag(SSF4/MW2)StokedAidzzzSC2 ID Stoked.655 Uploaded SC2 Replays
Actually, I'm thinking it's better for everyone involved if SC2 avoids anything War3 had as much as possible.
I'm thinking everyone would be better off avoiding your opinion like the disease it is. War3 was a really great game in every respect IMHO.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Actually, I'm thinking it's better for everyone involved if SC2 avoids anything War3 had as much as possible.
I'm thinking everyone would be better off avoiding your opinion like the disease it is. War3 was a really great game in every respect IMHO.
Haha, naw, I don't think so. War 3 did alot of shit badly in terms of competitive gameplay.
Like heroes.
It wasn't perfect, but an opinion like "avoid anything WC3 had as much as possible" is a pretty far cry from "Did some things badly in competitive gameplay" And the game is still fun as hell in competitive gameplay, even if its not as balanced as Starcraft. I liked that they had heroes, since it allowed for a lot of awesome stuff in custom maps, but I can get why they might not be the best to balance.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Actually, I'm thinking it's better for everyone involved if SC2 avoids anything War3 had as much as possible.
I'm thinking everyone would be better off avoiding your opinion like the disease it is. War3 was a really great game in every respect IMHO.
Haha, naw, I don't think so. War 3 did alot of shit badly in terms of competitive gameplay.
Like heroes.
It wasn't perfect, but an opinion like "avoid anything WC3 had as much as possible" is a pretty far cry from "Did some things badly in competitive gameplay" And the game is still fun as hell in competitive gameplay, even if its not as balanced as Starcraft. I liked that they had heroes, since it allowed for a lot of awesome stuff in custom maps, but I can get why they might not be the best to balance.
Considering:
both are RTS's
both are top-down
both are made by Blizzard
both end in "craft"
WC3 and SC2 are lightyears apart in terms of gameplay.
Rivulent on
0
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
You mean to say a game released 8 years (or 7 if you're talking about Frozen Throne) later than WC3, and was released by the same people, has better gameplay? Amazing!
Warcraft three was fantastic when it was released, and is still very fun and enjoyable. Is it's gameplay "comparable" to SC2? (I assume we're talking about balance for competitive gameplay, professional or otherwise) maybe not, but acting like WC3 got everything wrong and everything about SC2 should be done differently than WC3 (as opposed to improved upon from SC and WC3) is ridiculous.
It was a phenomenal game then, and it's still pretty damn good compared to current RTS', just because it's not as good doesn't mean you should abandon all of the things it did right. I'm not disagreeing than SC2 is better than WC3, I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that WC3 was bad and everything about it should be avoided because of this o_O
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
War3 makes for much more interesting multiplayer matchs than anything Starcraft. I love both but heroes added a ton of diversity and creativity to the mix that you just don't see in SC.
then why are koreans watching the starcrafts on the tee vees
Lemming on
0
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
Because, it came out first, it established a firm foothold in Korea, and it's play style and Warcraft 3's play style are, despite both being top down RTS's made by blizzard, markedly different for a variety of reasons. Simply put, Koreans like Starcraft, they like it a lot, and Warcraft 3 and Starcraft are different, though both very good and closely related, beasts. Like Lions and Tigers.
Lord_Asmodeus on
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
You mean to say a game released 8 years (or 7 if you're talking about Frozen Throne) later than WC3, and was released by the same people, has better gameplay? Amazing!
Warcraft three was fantastic when it was released, and is still very fun and enjoyable. Is it's gameplay "comparable" to SC2? (I assume we're talking about balance for competitive gameplay, professional or otherwise) maybe not, but acting like WC3 got everything wrong and everything about SC2 should be done differently than WC3 (as opposed to improved upon from SC and WC3) is ridiculous.
It was a phenomenal game then, and it's still pretty damn good compared to current RTS', just because it's not as good doesn't mean you should abandon all of the things it did right. I'm not disagreeing than SC2 is better than WC3, I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that WC3 was bad and everything about it should be avoided because of this o_O
I think that was just a silly comment. There are professional players still playing WC3, it is quite balanced. The only matchup that they have been notoriously bad at balancing is UD vs ORC, all of the others in a professional environment are actually extremely close statistically.
I also don't think heroes are necessarily a bad thing. They just make it a completely different game from SC2.
my world of warcraft account has been hacked and all my characters deleted. That was disappointing news after logging in for the first time in a couple months...
I've only watched a handful of competitive wc3 on gom.tv but I never got the impression that strategy has really changed over time with the game like it has in brood war or has/will in sc2. Like what day9 talked about just a few minutes ago, terrans in BW used to get medic marine against protoss and now it's unheard of. I guess I find transitions in strategy like that to be pretty interesting, and i haven't seen that happen in wc3.
