God this 2v2 talk makes my brain melt. If shared control / minerals makes games far less competitive, then just ban it from competitive play. It's an option. This is the most pointless discussion I've ever read about Starcraft 2.
I've been watching so many Day9 dailies and youtube replays that when I just started the game up for the first time in weeks I though, "Oh, this game is pretty"
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.
I've followed a decent amount of pro War3 and things have definitely evolved. For a long time Farseer + wolves was just about all one would do with Orc until things shifted to BM/SH + casters + riders + kodos. Likewise for UD ghoul/garg was all the rage until someone figured out that a ranged, nuke based army with 3 heroes was ridiculously strong, etc.
I've seen a ton of diversity in a lot of modern matches, and love watching Chumpesque's commentaries in particular:
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.
[...]
But yeah, didn't mean to turn this thread into a WC/SC debate. I really do like both, I just find WC pro matches more interesting.
Its a matter of personal taste. There are things WC3 does quite well in comparision to SC, the most important being WORKERS. This matters not one bit in gameplay mechanics but immersion:
Having a few grunts running up lumber and mining gold fits well.
And the elvish version of wisp-wood-harvesting and walking trees taking roots in goldmines... fantastic.
There you could already notice a step away from the endless worker hordes.
Drones doing the same with vespene gas and crystals is not that lucky.
Harvesting spice and dealing with worms felt quite a bit more apropriate, even if harvester pathing was always a problem.
Worker hordes are not neccesary from a gameplay point of view. Sure... harrasment, but honestly you can also harass an eco WITHOUT workers. Its just additional micro wich distracts from really important gameplay. Dawn of war's system of capturing and holding resource points works quite as well but can live with far less workers.
Sure having a gazillion drones works too, but WHY the hassle? Any good reason? And don't come with skill. Skill should revolve around tactical and strategic superiority and micro.... and not around who can field more apropriate number of drones. Its silly and not fitting a scifi setting.
And some units... the battlecruiser as prime example: i know it has a yamato gun, but seriously ONE laser? Where are the goddam missiles or AT LEAST as second laser?
And tanks? Yes, siege mode, great, sure... but their armor seems paper thin (at least thats fixed in SC2).
That rant aside i have to admit Starcraft offers the highest concentration on VIABLE possible strategies and SHIFTS in overall approach and is aditionally quite balanced.
A WC3 can't compete here. And a DOW also can't (therefore it makes up with unit variety, and seriously NINE races are a lot of variety). A C&C3 makes a good try but in thee end screws up unit balance.
That being said Starcraft balance is not perfect. Before Broodwars it was Protoss>Terran>Zerg and after Broodwars it was Terran>Protoss>Zerg. That being said the balance was off a bit but not by much. All of the time my prefered race was Zerg and after Broodwar i never played a game where i felt i had no chance of winning because of race selection. And i played for a looong time.
Its close enough.
SC2 will be great, no doubt about it but there are some things i'd love to see included. Like squad based production, upgrade and command as an example. Yes, the micro... but seriously: you can also micro squads. In fact you set up squads in any case, so there is no reason - especially when it comes to zergling hordes - for single unit production. And it gives so much more charcter to units.
Also the melee system... some units are melee and others are ranged. Compared to a DOW where you CAN FORCE ranged units into melee when engaging with melee units thats kinda lightyears ahead.
I like however what they did with high ground. That is really new and good. And if it comes to choices of strategy no other game can beat Starcraft. There are no "weak" units. Every single one is deadly if used right. And Broodwar improved on that.
I fell especially in love with Lurkers and Devourers (added to vanilla Guardians and Hydralisks).
One night i sat down and figured out how to rush Lurkers so you could fend off the dreaded basic Protoss Zealot rush. This altered forever the way i played Zerg. Nothing like watching your typical 4-5 Zealot squad attacking your hive for what looks like an easy kill and watch them torn apart by spiekes from buried Lurkers. Yeah, tech up to observers. Thats what i call satisfaction.
And Devourers... aerial splash dot damage... and being able not only to dish out but also to take a beating. And of course shut down the cloaking ability on Wraiths. Exactly the kind of escort you want for your Guardians.
