Alrighty guys the moment has arrived! STARCRAFT 2 is on the horizon. it is at least 3:48 minutes away!
Heres some stuff to end peoples nerdgasm
Alrighty I have been waiting 12 YEARS For this game. And it is coming!
Alrighty who else here on Dakka Dakka is also a fan? Also lets hope it doesn't go like WOW lore.
I can't wait, trailer is not best made I've seen but is soooo exciting I can't wait. So excited, can't contain... (nuclear launch detected) GHAK overlading (9..8..7..6) NERD.......GASM! (4..3..2..1) GAH! (BOOM!!)
(No that is not an innuendo you dirty minded internet people )
I preordered it! i work at the hive so it is a given what i do! If you don't know what i do. I'll give you a hint. I make maps . So far the map editor looks great. But i can't say anything. I will make a review of starcraft 2 here.
I will be picking it up at lunch today. Can't wait for single player and the nice looking cut scenes...then onto multiplayer to get trashed the first minute of all my games
Sanctjud wrote:I will be picking it up at lunch today. Can't wait for single player and the nice looking cut scenes...then onto multiplayer to get trashed the first minute of all my games
Heh those koreons have been praticing playing the old 1 for years. So be careful
If you are going to get a new computer dont get a MAC unless you dont know anything about computers.
PC is the way to go
Offcourse not, macs are for nancy boys And I know plenty about computers, I just don't know what the top hardware is these days cause i got to lazy to keep track.
Koreans have their own servers. Americans have theirs, even Australians have a server now! Crazy.
Ed.. My little bro is a SC fanatic. Unfortunately he agreed to travel to another city with a friend to pick up a new car. He didnt realise it was the day SC2 was coming out. He hasnt shut up about it since he found out.. sigh..
Ed... Im not a fan either. Won't be buying it. Im SOOOO over SC. Played the demo for 30min and got bored. Hope you all have a ton of fun though. Graphics are nice.
I went in to Best Buy to get a copy today. All they had left was a single Collector's Edition, no regular copies. I figured it was a sign, so I got that.
I got it by digital download, and I have been loving it (I'm so glad I got a new computer this spring!). The original SC was the first game I ever played onling, and this feels like I'm coming home (of course, I still suck at it ;D).
The Nerdgasm will never end!!! I never even got halfway through the single-player campaign of the first one, but I played the hell out of the multiplayer. That game, like the Mechwarrior series, is made for multiplayer. Suck it, Zerglings!!!!!!!!!!!!
Still pounding the snot out of all the one trick pony players waiting for them to understand that spamming one unit (void rays, roaches, battlecruisers) is not a good strat....
warpcrafter wrote:The Nerdgasm will never end!!! I never even got halfway through the single-player campaign of the first one, but I played the hell out of the multiplayer. That game, like the Mechwarrior series, is made for multiplayer. Suck it, Zerglings!!!!!!!!!!!!
Picked it up a couple of days ago and was up until 3.30am the first night, and accomplished nothing yesterday thanks to playing. Trying to hold off playing it until this evening so that I can get something/anything done today.
Incredible game though, combines nostalgia of the old with an incredible soundtrack which I will certainly hear at the next videogames live concert, and beautiful graphics with a very engaging story. Not been this hooked on a game in a looooong time. I'm about halfway through now, so am starting to get a lot of the fun toys in the game as well
@legoburner: Glad to hear the soundtrack is as good as the first game. There were a few clips on Blizzard's SC2 website and I was really digging them.
I really want to play but I need to upgrade my Mac to the latest OS and get some more RAM. I haven't really been doing much gaming lately so I haven't done any upgrades since I bought this machine in '06. I was a big fan of SC when it came out, even had a website dedicated to it (I know, who didn't ) and the new one looks stunning. I'm pretty sure an upgrade will let me use Steam again too so the new OS will be worth it. The RAM will just be icing on the CPU.
Oh and I just remembered that Diablo III is on the horizon as well...
Seeing only the multi-player only on youtube, I was sad to not see some of the old units in SC1...but not a huge spoiler: you'll see old friends and units in the Campaign.
I hope you guys enjoy it, the first one was a pretty good game. I'm personally boycotting it because I can't foresee paying the same amount or even any amount for the other two campaigns, at least until its bargain binned.
Oh, and can you select more than 12 units at a time in this one?
@LunaHound:
It's more of the same... but different.
It's still build base and wreck face...while the new DoW are a specific kind of Strat. Game that focuses on the 'tactical' side of things. I mean there is some vibe to the whole 'capturing points'...the watchtowers...but not too similar.
What is updated is the tricks and builds.
@halonachos:
You can select a rediculous number of units...
halonachos wrote:I hope you guys enjoy it, the first one was a pretty good game. I'm personally boycotting it because I can't foresee paying the same amount or even any amount for the other two campaigns, at least until its bargain binned.
Oh, and can you select more than 12 units at a time in this one?
Good luck at waiting. The Diablo 2 Battlechest, and the Warcraft III battlecheck are still $40 a pop. They just dont go down in price. As for the 3 different releases, I have talked to people who own the game and there are around 30 missions on the first release, at 30-60 a piece thats still 20-30 hours of game play, way more than most games being released today. I personally am a lore junky, so I will probably buy at least the first one, if it is worth it, the others. But my NerdGasm isnt going anywhere until after Diablo III!!
frozenmilk wrote:@legoburner: Glad to hear the soundtrack is as good as the first game. There were a few clips on Blizzard's SC2 website and I was really digging them.
imho, the sound track is genuinely better and I really liked SC1's as well. Really reminds me of firefly with the cowboys in space sort of sound.
LunaHound wrote:How similar is Sc2 to SC1 in game play and game mechanics?
It feels exactly like SC1 but with the ability to select far more troops. Mechanics are very, very similar with tweaks in all the right places.
I got the SC1 battlechest for $20 along with the Diablo chest for $20. Working in retail has some benefits mind you. I could probably get SC2 for around $40 dut to coupons and employee discounts, but I just don't want it. If I get it then I'll want the other ones, and so on and so on. It's like a gateway drug or something I tell you.
On Diablo 3, I loved the first two, but 3 is kind of shiny and stuff. I know, I know they stepped beyond the palette of brown, red, black, grey, and shades of those colors, but it reminds me of Halo.
Diablo is supposed to be dark, you're fighting demons to save the world after all.
Oh and I miss the pally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In essence, Blizzard is kind of annoying me with all of these changes.
I might be burned at the stake for this, but I don't really like the Starcraft franchise. When it was my first RTS, I loved it, but compared to the modern games, it feels beyond archaic. And now I hear that the new one has barely changed. I guess I've been spoiled by Supreme Commander and others like it. Personally, I guess I just prefer firing SuperMassive Artillery at your base from miles away then having my roidmarines plink spikes at you from 2 feet away.
Haddi wrote:I might be burned at the stake for this, but I don't really like the Starcraft franchise. When it was my first RTS, I loved it, but compared to the modern games, it feels beyond archaic. And now I hear that the new one has barely changed. I guess I've been spoiled by Supreme Commander and others like it. Personally, I guess I just prefer firing SuperMassive Artillery at your base from miles away then having my roidmarines plink spikes at you from 2 feet away.
I think i feel the same way , SC2 hasnt really improved much at all ( graphics aside ) . I know its intentionally created so it feels like SC1 but... that game is old!
They didnt take in detailed combat effect like Dawn Of War ( melee / moral / explosion and gets blown off your feet )
They didnt take in the new technology of Supreme Commander ( weapon physics )
Its almost like... they are so confident in SC1 that they feel they dont need to improve it ( same way as chess dont really get upgrades )
@legoburner That's the type of vibe I got off it as well, it's very cool.
I'm not going to opt for the deluxe edition but I see they have the soundtrack available for download on iTunes so I'll probably pick it up soon. I wish Amazon MP3 had it but they don't seem to.
Haddi wrote:I might be burned at the stake for this, but I don't really like the Starcraft franchise. When it was my first RTS, I loved it, but compared to the modern games, it feels beyond archaic. And now I hear that the new one has barely changed. I guess I've been spoiled by Supreme Commander and others like it. Personally, I guess I just prefer firing SuperMassive Artillery at your base from miles away then having my roidmarines plink spikes at you from 2 feet away.
I think i feel the same way , SC2 hasnt really improved much at all ( graphics aside ) . I know its intentionally created so it feels like SC1 but... that game is old!