Because, it came out first, it established a firm foothold in Korea, and it's play style and Warcraft 3's play style are, despite both being top down RTS's made by blizzard, markedly different for a variety of reasons. Simply put, Koreans like Starcraft, they like it a lot, and Warcraft 3 and Starcraft are different, though both very good and closely related, beasts. Like Lions and Tigers.
but why woudl you want to watch stupid zergalisks get kileld when yuo could watch a demon hunter fux upp some orcs?
WC3 is just harder to watch. Tons of auras and icons. Battles can be pretty stale too. TP out...yawn.
Ezekiel on
I will throw you on the land and hurl you on the open field. I will let all the birds of the air settle on you and all the beasts of the earth gorge themselves on you. I will spread your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your remains. I will drench the land with your flowing blood all the way to the mountains, and the ravines will be filled with your flesh. - Ezekiel 32: 4-6
War3 makes for much more interesting multiplayer matchs than anything Starcraft. I love both but heroes added a ton of diversity and creativity to the mix that you just don't see in SC.
Hmm... i don't know.
Technically Starcraft is a Warhammer 40k clone. A good one. They were not able to secure the license. Its no coincidence Terrans resemble Space Marines (they even have the unit), Protoss Resemble Eldar and Zerg resemble Tyranids.
In Nemesis's case there are also a lot of similarities. Nemesis is an agent of Khaos (back then it was Khaos instead of Chaos). He fights the Termites (Terminators anybody?), a fanatical human empire bent on wiping out any alien presence (sounds familiar, too?). He tries to assasinate their leader Torquemada but fails each time spectaculary.
Interesting to note is that here the humans are the bad guys and that reversed perspective is quite interesting, especially if you are familiar with WH40K.
The 2000AD setting also connects to Judge Dredd, and, less known the ABC Warriors.
I can understand that you prefer a fantasy setting, but there is really nothign wrong with a scifi-setting. What i agree about is the lack of heroes. It would be easy to have them implemented, but Blizz lacks the balls to do it, because they stick very faithfully to the original concept and hope they won't break anything.
RTS have evolved since Starcraft. I am glad about a remake but a bit fresh air in game mechanics wouln't have hurt here. Its surprising they dared to implement jumpjet infantry, like in Dawn of War.
Acsis I think the main reason that they are withholding heroes in SC is that they want a divergent brand from the true Warcraft Series. Warcraft 4 will come at some point, and it will likely continued the Hero styled gameplay. No need to clone your own game when you can do it different and still have it be good.
There will be "hero" units in Single Player most likely, but it doesn't fit with what people expect from Starcraft.
Warcraft 2 wasn't as insanely popular as Starcraft (eSports and all that) so they didn't have as much pressure to kind of keep it same-ish as they did with Starcraft2.
I heart SC2. I have no issue with it being same-ish. I think it's awesome.
I WANT IT BACK DAMNIT!!!
I think the approach was overly careful. Sure there is a lot of money invested here.
At least i got jumptroops. If progress is this slow you learn to value the small things.
The buzz is starting to intensify and I am hopeful that it will relaunch any day now. However, then someone mentioned that the WoW: Cataclysm closed Beta has just launched and that Blizzard may not want to launch two Betas in one week.
Posts
korean pro scene only did it for a while, and even then the tournaments were still majorly 1v1 with a 2v2 match every once in a while
I don't think you can ever take 2v2/3v3/4v4/XvX very seriously, because it is unrealistic for Blizzard to attempt to balance the game for those modes. So it's fun and all, but I don't know that competitive 2v2 is ever going to be all that interesting from tournament/competitive perspective. The game should be focused on 1v1 for those things.
2v2's are fun in SC2, just as they were fun in BW. Harumpf.
2v2 is not competitive in bw in comparison to 1v1
So will blizzard patch this so it doesn't work, or patch it such that doing that trick becomes mandatory to make them useful at all?
I think team play should exist for fun and be competitive. This article just argues that the "sharing" mechanic kind of distorts the game and pretty much makes it a 1v1 but with more resources. I just dont get the reason to add the unit control.
The shared resources makes sense so as to help your teamate but the unit controll seems meh to me.
I guess I agree with this because of that quote he threw out, "a team is only as strong as its weakest member". When thinking about anything team based, that quote just says it all.
An example here. Husky keeps saying "we" as in he is actually really contributing to the win when it is mostly TLO whos just dominating with his macro/micro of the phoenixes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1LBC3FHh4M
Gamertag(SSF4/MW2)StokedAidzzzSC2 ID Stoked.655
Uploaded SC2 Replays
It's not a bad thing at all.
Im just saying me personally, as a player would rather be controlling my own units and my opponents haveing to coordinate theyr own units than feel obligated to surrender my control or control the entire group.
And right the problem with the sharing of resources is the whole feeding/super quick teching issue. Where one player can build up his army/defenses/base with pure minerals and give his teamate a huge clump of gas so he can quick tech. It seems to mess with the pace of the game is all.