Can we use a thread title that starts with [Starcraft 2]? My 23 year old eyes have trouble finding the thread as a non-standard thread title... anyone else?
Also, either phase 2 is about to start or battle.net trolls are in full force.
Squads are horrible fiddly things compared to SC2's unit control. Switching between ranged/melee, sync kills and not being able to move every single unit individually kills control.
No one wants to talk about the upcoming forum changes?
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
No one wants to talk about the upcoming forum changes?
Posting your real id? I'm not a huge fan of internet anonymity, and coupled with the idea that it will make the forums operate smoother, I think it's a good idea. I'm pretty sure that's the typical consensus on this decision though, lol.
Showing your real name on the Blizzard forums? I guess I wont be posting there. Not that I am going to be a raging douche bag on the official forums, but I am just not a fan of Google searches bringing up a ton of Starcraft stuff when people or employers search my name.
"The first and most significant change is that in the near future, anyone posting or replying to a post on official Blizzard forums will be doing so using their Real ID -- that is, their real-life first and last name -- with the option to also display the name of their primary in-game character alongside it."
It's what you use on your battle.net account. I'm not sure if that can be changed after you create an account, or if you have to create an alias if you are paranoid that your potential employer finds out you play starcraft or type "QQ" a lot.
It requires your First and Last name when you create a Battle.net account. You cannot go back and change it. I figured that I was adding all of my CD-Keys, so I should have real information listed. Silly me. I had no idea they would start making Battle.net a new Facebook.
I won't be using my real name, that's for sure. Or I won't use bliz forums at all.
I don't WANT bnet anywhere near my facebook/realname. My gaming is a private habit I don't advertise. I sure as hell want to hide it. Steam doesn't intrude on my RL...Bnet sure as fuck better not.
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
"The first and most significant change is that in the near future, anyone posting or replying to a post on official Blizzard forums will be doing so using their Real ID -- that is, their real-life first and last name -- with the option to also display the name of their primary in-game character alongside it."
It's what you use on your battle.net account. I'm not sure if that can be changed after you create an account, or if you have to create an alias if you are paranoid that your potential employer finds out you play starcraft or type "QQ" a lot.
Can't say I like the sound of this.
People on the WoW forums mock each other with things as simple as armory. Will a new culture of stalking and mockery be born on the rich information on facebook now?
It's all a little too interconnected for me. It doesn't really feel like one needs to bring transparency to a forum in this manner.
Where does it require you to use your real name in the b.net profile? Unless you link it to facebook or something.
I had a few people named grhgrag ahaharhrehg on my SC2 beta friends list.
ages ago when i created my bnet account, i used a name that was just button mashing
fast forward to the start of the beta, where i had to jump through a million hoops to get them to reset my password since my ID didn't match the name on the account
Squads are horrible fiddly things compared to SC2's unit control. Switching between ranged/melee, sync kills and not being able to move every single unit individually kills control.
In most cases you do not send a single unit so you are controlling squads in any case.
Clicking on your anti-vehicle squad and target the enemy is more comfortble than drawing a box, double click screen select or manually shift pick single moving units.
And THAT is fiddly. And if you are really honest the way most players deal with this is by SETTING UP squads. So, if you do it in any case you might as well PRODUCE squads and skip the setup.
And about sync kills being a loss of control... an attack animation takes time. And thats what a sync kill is: an animation wich results in a fatality. The issue here is simply speed and duration. Also there is no reson for implementing abortable lengthy sync kills, if you think its too much a loss of control if a Zealot is beheading its victim with the next strike.
And differentiating between melee/ranged gives simply a more realistic feel to combat, it adds more detail, in other words: more gameplay depth. You don't loose control here its just getting a bit more realistic, and opens up tons of options for unit diversity and abilities.
Seriously: a sniper being battered by melee not being effected in any way until he dies is... not apropriate. It misses a lot of possible interactions between ranged/melee and most importantly tactical gameplay.
I really don't like the real name thing. They simply could've used a single unique name that's tied to your Bnet account across all games. You still lose part of your internet anonymity since your name can be tracked across all your Blizzard games, while still protecting you from stalking/harassement outside the games.
If you're not using individual unit control in SC2 you're doing something horribly wrong, and losing probably about a billion units that you didn't need to.