They didnt take in detailed combat effect like Dawn Of War ( melee / moral / explosion and gets blown off your feet )
They didnt take in the new technology of Supreme Commander ( weapon physics )
Its almost like... they are so confident in SC1 that they feel they dont need to improve it ( same way as chess dont really get upgrades )
That, and the player base that TRULY loves SC2, I'm talking hardcore Tourney Players and South Koreans who live for this game, don't really want change. They want their old game to look pretty again, but they want what they fell in love with at first. Fine and dandy, but I want a modern game, not just a game from the 90's with a makeover.
Having played it a bit, it does seem to be basically a really shiny SC1. Sure, there are new units and buildings and such (and the graphics are better, plus the ability to select more than 12 units at a time) but the gameplay hasn't changed at all from the first one.
That said, the 60 bucks you're paying for is giving you an awesome singleplayer experience in the campaign (the Zeratul missions are absolutely incredible) and access to incredibly creative and well-designed Custom maps. Heck, I don't even play regular skirmish games, the UMS games still reign supreme. I mean, when you can create an almost exact clone of Double Dragon in the SC2 Galaxy Editor...
And no, I'm not making that up. There is a Double Dragon-style sidescroller on SC2 - and this is less than a week after the game's release. The abilities of that thing are mindboggling.
Haddi wrote:I might be burned at the stake for this, but I don't really like the Starcraft franchise. When it was my first RTS, I loved it, but compared to the modern games, it feels beyond archaic. And now I hear that the new one has barely changed. I guess I've been spoiled by Supreme Commander and others like it. Personally, I guess I just prefer firing SuperMassive Artillery at your base from miles away then having my roidmarines plink spikes at you from 2 feet away.
It's like the difference between playing 40k and epic. There's just something visceral
about leading squads of troops into a small cramped battlefield and knowing that air
support is a click away and that artillery pounding your troops can be reached if you
just micro the army correctly.
Something like that.
I want to avoid a purchase as well, but talk of the storyline is making me reconsider.
I caved in a bought it after a friend offered me a guest pass and I had seven hours of free play with the full client (Damn you Blizzard and your brilliant marketing).
I can see why the game succeeded so well in the 90's. But it'll die fast in the new age of auto squaded infantry, and units that can move and shoot at the same time. Also, DRM can burn in hell and so can anyone who puts it in their game. Say hi to Hitler for me.
I do enjoy the game, and I'm sure the SC hardcore will be playing for years, but most players are going to abandon the game fast. It honestly is way too old school to draw the crowd, lacking even the simplest of improvements other games have made to the genre in terms of command and control. People can make the arguement that it's a different kind of RTS all they want, but the game is still going to be utterly ancient and it's always going to be a bad thing. It's a good thing there are ALOT of SC hardcore out there to give each other game time lol.
EDIT: While the game shows a lot of Blizzard's brilliance, it also sadly shows a lot of the same bad design choices that killed MW2 on PC (And there's no console market to buffer them this time). I sense Activision's greedy hand in this...
Just so everyone knows, SCII wont be bundled. Everything is done totally online and through the blizzard website. When you buy SCII at gamestop or walmart or something, your aren't buying ANYTHING but a CD key. The CD in the box only takes you to the blizzard website where you download and "Activate" your game TO your account.
on the + side to that, you can download and install the game on ANY computer you want by going to blizzards website and logging in to your account.
Gameplay is just amazing. A LOT has changed in SCII that make it....interesting. for those that loved SC, the units are very different in SC2, and there is more to do.
HIghly recommended and if you wanna play a game sometime, add me to your friendslist (which is now ingame!)KizzyPop
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:I can see why the game succeeded so well in the 90's. But it'll die fast in the new age of auto squaded infantry, and units that can move and shoot at the same time. Also, DRM can burn in hell and so can anyone who puts it in their game. Say hi to Hitler for me.
Kyric wrote:HIghly recommended and if you wanna play a game sometime, add me to your friendslist (which is now ingame!)KizzyPop
I'll add you tonight! I've been looking for players to add to my list, as no one I know right now is playing this game. My user name is the same as my forum one. I wonder if there would be any interest in a Dakka SC II guild?
Anyway, I hear what you guys are saying about SC II being dated, but TBH I didn't like the gameplay of some of the newer RTS's I've played (DOW II for example), so I guess I fall into the category of those who just wanted a shiner Starcraft .
Kyric wrote:HIghly recommended and if you wanna play a game sometime, add me to your friendslist (which is now ingame!)KizzyPop
I'll add you tonight! I've been looking for players to add to my list, as no one I know right now is playing this game. My user name is the same as my forum one. I wonder if there would be any interest in a Dakka SC II guild?
Dakka SCII guild! xD awesome. ill be looking forward to it. currently im at work. i can get on right now if i want, but i gotta pause every 10 minutes until my boss walks past! xD
Ruckdog wrote:Anyway, I hear what you guys are saying about SC II being dated, but TBH I didn't like the gameplay of some of the newer RTS's I've played (DOW II for example), so I guess I fall into the category of those who just wanted a shiner Starcraft .
Yeah, DOW2 Didnt go over very well imho. Warcraft, diablo, and starcraft are the bomb! xD
DoWII was one step forward five steps back. Rather than build on the game people loved, Relic just remade Company of Heroes and put 40k wallpaper on it. It's lack of success isn't because it wasn't good, and more because it wasn't what fans wanted. Consumer disappointment can be a real b****.
very FEW units can move and fire.
So? The pathfinding in the game is horrible, almost like it was copy pasted from 90's era RTS games. Since units in general can't move and shoot at the same time, it meals a large mob ends up bumping into each other and running around dying instead of shooting. That's just sad.
And I haven't found any units that can move and shoot thus far other than the Diamondback, which is SP only. I found none on the Protoss side of things, and I haven't even toyed with Zerg yet.
This isn't exactly a problem, but the bad pathfinding compounded with inability to shoot while movie (I mean come on! I can get infantry, but vehicles too? Really?) makes the game more tactically complex than other RTS games. Every battle is a three way battle between you your opponent, and some crappy design choices . Most people won't bother trying. Soon only the SC faithful will be playing the game, along with people like me who can get over a few minor moments of game design stupidity to play an otherwise awesome game.
My review of SC2.
Alrighty the campaign was great and alot of plot twists. The campaign was very exciting and involving. And I swear i played by emotion some times. I really like the game. And it really showed me that old games with sequels like starcraft are FTW. 9.5/10. Only problem i had was. If you get Goliath just Goliath with all their upgrades they are unbeatable. I swear i ran 30 of these and i killed everything in my path.
Gameplay. Alrighty the gameplay was perfect though i wish they didn't get rid of some units i liked from the original starcraft. The Game-play itself was flawless. 9.9/10
Graphics. For a RTS it has pretty damn good graphics. 9.9/10
Story. The story was very good and has a good writing touch to it. 5/5
Map editor. I don't know what to say about this. But the map editor from WC3 was alot easier to use than it's starcraft 2 counterpart. But once you get the feel for it. It makes for a very fun tool to use. 9.4/10
Battle.net. Alrighty the battle.net has alot of problems. But conisdering they are working on it i have to give them a break on this. But ever since they got rid of Chat Channels That pissed me off. Not only that but their has been alot of fuss at the moment about it. Battle.net on a gaming basis is very fun and very involving. You make friends and you can have fun. In this manner they have won that. My Review. 8.5/10
total score: 9.2/10
This Recommended for everyone. I had a great time with it and i spent 20 hours of my life playing it. It was alot of fun and the ending make me cry :*(. I love seeing nova too as she makes a return in this. This Asherian commands Review and me signing off to review more games.
LordofHats wrote:DoWII was one step forward five steps back. Rather than build on the game people loved, Relic just remade Company of Heroes and put 40k wallpaper on it. It's lack of success isn't because it wasn't good, and more because it wasn't what fans wanted. Consumer disappointment can be a real b****.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that Relic did due diligence by the 40k Universe and the original games. And I can appreciate it for what it was, as a kind of rpg-RTS hybrid (I have never played Company of Heros, mind). In that sense, I agree with you it was a "good" game. I would fall into that category of the Disappointed Fan, becuase for me the biggest joy in DOW was rolling into battle with 3 LRBTs and a Baneblade, with Commissars providing the summary executions as necessary. DOW II just wasn't that kind of game, unfortunately.
Asherian: Thanks for the review! I look forward to finishing up the single player this week to get the story.
Kanluwen wrote:Dawn of War II was intended to be a far different style of warfare than Dawn of War, and people seem to not understand that.