I just dont get the reason Blizzard put these elements into the team system. Is it some type of modern rts thing? Do all rts' have shared mechanics now?
Gamertag(SSF4/MW2)StokedAidzzzSC2 ID Stoked.655
Uploaded SC2 Replays
You're right! I think SC2 shouldn't have it.
Actually, I'm thinking it's better for everyone involved if SC2 avoids anything War3 had as much as possible.
Like automated matchmaking. And multi building selection. Also smart spellcasting and rallying workers to resources. And heroes and items.
I'm thinking everyone would be better off avoiding your opinion like the disease it is. War3 was a really great game in every respect IMHO.
Haha, naw, I don't think so. War 3 did alot of shit badly in terms of competitive gameplay.
Like heroes.
It wasn't perfect, but an opinion like "avoid anything WC3 had as much as possible" is a pretty far cry from "Did some things badly in competitive gameplay" And the game is still fun as hell in competitive gameplay, even if its not as balanced as Starcraft. I liked that they had heroes, since it allowed for a lot of awesome stuff in custom maps, but I can get why they might not be the best to balance.
Considering:
both are RTS's
both are top-down
both are made by Blizzard
both end in "craft"
WC3 and SC2 are lightyears apart in terms of gameplay.
Warcraft three was fantastic when it was released, and is still very fun and enjoyable. Is it's gameplay "comparable" to SC2? (I assume we're talking about balance for competitive gameplay, professional or otherwise) maybe not, but acting like WC3 got everything wrong and everything about SC2 should be done differently than WC3 (as opposed to improved upon from SC and WC3) is ridiculous.
It was a phenomenal game then, and it's still pretty damn good compared to current RTS', just because it's not as good doesn't mean you should abandon all of the things it did right. I'm not disagreeing than SC2 is better than WC3, I just can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that WC3 was bad and everything about it should be avoided because of this o_O
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
I also don't think heroes are necessarily a bad thing. They just make it a completely different game from SC2.
my world of warcraft account has been hacked and all my characters deleted. That was disappointing news after logging in for the first time in a couple months...
but why woudl you want to watch stupid zergalisks get kileld when yuo could watch a demon hunter fux upp some orcs?
That was an awesome way for a daily to end
Truly it was incredible. Looking forward to seeing if it appears on blip or if it was lost to the mouse harass.
I missed it, what happened?
Hmm... i don't know.
Technically Starcraft is a Warhammer 40k clone. A good one. They were not able to secure the license. Its no coincidence Terrans resemble Space Marines (they even have the unit), Protoss Resemble Eldar and Zerg resemble Tyranids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUUQurbN6UE
Thats pretty much common knowledge. Whats less common knowledge is that Warhammer 40k itself is a clone of the Nemesis the Warlock of 2000AD setting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdzfOXkZrY0
This guy.
In Nemesis's case there are also a lot of similarities. Nemesis is an agent of Khaos (back then it was Khaos instead of Chaos). He fights the Termites (Terminators anybody?), a fanatical human empire bent on wiping out any alien presence (sounds familiar, too?). He tries to assasinate their leader Torquemada but fails each time spectaculary.
Interesting to note is that here the humans are the bad guys and that reversed perspective is quite interesting, especially if you are familiar with WH40K.
The 2000AD setting also connects to Judge Dredd, and, less known the ABC Warriors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3sT48ULElM
This is an ABC Warrior from the movie Judge Dredd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q2e8lnqwwk
Similarities to WH40K Necrons are striking.
I can understand that you prefer a fantasy setting, but there is really nothign wrong with a scifi-setting. What i agree about is the lack of heroes. It would be easy to have them implemented, but Blizz lacks the balls to do it, because they stick very faithfully to the original concept and hope they won't break anything.
RTS have evolved since Starcraft. I am glad about a remake but a bit fresh air in game mechanics wouln't have hurt here. Its surprising they dared to implement jumpjet infantry, like in Dawn of War.
Warcraft 2 wasn't as insanely popular as Starcraft (eSports and all that) so they didn't have as much pressure to kind of keep it same-ish as they did with Starcraft2.
The article about 2on2 made pretty much no sense. It was basically a lot of abloo abloo about how 2on2 is good for noobs.
This is bad how?
I WANT IT BACK DAMNIT!!!
great job blizzard
Gamertag(SSF4/MW2)StokedAidzzzSC2 ID Stoked.655
Uploaded SC2 Replays
This is my feeling too. We should express ourselves whenever someone complains, just to make it clear that not everyone is a whiny baby.
I'm so happy with the games industry right now.
I think the approach was overly careful. Sure there is a lot of money invested here.
At least i got jumptroops. If progress is this slow you learn to value the small things.
It reminded me of a few weeks back when he had other tech issues and had to venture under his desk
'If I'm not back in 20 seconds it's because I'm dead'
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
The last time he was even wearing the snazzy shirt.