Guest
Premium Member
^Exactly faggorty.
Strategy in SC2
- Thread starter CelestialBadger
- Start date
MGCImtR
eSports Player
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2003
- Messages
- 850
- Reaction score
- 0
When I played SC&BW I didnt know the word 'micro' I was 6th 7th, 8th grade what do u expect ^^. All I did was moving my units from aoes, and harassing. War3 just made me play with the brain, with micro and with speed for doing everything. Then I applied my war3 skill to Empire Earth that is differnt game, and still I used the same micro in the game. SCII is a blizzard game and closest to war3 as you all can see it is like the futuristic war3 not only like SC&BW. At first I got disappointed- the same units as in SC&BW, SC players will be used to playing it and they will be better than us. But when I saw the new units, I was SOOO happy to see this will require new strategies and I feared that the game will be new only for those who havent played SC&BW from the point of stratgies, but the game will require new stragies. I've played 2-3 years SC&BW, around 5 years war3 of which 4 years - solo games, so BEWARE muhahaha. It turned out that since the skill and moves in war3 can be used in EE, then they can def in SCII. I will start this game with skill and so will any warcrafter got it??? When I played SC&BW i was new to RTS games anyway. You may have played other RTSs like Age of Empires etc but these games didnt require micro so a person who hasnt played SC&BW or war3 - a developed enough Blizzard RTS will still be new to this type of playing. While War3-SCII it is very close. I read in an article that a Blizzard representative said SCII would require less micro but ofc there arent heroes to heal units, invis, staff of teleportation, but I hope the rest parts of micro will remain. So behold! I AM COMING.
Let's see won't a warcrafter with 2-3 years of SC be better than a SCer with 5 years this game? Muhahhaha.
Let's see won't a warcrafter with 2-3 years of SC be better than a SCer with 5 years this game? Muhahhaha.
Lizardbreath
Former Staff member
No it isn't. In wc3 you could attack a base with a hero and kill tons of units/buildings depending on the hero. In starcraft there is none of that shit, thus making it more realistic.
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
either you have never played Warcraft III, or you ... actually there is no way you played WCIII with that statement.
Kaldaris
BattleForums Senior Member
In WC:III heroes are only slightly more powerful than your average GRUNT. Even at level ten, a hero can fall to three upgraded grunts.
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
their range of stats range from averae tier 1 to slightly better tier 3 unit.
Lizardbreath
Former Staff member
You guys obviously don't know how to use your LVL 10 hero then. Losing to 3 grunts? LOL.
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
You have obviosuly never played warcraft III as I said. But since you have no clue what you are talking about, and you are corrupting the innocent Starcraft players who love to hide behind this idea that Warcraft III was ruined by uber godly heroes. So I will enlighten you.
The statistically strongest Hero in the game in terms of brute strength would be a Tauren Chieften and at level 10 has a solid 59 attack damage and 1425 health power. In comparison to a tier 3 unit which you can have dozens of at any time on the battlefield we will use a Tauren. The tauren has 1300 hp and does 45 damage. Considering they both have the same attack cool down and the Tauren has 9 armor compared to the heroes 6 armor, the level 10 hero isn't going to destroy a base any time soon. The hero is a glorified unit. And if you can say that a Tauren or three could destroy a base by itself, than you sir don't know what you're talking about.
And lets not forget the simple fact the game mechanics means that a Hero 99% of the time never gets past level 6, which statistically puts them in the realm of less than tier 3 unit. So what game have you been playing that a level 10 hero exists, and that it has ever destroyed a base by itself?
Lizardbreath
Former Staff member
You're just dense and ignorant then. Warcraft 3 is not nearly as realistic as Starcraft is in any way shape or form. Less health+more armies= more realistic war simulation.
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
ah yes, nothing like forgetting the fact that you were completely wrong about heroes and instead change the subject. Of course Starcraft is more realistic what with space travel, alien races, warp travel. It makes so much sense how realistic something is just because there is less health on it's space aged weaponry.
Lizardbreath
Former Staff member
You come at me with your fully upgraded taurens and I will come at you with my heroe....I guarantee myself a win.
More realistic when it comes to how war works is what I meant.
More realistic when it comes to how war works is what I meant.
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
wanna make a wager I very well could play an entire game without a hero, and you can have heroes and I would win. I can do it if you want to test me. I don't know what games you played when you do customs, but when you are able to be ranked on the ladder you tend to pick up some things about a game.
Vadriel
Bite my shiny metal ass!
Is it possible to save replays so that non WC3ers can see them? If this match happens, I'd love to see it.
Also, I might have the urge to remind a couple people that this thread is entitled "Strategy in SC2," not "Hero Strategy in WC3."
Also, I might have the urge to remind a couple people that this thread is entitled "Strategy in SC2," not "Hero Strategy in WC3."
Lizardbreath
Former Staff member
I never played custom games...Ever....they are usually horribly imbalanced. I still think you are misunderstanding the point behind my posts. Heroes don't represent what war-strategy games should be like...the army does. SC:2 is more realistic in the sense that you can't have uber heroes that make everybody around them fast and can win battles.
And of course you could beat a hero with a select number of units. Every race has the ability to slow (Purge/dryads/cripple/Slow) And an acceptable amount of melee and range units.
Edit: I don't have WC3 installed on my computer anymore....but if I install it again sometime I will definitely take you up on that wager. My computer has been sucking **** lately however.
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
and you obviously don't realize heroes don't win battles.
Ntrik_
Premium Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Messages
- 9,687
- Reaction score
- 4
ANYWAYS....
terran - most micro
zerg - similar to terran, bit less micro i guess
protoss - requires least micro
think im wrong? then think again.
anyways... strategy in sc2, cant really say much until we are shown with all the units in the game wit htheir new abilities
terran - most micro
zerg - similar to terran, bit less micro i guess
protoss - requires least micro
think im wrong? then think again.
anyways... strategy in sc2, cant really say much until we are shown with all the units in the game wit htheir new abilities
Lizardbreath
Former Staff member
Armies without heroes compared to ones that do most likely lose. Making the hero unit a deciding factor.
Vadriel
Bite my shiny metal ass!
I agree, but Protoss do better with a fair bit of micro...the only difference is that the main reason for a lot of micro is to get good at targeting and casting spells on individual targets (Lockdown, Yamato), and with a lot of Protoss spellcasters, simultaneous casting isn't necessarily bad. (Recall, Psi Storm, Maelstrom).
Emperor Pan I
Respected Member
And two armies with heroes means that there is no hero deciding factor, and everything rests on what units you have prepared for your army. No hero has ever single handedly won any battle by itself in a real ladder game. Thats' like saying an army with spell casters and an army without spell casters the army with spell casters will win. That's your logic.
Guest
Premium Member
Wtf newb
.