Usually when a sequel or a next installment is made. Its not far fetched to expect them to be similar.
DoW 1 and DoW 2 are VERY VERY different type of games. Its not whether people understand that or not cupcake.
Kanluwen wrote:Dawn of War II was intended to be a far different style of warfare than Dawn of War, and people seem to not understand that.
DOWII is to Kill-Teams as DOW is to Apocalypse/40k.
That isn't the issue. People liked DoW's style. DoWII was a completely different kind of game. It turned people off because it wasn't what they wanted. That's why I don't play it. That and I hate Windows Live.
Alrighty the campaign was great and alot of plot twists. The campaign was very exciting and involving. And I swear i played by emotion some times. I really like the game. And it really showed me that old games with sequels like starcraft are FTW. 9.5/10.
I give it a 9. I have not seen a story line that was so engaging as SCII's in a long time. Even Bioware's recent work can't compare. The voice acting was superb, and the characters enjoyable, though I think they could have been expanded better. But I do think that the story line is horribly predictable. I called almost every "twist" within a few seconds of related characters appearing (Within the first 10 missions I knew the entire ending of the game more or less).
Gameplay. Alrighty the gameplay was perfect though i wish they didn't get rid of some units i liked from the original starcraft. The Game-play itself was flawless. 9.9/10
I wouldn't call it flawless. I give gameplay a 9.5. I have quite a few complaints against the gameplay for it's ancient design and outdated concept. It's still loads of fun though, so I think a lot people will be able to get over it in time. It's like Mario. You'd think jumping around from one platform to the next would get old. It doesn't.
Graphics. For a RTS it has pretty damn good graphics. 9.9/10
I actually think the graphics are quite dated. Have you looked at the ground on the maps? It almost doesn't look like they're 3D rendered. I think they did it on purpose to keep an old SC feel, but it looks awkward to me.
Story. The story was very good and has a good writing touch to it. 5/5
Why did we go from a 10 point scale to a 5 point scale lmao
Map editor. I don't know what to say about this. But the map editor from WC3 was alot easier to use than it's starcraft 2 counterpart. But once you get the feel for it. It makes for a very fun tool to use. 9.4/10
Very curious about this. I haven't tried it yet but I might enjoy it.
Battle.net. Alrighty the battle.net has alot of problems. But conisdering they are working on it i have to give them a break on this. But ever since they got rid of Chat Channels That pissed me off. Not only that but their has been alot of fuss at the moment about it. Battle.net on a gaming basis is very fun and very involving. You make friends and you can have fun. In this manner they have won that. My Review. 8.5/10
8.5? I give it a 1. You can't access achievements without a connection. You're CD-key is forever tied to a single character account. The map list is stored online! You can see the game loading it from the net every time you try to pick a map . Without an internet connection, the game is worthless. And I have comcast. Crap internet is a given.
Overall I rate the game a 9/10. I hope the patch out the overbearing need for battle.net in time. It would be nice to have multiple character accounts (no reason you can't), and allow the access of achievements without a connection. The map list can be accessed without internet but you sit there for five minutes until the game blurts out nothing and you have to go back and then go to select map again to get the list to load. I'd like that fixed.
Star Craft 2 for me filled the gap between DoW 2 and CoH Tales Of Valor, I like how the battles flows and how is leaves no options barred in online battels.
I love SC2, best RTS yet - 5/5 for me. The story was predictable but it was fun, entertaining, and executed well and there's going to be two more acts to tell anyway (and I doubt its going to get any easier for our heroes). Was not expecting that level of immersion. Haven't tried out those challenge missions yet but this is one of the few games where I actually want to max the content out since its fun and some of those achievements are pretty difficult.
Multiplayer is also fantastic and the e-sport community has gobbled up it up ever since beta. Blizzard RTS games are fun even as a spectator too imo. For anyone interested here's one youtube channel that features elite players competing for tournament $$$:
The map editor looks more in-depth than ever which added years to the first title and looks to do the same this time around.
Not a fan of no LAN but thats not going to stop this game from being one of the PC's biggest international hits and Blizzard in general is pretty good with its community; Activision be damned!
I just spent the whole night playing multiplayer, and i am rather disgusted at the amount of protos players. They just get a few of the carriers and assault you head on. SO UNCOOL.
LordofHats wrote:DoWII was one step forward five steps back. Rather than build on the game people loved, Relic just remade Company of Heroes and put 40k wallpaper on it. It's lack of success isn't because it wasn't good, and more because it wasn't what fans wanted. Consumer disappointment can be a real b****.
Ummm....considering one of the complaints for CoH was "It's just DoW1 with a WWII paintjob!".
CoH has more in common with DOW1 than the RPGish DoWII.
halonachos wrote:Can't wait for R.U.S.E in all honesty. The trailer looked funny as hell, but it still has my interest.
Tried the beta of ruse. Wasn't impressed to be honest not much in the the way of strategy. I would pay attention to reviews on it if i were you then buy it.
mcfly wrote:I just spent the whole night playing multiplayer, and i am rather disgusted at the amount of protos players. They just get a few of the carriers and assault you head on. SO UNCOOL.
PLAY ZERG FOR MANLY WIN
If your getting stomped by protoss running lots of carriers, especially as zerg, you need to seriously learn to play.
DoWII was one step forward five steps back. Rather than build on the game people loved, Relic just remade Company of Heroes and put 40k wallpaper on it. It's lack of success isn't because it wasn't good, and more because it wasn't what fans wanted. Consumer disappointment can be a real b****.
Dawn of war 2 sold well and was both a financial and critical success for THQ. Dawn of war one was a mindless non competitive funfest but it wasn't a particularly deep game, they tried to fix that with dawn of war two which is a significantly more cerebral experience. Some people just like to make a giant army and victory lap in every battle though so it's not everyones thing.
DoWII was one step forward five steps back. Rather than build on the game people loved, Relic just remade Company of Heroes and put 40k wallpaper on it. It's lack of success isn't because it wasn't good, and more because it wasn't what fans wanted. Consumer disappointment can be a real b****.
Dawn of war 2 sold well and was both a financial and critical success for THQ. Dawn of war one was a mindless non competitive funfest but it wasn't a particularly deep game, they tried to fix that with dawn of war two which is a significantly more cerebral experience. Some people just like to make a giant army and victory lap in every battle though so it's not everyones thing.
DoW2 is a much deeper game than DoW1 ever was, and Shuma describes the difference quite excellently. Personally, I enjoy DoW2 much more than DoW1. In DoW2 you are constantly fighting over territory, and all units have their place and counters (albeit soft-counters). DoW1, you made the biggest army you could and smashed it into your opponents army... which I guess has some appeal for some people.
However, I wish DoW2 had a Landraider :( but that might be a bit OP.
Also, DoW2 and the expansion pack sold very well. The single-player in both are great, and a real step up from most RTS 'campaigns'.
Dawn of war 2 sold well and was both a financial and critical success for THQ.
Sales and critical success don't equal real success. When the game came out it wasn't what any of the DoW1 crowd expected, and it showed. A lot people bought the game and stopped playing a month or so later. You could see the people playing Dark Crusade and Soul Storm spike by a lot after the game released full of people who hated the new one (Of course, that died out fast). Now it's been awhile since I played at all, so maybe it's picked up steam since then.
DoW1 is only a "mindless funfest" when you get people like me who aren't that great at multitasking. When you get RTS vets going it gets a lot more interesting than build and smash. That's true of almost every RTS game. You have people like me who just enjoy going with the flow, and then you have the people who play to win a little too hard.
I never said outright that DoWII was bad though. I think it's weaker than DoW1 because I had no fun playing it. Single player was weak, multiplayer was overly simplistic in terms of resource management, and every battle ends with whoever spams the most mech as the winner because there were no where near enough ways to kill tanks and walkers. And I don't know what you mean by "deeper." Half the people I played just kept trying to build and smash, granted in fewer number than in other RTS' I've played. Only having two or three maps per multiplayer mode didn't help much either. DoWII was not an improvement. It was a rebuild of a perfectly good game that added up to a less than fun experience. I also hate windows live
Tried the beta of ruse. Wasn't impressed to be honest not much in the the way of strategy. I would pay attention to reviews on it if i were you then buy it.
Gah. My friend pulled an epic moment when he loaded up on that overpowered artillery and shelled me from across the map into oblivion, with a hoard of infantry and anti tank in the trees to stop my approach XD. I hope they patched that in the final version of the game. We even made a gentlmens agreement not to use aircraft and he had a full squad of B17's to shell at me too XD. Insult and ingury
CoH has more in common with DOW1 than the RPGish DoWII.