Anonymity is on its way out. This is a good thing, in my opinion.
But right now do average users have the ways and means to protect themselves from identity theft, which would be made easier by such a system?
Rend on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
maybe this will make their forums less pathetic
AND I don't really care who knows my first and last name.
Whether you think it's a good idea or not for whatever reason aside: The people claiming their gaming is SECRET is just weird. It's not a drug habit guys.
hahaha this is the best idea ever for the battle.net forums. People won't want to post such stupid bullshit all the time with their real names attached.
Can you imagine the amount of harassment the "known" people are going to get from that culture? I think only Trus can attest to this, since he is the only e-celebrity here, but the minute someone posts a detailed argument or meme, is the minute all of their social sites, cell phones, voice messages, text messages, twitter accounts and so forth will be flooded.
It's completely unnecessary for a videogame forum. And what's the benefit of this? Oh, so we can chat across Blizzard games. uhhhhh. They claim it's going to lessen trolling, flame wars, and the likes, but it certainly won't. What will happen is the trolls or troublestarters will create battle.net accounts without their real names and then harass the honest people who provided their real names. It'll effectively help move online harassment from the public domain to the private sanctuary. Blizzard is okay with that because they won't have to pay people to police what happens in your life, just what happens in the forums. It's just hiding/shifting/moving the problem so the customer takes the brunt of the force, as is the general trend for game companies nowadays anyways.
In short, blahblah, my SC2 account is going under a fake name.
I'd prefer random fuckshits not know my real first and last name. I don't want the asshole who I've met 5 times in matchmaking and reaper rushed him each time stalking me since he's butthurt.
If you're not using individual unit control in SC2 you're doing something horribly wrong, and losing probably about a billion units that you didn't need to.
"Horribly wrong" is a very strong overstatement, maybe at a pro level of play. Intense micro like that is a luxury anywhere below Diamond though.
Zek on
0
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited July 2010
I don't mind the first and last name thing. As others have said anonymity is on the way out, and I'm not to upset about it. Of course, I manage my online information set pretty well. There are no drunk pictures of me on Facebook for my employer to find, I don't write disparaging things about others or my employer on Facebook. I am sure a Google search of me has something moderately embarrassing, but nothing's going to turn up that's going to jeopardize my life overall. I already hand my drivers license to uncounted numbers of people in my daily life as an "on the grid" citizen. I really don't mind people knowing my name.
Squads are horrible fiddly things compared to SC2's unit control. Switching between ranged/melee, sync kills and not being able to move every single unit individually kills control.
In most cases you do not send a single unit so you are controlling squads in any case.
Clicking on your anti-vehicle squad and target the enemy is more comfortble than drawing a box, double click screen select or manually shift pick single moving units.
And THAT is fiddly. And if you are really honest the way most players deal with this is by SETTING UP squads. So, if you do it in any case you might as well PRODUCE squads and skip the setup.
And about sync kills being a loss of control... an attack animation takes time. And thats what a sync kill is: an animation wich results in a fatality. The issue here is simply speed and duration. Also there is no reson for implementing abortable lengthy sync kills, if you think its too much a loss of control if a Zealot is beheading its victim with the next strike.
And differentiating between melee/ranged gives simply a more realistic feel to combat, it adds more detail, in other words: more gameplay depth. You don't loose control here its just getting a bit more realistic, and opens up tons of options for unit diversity and abilities.
Seriously: a sniper being battered by melee not being effected in any way until he dies is... not apropriate. It misses a lot of possible interactions between ranged/melee and most importantly tactical gameplay.
Squad of 6 marines I order to some cover, 4 go into that cover, 2 into some other bush nearby that might or might not be the same piece of wall. A grenade flies into some other group nearby that'll catch the two marines in the bush if I don't move the entire squad. I can't just select the two and have them move without losing damage dealt by the other 4 marines.
Sync kills take seconds, there's no need for the last few HP to take 500% longer to kill than before.
Ranged being unaffected by melee being in their face is fine, it's not like they're as meaty as the melee attackers generally. Maybe it would be fine but not with the stupid squad control where the whole squad decides to melee if one unit gets into melee range.