If all we're talking about is single player, I still disagree. CoH and DoW1 were very different games with a shift from a build and smash style to more fast paced squad oriented play.
Sales and critical success don't equal real success.
Yes. They do.
When the game came out it wasn't what any of the DoW1 crowd expected, and it showed. A lot people bought the game and stopped playing a month or so later. You could see the people playing Dark Crusade and Soul Storm spike by a lot after the game released full of people who hated the new one (Of course, that died out fast). Now it's been awhile since I played at all, so maybe it's picked up steam since then.
It's funny that would would bring up soulstorm which in fact wasn't a financial success nor was it a particularly well made game. Dow2 online is about as hopping as you would expect an RTS to be and the expansion helped add quite a bit with the additions to the last stand mode.
DoW1 is only a "mindless funfest" when you get people like me who aren't that great at multitasking. When you get RTS vets going it gets a lot more interesting than build and smash.
I'm an RTS vet, and aside from map control and a very weak form of rock paper scissors countering it's pretty mindless. Short of an ork on eldar battle you're not going to see much in the way of tactical flow or micromanagement in battles (the former because of the sheer requirement for mass map control and the latter because of micro abilities and proxy bases).
I never said outright that DoWII was bad though. I think it's weaker than DoW1 because I had no fun playing it. Single player was weak, multiplayer was overly simplistic in terms of resource management, and every battle ends with whoever spams the most mech as the winner because there were no where near enough ways to kill tanks and walkers.
Yeah, they changed the game significantly with the only war patch update which jumbled tiers around and made it take longer to reach tier two. If thats your complaint (which makes no sense since its all that happened in DOW1 anyway) then I would suggest going back and trying again.
And I don't know what you mean by "deeper." Half the people I played just kept trying to build and smash, granted in fewer number than in other RTS' I've played. Only having two or three maps per multiplayer mode didn't help much either. DoWII was not an improvement. It was a rebuild of a perfectly good game that added up to a less than fun experience. I also hate windows live
In this instance I meant depth insofar as the broad counterability of army builds and the tactical inclusion of squad upgrades (that add meaningfully to gameplay itself) and terrain use. It takes a hell of a lot more to be "good" at 2 then 1.
Guys this is a Starcraft 2 thread. Not a damn DOW2 thread.
Maybe you guys can help me with this...the cinemas in the game aren't playing smoothly for me. Would turning down my settings help? I haven't had any problems in normal game play, and this solution seems counter-intuitive since I thought the movies were pre-redered.
Asherian Command wrote:Guys this is a Starcraft 2 thread. Not a damn DOW2 thread.
I tried it. I am not particularly fond of the antiquated (not that there is anything wrong with that) gameplay with no cover mechanics or special damage types (use AV weapons on vehicles, for example) and heavy macro/econ. I played it a lot... 12 years ago. But now, its just not my thing.
Its hard to just pass on a thread where someone is insulting the mechanics and gameplay of a game I actually like, even when the majority of the thread is about a different game.
Ruckdog wrote:Maybe you guys can help me with this...the cinemas in the game aren't playing smoothly for me. Would turning down my settings help? I haven't had any problems in normal game play, and this solution seems counter-intuitive since I thought the movies were pre-redered.
Same here, turning down settings helps a lot but then you're also reducing in game visuals. Theres no easy fix.
I tried it. I am not particularly fond of the antiquated (not that there is anything wrong with that) gameplay with no cover mechanics or special damage types (use AV weapons on vehicles, for example) and heavy macro/econ.
Starcraft has damage types as well as a cover system.
I found the damage/armor types, and I see how they work, but I still disagree that a Space Marine's rifle/Hydralisk spines does full damage to a Battlecruiser/Carrier given they are enormous. That is absurd to me, as those units shouldn't even be able to hit a battle cruiser. I know it is that way for balance, but I don't have to agree with it.
I found the damage/armor types, and I see how they work, but I still disagree that a Space Marine's rifle/Hydralisk spines does full damage to a Battlecruiser/Carrier given they are enormous.
A battlecruiser has four armor, a marine rifle basic does six damage. Thus two damage passes through four armor. The marines rifle is cut down by two thirds. The hyrda is only cut by a slight half however. This is ignoring the fact that most units have specialized damage bonus' that are designed against light, armored, or air units making the game much more about hard counters then it first appears.
That is absurd to me, as those units shouldn't even be able to hit a battle cruiser. I know it is that way for balance, but I don't have to agree with it.
It's no less absurd then the maintain train that your troops are on in DoW2 or the fact that you are given additional troop requisition for succeeding (which goes against military philosophy given that the successful troops need the help less). The real time strategy genre is an abstraction of an abstract concept. It's a game not real life. Distance yourself from it a bit and you'll enjoy it more.
I cannot find anything about any cover systems.
High ground gives line of sight advantages that can make your army immune to enemy fire unless they can get a spotter with line of sight to your elevation level. There are also line of sight blocking terrain effects like smoke and tall grass in Starcraft 2.
Starcraft 2 makes for a good beer n' pretzels RTS, but I wouldn't consider it a good example of a modern RTS. It's certainly great for nostalgia value though, and even as a casual Starcraft fan I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. If you need to kill a day, SCII is a great way to do it.
There's only one thing that really kills the game for me though, and that's the map editor. It's in such terrible shape right now that I'd have to give it a 2. It gets a point for being there, and it gets a point for being huge. But it loses 8 for being completely and utterly bugged and unusable for a large number of people, going by google results on the issues. The biggest problem with it is the camera bug. Any zooming in/out or moving of the camera will result in ground disappearing and/or a black screen of death where your map was. If you want your map back, you have to close the editor and open it back up, then reload your map. When this huge bug gets fixed I'll rate the editor higher, as it was my favorite part of the previous Starcraft.
With the semi-dated gameplay and short story, the map editor is the make or break for me in this game. Hopefully it'll be working soon, as that's what's going to keep me coming back to this game.
You're probably right. I would probably think the combat was decent enough (I did used to play it a lot back in the day, SC1 BW anyway), and counters are always fun. It might just be the macro. Resource gathering and base building are just not enjoyable to me, I much prefer the CoH/DoW2 model of getting resources/making units.
Did not know that about height level LOS, and I hadn't actually seen the smoke/tall grass cover stuff, that is interesting.
But I still think the damage systems are pretty meh, even if they are fine for game balance. I look at it and I think, well if this was the case in TT, my marine squad could hurt a titan with their bolters. Its silly, but I could stand it in SC2.
I always had more fun on those maps where you started with a ton of resources, so I didn't have to think about the macro/econ as much, but I still always had to build a ton of buildings :( If someone likes macro/econ, then I'm sure SC2 is a great game for them! I'm just saying I don't personally enjoy it, but thanks for pointing out the armor system/cover, as I wasn't even really aware they existed in the first one(SC/BW).
metallifan wrote:Starcraft 2 makes for a good beer n' pretzels RTS, but I wouldn't consider it a good example of a modern RTS. It's certainly great for nostalgia value though, and even as a casual Starcraft fan I get a lot of enjoyment out of it. If you need to kill a day, SCII is a great way to do it.
There's only one thing that really kills the game for me though, and that's the map editor. It's in such terrible shape right now that I'd have to give it a 2. It gets a point for being there, and it gets a point for being huge. But it loses 8 for being completely and utterly bugged and unusable for a large number of people, going by google results on the issues. The biggest problem with it is the camera bug. Any zooming in/out or moving of the camera will result in ground disappearing and/or a black screen of death where your map was. If you want your map back, you have to close the editor and open it back up, then reload your map. When this huge bug gets fixed I'll rate the editor higher, as it was my favorite part of the previous Starcraft.
With the semi-dated gameplay and short story, the map editor is the make or break for me in this game. Hopefully it'll be working soon, as that's what's going to keep me coming back to this game.
That's what I thought at first too, Shuma. Thing is, I have a top-notch card & driver, and games with vastly greater graphic reqs than SCII (CoH WiC) and they play fine, as do their editors, on near-max settings. I can run SCII on max settings no problems. Plus, again, going by google, a tonne of people seem to be having this exact issue. So I'm thinking it's more likely a bug. Clicking the "Snap to camera" button fixes it it seems, but again, you best not try zooming in and/or out.
metallifan wrote:That's what I thought at first too, Shuma. Thing is, I have a top-notch card & driver, and games with vastly greater graphic reqs than SCII (CoH WiC) and they play fine, as do their editors, on near-max settings. I can run SCII on max settings no problems. Plus, again, going by google, a tonne of people seem to be having this exact issue. So I'm thinking it's more likely a bug. Clicking the "Snap to camera" button fixes it it seems, but again, you best not try zooming in and/or out.
Performance does not equal freedom from driver issues. The two aren't really connected though driver issues can certainly impact performance. If the editor was functionally broken I'm pretty sure we would be hearing about it (or at least I would, I follow this stuff like its my job) from plenty of sources. Could well be that they don't have full compatibility across all card models. It'll probably get fixed in a patch, I would suggest you google around to see if it's prevalent with your model.
Like I said I did do -some- googling. Though no one really mentions their specs. Just their issues. This one seems to be a rampant problem for a lot of people if various gaming forums are to be believed. I'm running the Nvidia 9800GTX Overclocked Card & Driver. I don't see how it wouldn't be included - that card is about a year or two old. Still prime, but old enough that it should be supported with the editor.
metallifan wrote:Like I said I did do -some- googling. Though no one really mentions their specs. Just their issues. This one seems to be a rampant problem for a lot of people if various gaming forums are to be believed. I'm running the Nvidia 9800GTX Overclocked Card & Driver. I don't see how it wouldn't be included - that card is about a year or two old. Still prime, but old enough that it should be supported with the editor.
Thanks mon'. I buggered around with my overclock settings, as setting those too high can (as I found out once long ago) screw you over and cause all kinds of issues. I thought maybe I had it clocked too high for what the settings required, but that didn't do anything for me. Being that I'm not IT-capable I don't wanna play with it more than that
A game can sell well, get critically praised, and still suck. That will boil down to opinion for most games I could list but I can think of many can hold true to that statement. <Insert another of my "Fable is horrible" rants>
It's funny that would would bring up soulstorm which in fact wasn't a financial success nor was it a particularly well made game.
And that is relevant how? I was merely pointing out a rather large increase in the number of people playing DoW1 and it's expansions a month or so after the release of DoW2, and that there was a lot of chatter from people hating the new game and returning to the old.
Dow2 online is about as hopping as you would expect an RTS to be and the expansion helped add quite a bit with the additions to the last stand mode.
I suspected as much. I figure after a lot of DoW1 players left new players came in and picked it up.
I would disagree. I'm not a vet, but I know several, and I've seen many impressive battles from all the armies. Stuff more impressive than DoW2 where almost every battle played out the same way when we were playing. I viewed DoW2 as an extremely dumbed down RTS game. It's about as simple as an RTS can be without going back to the days of pong. It's far easier to succeed in DoW2 than in DoW1. While I'm sure there's a lot of things in DoW2 that take more skill than most can manage, it doesn't make the game deep. The game is horribly shallow. I get what you're saying about counters and the usefulness of squad upgrades, but a dumbed down game is still dumbed down. This is the very reason I said it was a step forward five steps back. We appear to be at an impasse on opinions of what constitutes a good RTS game XD.
Last Stand did interest me, but when it came out I was on my Universities 58kb (yeah) connection. Didn't bother reinstalling, and when I got home practically all my time went into Mechwarrior (I found the long lost Disc 2 of 2 in my old CD drive ), other games, and work. Probably would reinstall to play Last Stand but now that SCII is here and is a game I don't have immense distaste for I probably won't get to it.
Starcraft two is cool.
I enjoy it. Except for Void Ray spam. Void ray spam makes me cry
Maybe you guys can help me with this...the cinemas in the game aren't playing smoothly for me. Would turning down my settings help? I haven't had any problems in normal game play, and this solution seems counter-intuitive since I thought the movies were pre-redered.
Make sure you have the latest drivers for your graphics card if you haven't already (Step one in troubleshooting graphics always). I had some choppiness on the maps, but I updated and the problem disappeared for whatever reason. Sometimes there's just a file problem and updating gets rid of it. Other times you just need the update.
Rather than turning down all your graphic settings there are a few things you can try. Turn off anti-aliasing if it's on. That probably won't help if the scenes are pre-rendered (no idea if they are, though it might explain why Blizzard cutscenes always look so good XD) Normally I would list an order for graphic details to turn down or off in a game to solve such issues but I have no idea if turning off shadows (for example) would in anyway help with cutscenes XD.
A game can sell well, get critically praised, and still suck. That will boil down to opinion for most games I could list but I can think of many can hold true to that statement. <Insert another of my "Fable is horrible" rants>
As soon as the demographic for quality in games becomes "How much lord of hats liked it" that will be correct. Until then we can only measure quality quantitatively. That is done using critical reviews and sales numbers. I love starcraft 2, I also loved dawn of war two. Our opinions cancel eachother out if singular opinions are paramount.
And that is relevant how? I was merely pointing out a rather large increase in the number of people playing DoW1 and it's expansions a month or so after the release of DoW2, and that there was a lot of chatter from people hating the new game and returning to the old.
Yes, you get that with every sequel to every game. The game was quite different, I will give you that. It was not the same game as dawn of war one. For people that like easy and pretty games dawn of war one is presumably much better. Thats not really a measurable quantity though and dawn of war two has a fairly significant number of people playing it online.
I would disagree. I'm not a vet, but I know several, and I've seen many impressive battles from all the armies. Stuff more impressive than DoW2 where almost every battle played out the same way when we were playing. I viewed DoW2 as an extremely dumbed down RTS game. It's about as simple as an RTS can be without going back to the days of pong.
I'm going to go with what critical reviews and E-sports professionals state concerning the level of complication of Dawn of war two as compared to the least complicated critically successful RTS made in the last 10 years (dow1).
While I'm sure there's a lot of things in DoW2 that take more skill than most can manage, it doesn't make the game deep. The game is horribly shallow. I get what you're saying about counters and the usefulness of squad upgrades, but a dumbed down game is still dumbed down. This is the very reason I said it was a step forward five steps back. We appear to be at an impasse on opinions of what constitutes a good RTS game XD.
When you are going to call something dumbed down actually explaining how would be a good place to start. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels and lightly trolling.
We appear to be at an impasse on opinions of what constitutes a good RTS game XD.
We will be when you state what you believe makes one better then the other in more then baseless semantic form.
I enjoy it. Except for Void Ray spam. Void ray spam makes me cry
It's not hard to counter, just scout well so you know it's coming and tool your army accordingly.
How is a game critics opinion anymore valid than mine? I probably play as many video games as they do. I guess it doesn't count unless you're being published or paid. Otherwise an opinion is just worthless talk. The only difference between a critical opinion and mine is that I don't get paid for it.
Maybe I used the wrong word. High sales and good reviews does not equal a good game is probably what I should have said.
ShumaGorath wrote:We will be when you state what you believe makes one better then the other in more then baseless semantic form.
I went over it vaguely in an earlier post. Resource management can't get any simpler tan DoW2. You only have a single structure to deal with. Economy is as small a concern as possible in an RTS. Sure they added counters but the winner is still whoever can throw the most bullets at you. The cover system was nice and all but when I was playing it never amounted to anything. The opposing player would just disappear behind fog, run around the rather large open maps and come up on your side and toss you. It goes on like that for a little bit until someone has enough simple economy to spam out mech and instant win. I can see why E-Sports never picked up DoW1, it isn't the most complex RTS out there, but I don't see how DoW2 is any different. Every game plays out and ends the same way.
It's not hard to counter, just scout well so you know it's coming and tool your army accordingly.
Started scouting after a friend suggested it. EDIT: Rephrase, I was scouting but I was using the command center scan for it, and given how slow I am right now I ended up scanning too late to do anything about it. Also started spamming more marines early on to deal with rushing in general and to counter the rays until I can get vikings. I'm still to slow though to get going. Need more practice and I'm trying to memorize the hotkeys still. Likely I'm an achievement whore, so there's plenty of room to get some of this down to basics while stomping the poor computer into nothing.
ShumaGorath wrote:We will be when you state what you believe makes one better then the other in more then baseless semantic form.
I went over it vaguely in an earlier post. Resource management can't get any simpler tan DoW2. You only have a single structure to deal with. Economy is as small a concern as possible in an RTS. Sure they added counters but the winner is still whoever can throw the most bullets at you. The cover system was nice and all but when I was playing it never amounted to anything. The opposing player would just disappear behind fog, run around the rather large open maps and come up on your side and toss you. It goes on like that for a little bit until someone has enough simple economy to spam out mech and instant win. I can see why E-Sports never picked up DoW1, it isn't the most complex RTS out there, but I don't see how DoW2 is any different. Every game plays out and ends the same way.