Blizzard already made the range/melee thing perfectly, hydras and roaches swipe with their claws and stuff if shit's too close. The mechanics allow for more precision and DEPTH than some squad A-moving with no focus fire or specific directions.
Posts
Steam: adamjnet
I've followed a decent amount of pro War3 and things have definitely evolved. For a long time Farseer + wolves was just about all one would do with Orc until things shifted to BM/SH + casters + riders + kodos. Likewise for UD ghoul/garg was all the rage until someone figured out that a ranged, nuke based army with 3 heroes was ridiculously strong, etc.
I've seen a ton of diversity in a lot of modern matches, and love watching Chumpesque's commentaries in particular:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCLTyujpTgQ
But yeah, didn't mean to turn this thread into a WC/SC debate. I really do like both, I just find WC pro matches more interesting.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Fixed that for you.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
also dota
Its a matter of personal taste. There are things WC3 does quite well in comparision to SC, the most important being WORKERS. This matters not one bit in gameplay mechanics but immersion:
Having a few grunts running up lumber and mining gold fits well.
And the elvish version of wisp-wood-harvesting and walking trees taking roots in goldmines... fantastic.
There you could already notice a step away from the endless worker hordes.
Drones doing the same with vespene gas and crystals is not that lucky.
Harvesting spice and dealing with worms felt quite a bit more apropriate, even if harvester pathing was always a problem.
Worker hordes are not neccesary from a gameplay point of view. Sure... harrasment, but honestly you can also harass an eco WITHOUT workers. Its just additional micro wich distracts from really important gameplay. Dawn of war's system of capturing and holding resource points works quite as well but can live with far less workers.
Sure having a gazillion drones works too, but WHY the hassle? Any good reason? And don't come with skill. Skill should revolve around tactical and strategic superiority and micro.... and not around who can field more apropriate number of drones. Its silly and not fitting a scifi setting.
And some units... the battlecruiser as prime example: i know it has a yamato gun, but seriously ONE laser? Where are the goddam missiles or AT LEAST as second laser?
And tanks? Yes, siege mode, great, sure... but their armor seems paper thin (at least thats fixed in SC2).
That rant aside i have to admit Starcraft offers the highest concentration on VIABLE possible strategies and SHIFTS in overall approach and is aditionally quite balanced.
A WC3 can't compete here. And a DOW also can't (therefore it makes up with unit variety, and seriously NINE races are a lot of variety). A C&C3 makes a good try but in thee end screws up unit balance.
That being said Starcraft balance is not perfect. Before Broodwars it was Protoss>Terran>Zerg and after Broodwars it was Terran>Protoss>Zerg. That being said the balance was off a bit but not by much. All of the time my prefered race was Zerg and after Broodwar i never played a game where i felt i had no chance of winning because of race selection. And i played for a looong time.
Its close enough.
SC2 will be great, no doubt about it but there are some things i'd love to see included. Like squad based production, upgrade and command as an example. Yes, the micro... but seriously: you can also micro squads. In fact you set up squads in any case, so there is no reason - especially when it comes to zergling hordes - for single unit production. And it gives so much more charcter to units.
Also the melee system... some units are melee and others are ranged. Compared to a DOW where you CAN FORCE ranged units into melee when engaging with melee units thats kinda lightyears ahead.
I like however what they did with high ground. That is really new and good. And if it comes to choices of strategy no other game can beat Starcraft. There are no "weak" units. Every single one is deadly if used right. And Broodwar improved on that.
I fell especially in love with Lurkers and Devourers (added to vanilla Guardians and Hydralisks).
One night i sat down and figured out how to rush Lurkers so you could fend off the dreaded basic Protoss Zealot rush. This altered forever the way i played Zerg. Nothing like watching your typical 4-5 Zealot squad attacking your hive for what looks like an easy kill and watch them torn apart by spiekes from buried Lurkers. Yeah, tech up to observers. Thats what i call satisfaction.
And Devourers... aerial splash dot damage... and being able not only to dish out but also to take a beating. And of course shut down the cloaking ability on Wraiths. Exactly the kind of escort you want for your Guardians.
Also, either phase 2 is about to start or battle.net trolls are in full force.
and ain't nothing gonna change that
Posting your real id? I'm not a huge fan of internet anonymity, and coupled with the idea that it will make the forums operate smoother, I think it's a good idea. I'm pretty sure that's the typical consensus on this decision though, lol.