This just makes it sound like you were not very well acquainted with the game when you played it, and your grasp of strategy in the game is quite unsound. Cover is most definitely a big concern, and mech(I use the term loosely, since I don't exactly know what you mean... a dreadnought? A razorback? Predator?) is most assuredly not an instant win as AV counters are in abundance.
You don't see how DoW2 is any different than DoW1 because you lack sufficient experience playing it to form an opinion about it. Each game plays out the same way if you mean you reduce your enemy to zero victory points, or you reach the winning amount of victory points in a FFA; while playing, you generally have to be pretty flexible to adapt to your opponent.
How is a game critics opinion anymore valid than mine?
It's not, however it's part of an industry wherein opinions can be rated, aggregated, and parsed through. Your opinion is anonymous to all but your close acquaintances. Since we don't have a way to determine popular opinion easily and with safeguards to ensure against tampering critical evaluation remains important. They also treat it as a job and are much more familiar with the industry at large and general game trends.
I went over it vaguely in an earlier post. Resource management can't get any simpler tan DoW2. You only have a single structure to deal with.
Which is the same as dawn of war one. There was requisition and power and you needed to have a single building to ever get it (otherwise you had lost). The resource management is identical.
Economy is as small a concern as possible in an RTS. Sure they added counters but the winner is still whoever can throw the most bullets at you. The cover system was nice and all but when I was playing it never amounted to anything.
Play me. Online. Right now.
I will crush you into the dust so easily it'll be like I was beating up a sleeping child. If you can state that the single most important part of the online game is meaningless then I doubt that you ever actually played this game online at all. Seriously. No. Being in hard cover reduces 90% of damage taken, that is NOT nothing and it has significant impact on every single game.
The opposing player would just disappear behind fog, run around the rather large open maps and come up on your side and toss you.
Dawn of war two possessed some of the most cluttered maps seen in any RTS in the genres history. Increasingly I'm thinking you didn't play this game. Also if they fled then you're winning, it's a game about taking territory where all resources come from territory taken.
It goes on like that for a little bit until someone has enough simple economy to spam out mech and instant win. I can see why E-Sports never picked up DoW1, it isn't the most complex RTS out there, but I don't see how DoW2 is any different. Every game plays out and ends the same way.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you were the target demographic of dawn of war one, not the second. You don't sound like you're very good at dawn of war two. Tier two teching isn't an instant win and meching up isn't either.
Started scouting after a friend suggested it. EDIT: Rephrase, I was scouting but I was using the command center scan for it, and given how slow I am right now I ended up scanning too late to do anything about it. Also started spamming more marines early on to deal with rushing in general and to counter the rays until I can get vikings. I'm still to slow though to get going. Need more practice and I'm trying to memorize the hotkeys still.
It'll come in time. I'm still not the best at actively scouting, I usually rely on my speed to counter theirs and most one on one maps make scouting he opposing base very early on difficult.
ShumaGorath wrote:Which is the same as dawn of war one. There was requisition and power and you needed to have a single building to ever get it (otherwise you had lost). The resource management is identical.
The need to build on the strategic points was a big difference. It is simple but it's not mind numbingly simple. You still needed to choose when to upgrade or if upgrading is even worth it in the larger scale of your economy. In DoW2 you just capture and leave it alone.
I will crush you into the dust so easily it'll be like I was beating up a sleeping child. If you can state that the single most important part of the online game is meaningless then I doubt that you ever actually played this game online at all. Seriously. No. Being in hard cover reduces 90% of damage taken, that is NOT nothing and it has significant impact on every single game.
Did you play the game when it came out? There were like three maps per game mode, and flanking an opponent was so simple you didn't even need to think about it.
Dawn of war two possessed some of the most cluttered maps seen in any RTS in the genres history. Increasingly I'm thinking you didn't play this game. Also if they fled then you're winning, it's a game about taking territory where all resources come from territory taken.
Maps were cluttered but the terrain itself made movement simple. All you had to do was run back where the defenders couldn't see you, go around a building and behind the guys platform or devastators. The maps had little on them to prevent free movement (ridges, choke points). What ridge lines they did have were very large and getting onto them wasn't difficult with more than enough room to move about and flank once you were there. There were rocks and trees and the like everywhere but they hardly made moving around difficult. I can only think of two maps that actually had choke points off the top of my head, and they were 3v3 maps. I think one of the 1v1's had a lot of ridges and rough terrain but for the life of me I can't remember ever playing it outside of comp stomps. In 1v1 I always seemed to play the same jungle map for whatever reason.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you were the target demographic of dawn of war one, not the second. You don't sound like you're very good at dawn of war two. Tier two teching isn't an instant win and meching up isn't either.
I'm probably not the best at DoW2, or any RTS, but I did significantly better at it than any other RTS I've ever played. Mech (by that I mean walkers and tanks) was in fact an easy win in almost all my games, for myself or the other team. If you pushed for it early you could get dreads and wraithlords out before the other side had obtained any anti-armor weapons or even teched up. Then you end up wiping out their two or three squads with no AA, and as long as the leader didn't have a power weapon, which if they didn't have AA he/she usually didn't. Even if they did have AA, it usually amounted to just one missile launcher or a platform. Take it out and they had nothing, and you could be back at your base churning out more dreadnoughts. Units were so expensive that if you wiped someone they pretty much lost. Early mech made wiping out a guys army easy.
I certainly did like DoW1. I played Age of Empires and Empire Earth and hated both though that was probably because I was twelve or thirteen (I think... the years fly). Total War was the first RTS I enjoyed, and then DoW got me going on to other RTS'. I get the appeal of DoW2, but I just thought that game was too simple. I stopped playing DoW2 month after release so it wouldn't surprise me that things have changed, but that's how it always went when I played, and I played about eighty some odd games. Did you have the game when it released? It sounds like we had two very different experiences, or maybe I just didn't stick around long enough for it to get better.
It'll come in time. I'm still not the best at actively scouting, I usually rely on my speed to counter theirs and most one on one maps make scouting he opposing base very early on difficult.
The prime problem I've always had in RTS' is multitasking. I can handle the management of three or four different buildings and unit groups easy enough but once you get down the line and things get more spaced out I have trouble keeping everything straight. My hands are very fickle little critters. They don't always hit the buttons I tell them too Practice practice. SCII is first game I've played in a long time I've actually been willing to work at being good in.
The need to build on the strategic points was a big difference. It is simple but it's not mind numbingly simple. You still needed to choose when to upgrade or if upgrading is even worth it in the larger scale of your economy. In DoW2 you just capture and leave it alone.
You have to build on strategic points in dawn of war two. Power was moved onto the map and generators are required to amp up their production. If the moving of a build asset and the addition of two more types of terrain capture points makes a game more simple I don't really understand why.
Did you play the game when it came out?
Yes, a significant amount. Likely far more then you. I also play it now after it has received several changes.
There were like three maps per game mode, and flanking an opponent was so simple you didn't even need to think about it.
Four IIRC, which has parity with things like TF2 and the original dawn of war at launch. Dow1 had 2 1v1 2 2v2 2 3v3 and 2 4v4. Thats eight maps. Equal number.
Maps were cluttered but the terrain itself made movement simple. All you had to do was run back where the defenders couldn't see you, go around a building and behind the guys platform or devastators.
So because it wasn't a canyon shooter it's more simple? I think you're using simple and difficult interchangeably to mean "I don't like it".
The maps had little on them to prevent free movement (ridges, choke points). What ridge lines they did have were very large and getting onto them wasn't difficult with more than enough room to move about and flank once you were there.
So because the maps lacked training wheels you didn't like them and all of a sudden they are simplistic and empty. Curious.
I can only think of two maps that actually had choke points off the top of my head, and they were 3v3 maps. I think one of the 1v1's had a lot of ridges and rough terrain but for the life of me I can't remember ever playing it outside of comp stomps. In 1v1 I always seemed to play the same jungle map for whatever reason.
So your opinion of maps is based on the number of ridges and choke points. Got it.
I'm probably not the best at DoW2, or any RTS, but I did significantly better at it than any other RTS I've ever played.
Forgive me for doubting that if an opponents actions such as "moving around a building" fumbled you. Your review of tactical gameplay and the number of games you have said you've played do not really line up.
Mech (by that I mean walkers and tanks) was in fact an easy win in almost all my games, for myself or the other team. If you pushed for it early you could get dreads and wraithlords out before the other side had obtained any anti-armor weapons or even teched up.
I had plenty of games that went to tier two and then three but still lasted quite a long time. If you're racing to tier two then you are losing control points and thus requisition making your opponent richer and allowing him to leverage more units against you. You may earn a few kills with your 30 second to 1 minute advantage but he is gaining enough resources to minimize his losses while your vehicle forces are unable to recapture locations. Also each faction had an anti vehicle weapon in tier one and an anti vehicle weapon for their commander. You played noobs.
I get the appeal of DoW2, but I just thought that game was too simple.
Every single person in the history of reviewing the game has said the exact opposite, as have numerous e-sport professionals. You have not exactly supported your statement well or logically and you've repeatedly made incorrect or confusing statements about the game which imply you either haven't played it in a long time or didn't play much when you did. It's just like, your opinion, man.
I stopped playing DoW2 month after release so it wouldn't surprise me that things have changed, but that's how it always went when I played, and I played about eighty some odd games. Did you have the game when it released? It sounds like we had two very different experiences, or maybe I just didn't stick around long enough for it to get better.
We had similar experiences, you just seem to have taken a different opinion away from them. The teching to tier two was a bit early and infantry warfare didn't last as long as it should have (something they fixed a few months after release actually) but in general it was still a highly complicated and enjoyable game with a significan't level of tactical play (something the first game couldn't hope to pretend to have). Dreadnauts weren't win buttons and if you're opponent wasn't teching at roughly the same speed you were then you were playing some awfully terrible people.
If you didn't like the tank fights try it again now, the games more about soft counters and map control then it was.
ShumaGorath wrote:You have to build on strategic points in dawn of war two. Power was moved onto the map and generators are required to amp up their production. If the moving of a build asset and the addition of two more types of terrain capture points makes a game more simple I don't really understand why.
Before power and requisition had to be managed. You had to manage expansion, construction, and unit production. Only one is really present in DoW2. Construction is almost non-existant.
Four IIRC, which has parity with things like TF2 and the original dawn of war at launch. Dow1 had 2 1v1 2 2v2 2 3v3 and 2 4v4. Thats eight maps. Equal number.
2v2 and 4v4 were not available at release. Unless my memory has gone crazy on me only 1v1 and 3v3 were available. I knew they added 2v2 but I was unaware that 4v4 had been added.
So because it wasn't a canyon shooter it's more simple? I think you're using simple and difficult interchangeably to mean "I don't like it".
The maps were so bland that you never needed to consider them to win. Flank flank flank. It was all the same. Granted this might be jaded because I honestly played the same 1v1 map for more than half the games I did by some fluke in probability.
So your opinion of maps is based on the number of ridges and choke points. Got it.
My opinion on maps is based on how the terrain can effect the game. When the only terrain in a map is cover, it doesn't really take much to flank the other player by disappearing back into fog where he can't see you.
Forgive me for doubting that if an opponents actions such as "moving around a building" fumbled you. Your review of tactical gameplay and the number of games you have said you've played do not really line up.
Thanks for calling me a liar. It's much appreciated. Heaven forbid I disagree with you.
I had plenty of games that went to tier two and then three but still lasted quite a long time. If you're racing to tier two then you are losing control points and thus requisition making your opponent richer and allowing him to leverage more units against you. You may earn a few kills with your 30 second to 1 minute advantage but he is gaining enough resources to minimize his losses while your vehicle forces are unable to recapture locations. Also each faction had an anti vehicle weapon in tier one and an anti vehicle weapon for their commander. You played noobs.
At release the AA appeared in T2. Meltabombs weren't available until you'd teched up, and niether were missile launchers. The only antiarmor weapons available to T1 units. I forget what the multipliers were but the weapons that commanders carried that worked against vehicles weren't T1 at release either. Some of the commanders didn't even have one (Techmarine) Seize the map and kill the other players infantry enough and he's too busy replacing them to tech up. Flamers made it easy. So did mass guardians.
Every single person in the history of reviewing the game has said the exact opposite, as have numerous e-sport professionals. You have not exactly supported your statement well or logically and you've repeatedly made incorrect or confusing statements about the game which imply you either haven't played it in a long time or didn't play much when you did. It's just like, your opinion, man.
I can see how the phrase "I think" can confuse you as to how everything I said is an opinion. I know its an opinion. So are you're mass numbers. Volume doesn't make them right. If logic matters as you say lose the bandwagon fallacy.
We had similar experiences, you just seem to have taken a different opinion away from them. The teching to tier two was a bit early and infantry warfare didn't last as long as it should have (something they fixed a few months after release actually) but in general it was still a highly complicated and enjoyable game with a significan't level of tactical play (something the first game couldn't hope to pretend to have). Dreadnauts weren't win buttons and if you're opponent wasn't teching at roughly the same speed you were then you were playing some awfully terrible people.
If you didn't like the tank fights try it again now, the games more about soft counters and map control then it was
Not surprised they changed it. Wouldn't be surprised if the people I ended up playing were noobs either. As with that instance of playing the same map over and over a lot of weird things happened to me with that game. Most of the other things were Windows Live and single player related.
god you guys are annoying. just play the game. if you are going to break each others posts down, then do it on PM....I know I am guilty of it, too...but jeez...never again...nobody wants to read that gak.
and Shuma, you are the master of it....
*waits for Shuma's smartass remark*
Automatically Appended Next Post: on another note...I love SC.....I remember the day I bought the first one....Blizzard did not let me down....
....where the feth is my Diablo 3?, you donkey-caves....
IG_urban wrote: just play the game. if you are going to break each others posts down, then do it on PM....I know I am guilty of it, too...but jeez...never again...nobody wants to read that gak.
But... its so fun!
IG_urban wrote:and Shuma, you are the master of it....
*waits for Shuma's smartass remark*
I raise you...
IG_urban wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: on another note...I love SC.....I remember the day I bought the first one....Blizzard did not let me down....
....where the feth is my Diablo 3?, you donkey-caves....
legoburner wrote:
Incredible game though, combines nostalgia of the old with an incredible soundtrack which I will certainly hear at the next videogames live concert, and beautiful graphics with a very engaging story. Not been this hooked on a game in a looooong time. I'm about halfway through now, so am starting to get a lot of the fun toys in the game as well
FYI, the soundtrack is availble on iTunes..it seems to be really complete! Although, the songs they play from the jukebox aren't included.
im addicted. i have played every day since i have had the game...except yesterday! yesterday was the first time since release that i have not been able to play SCII. i gotta say, Blizzard did a MARVELOUS job setting the game. and achievements make the game more fun! imm trying to get to 1000 points on my achievements lol, im close.
Automatically Appended Next Post: sorry to tell you shuma, but SCII tops DOW any day ^^ until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!
Kyric wrote:
sorry to tell you shuma, but SCII tops DOW any day ^^ until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!
Although if we're really talking about DoW1, then yea you're right
sorry to tell you shuma, but SCII tops DOW any day ^^ until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!
SCII tops dawn of war 1 any day, it's not particularly comparable to the second which is a very different game. Also the GW steals armies in reference to blizzard not stealing armies is an old troll and sir you've been caught in it!
not sure what you mean by that shuma, but do you have any idea how similar DOW and SCII are? i laughed when the terran started using "Drop Pods" and the protoss started using "Warp gates" i realized how much like the 40k armies they are being. FUNNY STUFF MAN!
anywho, i was referring to both dow games sucking. ty. ^^
Kyric wrote: until DOW becomes more like the books and stories, and they stop ripping armies off, then maybe it will b good!
Then you have an awful taste in literature. The DOW books were Fething slowed. Anyone that considers a C.S. Goto novel to be quality stuff deserves to catch a bullet. And I don't see how DoW is "ripping armies off". Unless of course, you mean the part where 40K ripped off a product that it preceeded by 11 years. Man, those Space Marines sure copied the Terran Marines that came out 11 years later than the GW product.
Been having a blast with SC2. Also recently came across some interesting potential for use map settings maps but some of these vids are old, however can't wait to try out some of these triggers once I put some time into the map editor:
Stuff from a year ago:
The map editor is almost like a game engine in itself. One of the best things about PC gaming is the unlimited potential if the user community's harnessed by providing tools and support such as a great map editor.