I had a few people named grhgrag ahaharhrehg on my SC2 beta friends list.
It's what you use on your battle.net account. I'm not sure if that can be changed after you create an account, or if you have to create an alias if you are paranoid that your potential employer finds out you play starcraft or type "QQ" a lot.
I don't WANT bnet anywhere near my facebook/realname. My gaming is a private habit I don't advertise. I sure as hell want to hide it. Steam doesn't intrude on my RL...Bnet sure as fuck better not.
Can't say I like the sound of this.
People on the WoW forums mock each other with things as simple as armory. Will a new culture of stalking and mockery be born on the rich information on facebook now?
It's all a little too interconnected for me. It doesn't really feel like one needs to bring transparency to a forum in this manner.
ages ago when i created my bnet account, i used a name that was just button mashing
fast forward to the start of the beta, where i had to jump through a million hoops to get them to reset my password since my ID didn't match the name on the account
In most cases you do not send a single unit so you are controlling squads in any case.
Clicking on your anti-vehicle squad and target the enemy is more comfortble than drawing a box, double click screen select or manually shift pick single moving units.
And THAT is fiddly. And if you are really honest the way most players deal with this is by SETTING UP squads. So, if you do it in any case you might as well PRODUCE squads and skip the setup.
And about sync kills being a loss of control... an attack animation takes time. And thats what a sync kill is: an animation wich results in a fatality. The issue here is simply speed and duration. Also there is no reson for implementing abortable lengthy sync kills, if you think its too much a loss of control if a Zealot is beheading its victim with the next strike.
And differentiating between melee/ranged gives simply a more realistic feel to combat, it adds more detail, in other words: more gameplay depth. You don't loose control here its just getting a bit more realistic, and opens up tons of options for unit diversity and abilities.
Seriously: a sniper being battered by melee not being effected in any way until he dies is... not apropriate. It misses a lot of possible interactions between ranged/melee and most importantly tactical gameplay.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Anonymity is on its way out. This is a good thing, in my opinion.
But right now do average users have the ways and means to protect themselves from identity theft, which would be made easier by such a system?
AND I don't really care who knows my first and last name.
so go to it, battle.net.
They're pretty useful when you feel the need to dramatically raise your blood pressure!
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
Can you imagine the amount of harassment the "known" people are going to get from that culture? I think only Trus can attest to this, since he is the only e-celebrity here, but the minute someone posts a detailed argument or meme, is the minute all of their social sites, cell phones, voice messages, text messages, twitter accounts and so forth will be flooded.
It's completely unnecessary for a videogame forum. And what's the benefit of this? Oh, so we can chat across Blizzard games. uhhhhh. They claim it's going to lessen trolling, flame wars, and the likes, but it certainly won't. What will happen is the trolls or troublestarters will create battle.net accounts without their real names and then harass the honest people who provided their real names. It'll effectively help move online harassment from the public domain to the private sanctuary. Blizzard is okay with that because they won't have to pay people to police what happens in your life, just what happens in the forums. It's just hiding/shifting/moving the problem so the customer takes the brunt of the force, as is the general trend for game companies nowadays anyways.
In short, blahblah, my SC2 account is going under a fake name.
"Horribly wrong" is a very strong overstatement, maybe at a pro level of play. Intense micro like that is a luxury anywhere below Diamond though.
Squad of 6 marines I order to some cover, 4 go into that cover, 2 into some other bush nearby that might or might not be the same piece of wall. A grenade flies into some other group nearby that'll catch the two marines in the bush if I don't move the entire squad. I can't just select the two and have them move without losing damage dealt by the other 4 marines.
Sync kills take seconds, there's no need for the last few HP to take 500% longer to kill than before.
Ranged being unaffected by melee being in their face is fine, it's not like they're as meaty as the melee attackers generally. Maybe it would be fine but not with the stupid squad control where the whole squad decides to melee if one unit gets into melee range.
Blizzard already made the range/melee thing perfectly, hydras and roaches swipe with their claws and stuff if shit's too close. The mechanics allow for more precision and DEPTH than some squad A-moving with no focus fire or specific directions.