Kyric wrote:not sure what you mean by that shuma, but do you have any idea how similar DOW and SCII are? i laughed when the terran started using "Drop Pods" and the protoss started using "Warp gates" i realized how much like the 40k armies they are being. FUNNY STUFF MAN!
anywho, i was referring to both dow games sucking. ty. ^^
I <3 daedalus-templarius xD
Drop pods and warp gates? You mean the things that games workshop stole from starship troopers and basically every saturday morning cartoon in the 70's and 80's? Yes, clearly they are cribbing games workshop because of the drop pods and the stargates. I mean, it's not like every single other science fiction property has those too.
Back on the topic of SCII, tried three games last night and I won them all XD. It's a personal best. For once in my life of RTS gaming I have a flawless record . Practice does pay off. Granted one of the guys left the game at the very start before anything happened but it still counts as three.
as to the DoW vs SC rip off question: Welcome to the wonderful world of imagination, where your idea can always be boiled down to someone elses idea. I mean, what's up with health bars? Stop copying Dungeons and Dragons!
Yeah, it is especially tough with Sci/Fi and Fanatasy settings, where so much as been borrowed and re-borrowed over the years. Still, I too giggled a bit when I saw that in SC II, Terrans make use of Drop Pods . I actually like the inclusion honestly, as they are used differently enough from 40k to be interesting.
I hate that Blizz didn't DO anything with it other then update the graphics engine, and steal a few more units from 40k. This is NOT ten years worth of development and x million dollars.
It's no where near their hype for it (which, admittedly, makes it sound like playing it cures both AIDS and cancer, as well as make you more attractive and badassed.)
I played through the single player campaign, as was irritated by the number of timer missions. This was something that irritated the crap out of me in the first game, and was done better in it. 'Hold for X mins against impossible hoard' and 'kill x enemies'. The one that got my goat the most was the Zeratul 'Kobayashi Maru' mission. The better you are, the longer it takes. (It took me four hours and 20k enemies on 'normal' on my first play-through to come to that conclusion. I actually had to stop trying in order to win. Kind of counter intuitive.)
I also hate the loss of LAN/Spawn/more then one race. It's like someone gave me 1/3rd of SC 1 with a graphics upgrade and charged me $60.
There are more races coming Baron. But the kicker is that it's going to be XPack content. Blizzard's 'official' reason: "We can focus more on building the storyline if we space it out"
Translation: "F**k your customer loyalty and patience for the last 12 years. You want a 100% complete game, you'll have to pay more than a meagre $70 for it!"
But being that they merged with Activision, that should hardly come as a suprise.
Like I said, it's a good beer and pretzels RTS for the casual player. Or it's great if you're a fan of the old titles. But as far as a modern RTS goes, it's as if it's format is behind by a deca-right...
X.x WOW...have you not seen ANYTHING that the SCII Game engine can do!?? its not just a video imrpovement, but SCII has potential to be ANYTHING. a 3rd person shooter, a Dungeon raiding RPG, even the game with the little ship that tries to dodge alien bullets and shoot the space ships! And that is only the tip of the iceberg! i mean cmon! if that is not a hell of a game engine, name me 1 game that can do HALF of that! none? WIN!
Currently there isn't a game engine that can keep up with SCII's. it is literally that complex! yea, i can see why 10 years of developements went into that game. because once again, for the next 10 years, it will be used for the developement of every OTHER game! just like the first one was used.
Anywho, it wasn't SC that stole from 40k, it was 40k that stole from SC
Sorry Kyric, but the Source Engine is just one of many engines that have Starcraft II beat IMO. That's not to say that the SCII Editor isn't a wonderful piece of technology, but it's certainly not the cream-of-the-crop. Hell, I've even seen a mod for FO3, which is Bethesda drivel, that turns the game into an RTS/RPG hybrid. Blizzard's editor isn't -really- isn't anything special. Developers have been putting out editors capable of cross-genre builds for years.
And this:
Anywho, it wasn't SC that stole from 40k, it was 40k that stole from SC
CUZ I SAID SO! xD
Ya' silly little munchkin! Get back in that chocolate factory and sing me a song about Oompa Loompas and sweets!
Kyric wrote:X.x WOW...have you not seen ANYTHING that the SCII Game engine can do!?? its not just a video imrpovement, but SCII has potential to be ANYTHING. a 3rd person shooter, a Dungeon raiding RPG, even the game with the little ship that tries to dodge alien bullets and shoot the space ships! And that is only the tip of the iceberg! i mean cmon! if that is not a hell of a game engine, name me 1 game that can do HALF of that!
Havok Engine. Been around forever. Has way less bugs then SC II.
Kyric wrote:
Currently there isn't a game engine that can keep up with SCII's. it is literally that complex! yea, i can see why 10 years of developements went into that game. because once again, for the next 10 years, it will be used for the developement of every OTHER game! just like the first one was used.
Um, SC 1 used a modified WCII engine.
Kyric wrote:
Anywho, it wasn't SC that stole from 40k, it was 40k that stole from SC
CUZ I SAID SO! xD
That statement is so silly I almost ignored it. But frankly, if I was GW, I'd be sending Blizz C&Ds instead of sending them to fan sites.
Heart of the Swarm speculations:
In the first "expansion" of StarCraft II, which will focus on Zerg, we will propably gonna follow Samir Duran + some sidekick infester terrans/cerabretes and Hybrid boss who follows the command of the Xel'Naga "The Fallen One".
>(sidenote, isn't it hillarious that both WoW and Starcraft now have the big bad guy to be a "fallen" one?).
We'll see the yet again expansion of the Zerg threat as Raynor&Protoss pals, Dominion and UED (and possibly some renagade cerabrets) comes to stand in their way, just to miserably fail over and over. And even more revealing of the background story.
And after all this with the Protoss part >(what's it's name again?).
We will help Protoss&Raynor pewpew the Zerg and propably kill the Fallen one.
Happy Ending and Kerrigan&Raynor marries, and they lived happly everafter.
Thorheim wrote:Heart of the Swarm speculations:
In the first "expansion" of StarCraft II, which will focus on Zerg, we will propably gonna follow Samir Duran + some sidekick infester terrans/cerabretes and Hybrid boss who follows the command of the Xel'Naga "The Fallen One".
>(sidenote, isn't it hillarious that both WoW and Starcraft now have the big bad guy to be a "fallen" one?).
We'll see the yet again expansion of the Zerg threat as Raynor&Protoss pals, Dominion and UED (and possibly some renagade cerabrets) comes to stand in their way, just to miserably fail over and over. And even more revealing of the background story.
And after all this with the Protoss part >(what's it's name again?).
We will help Protoss&Raynor pewpew the Zerg and propably kill the Fallen one.
Happy Ending and Kerrigan&Raynor marries, and they lived happly everafter.
How does this sound?
Few flaws with this:
HoTS is being called "First in a series of expanions", meaning that the story of SCII will be told through several expansions
HoTS will, as per Blizzard, focus on Kerrigan during the events of the original SCII, leading up to and going a little ways past Jim finding her after the Artifact's blast.
The second expansion after HoTS is supposedly going to cover the Protoss in a lot of depth, so it's unlikely HoTS will contain any Protoss missions.
No word on the UED returning. I'm guessing that won't happen for a while (if at all).
I hate that Blizz didn't DO anything with it other then update the graphics engine, and steal a few more units from 40k. This is NOT ten years worth of development and x million dollars.
Blizzard did quite a lot, the online space of battlenet is quite revolutionary in the genre and there have been several non cosmetic changes to the gameplay. The campaign is lengthy and sizeable with great online integration and a significant number of units and possible strategies and there is a single player challenge mode which presents even more play value for the dollar. The game has not been in development for yen years straight and it's one of the most densely content packed RTS titles to ever have been released. It puts the gak EA has been throwing out for command and conquer to shame and it's offerings are every bit as competitive as what relic has been doing (while providing a much more complete online game out of the box).
You're a hater without a cause.
I played through the single player campaign, as was irritated by the number of timer missions. This was something that irritated the crap out of me in the first game, and was done better in it. 'Hold for X mins against impossible hoard' and 'kill x enemies'. The one that got my goat the most was the Zeratul 'Kobayashi Maru' mission. The better you are, the longer it takes. (It took me four hours and 20k enemies on 'normal' on my first play-through to come to that conclusion. I actually had to stop trying in order to win. Kind of counter intuitive.)
I held for well longer than was needed as well. Perhaps you should play on a harder difficulty.
I also hate the loss of LAN/Spawn/more then one race. It's like someone gave me 1/3rd of SC 1 with a graphics upgrade and charged me $60.
Losing LAN support is annoying but it's not really a necessary evil anymore (doing more to simply aid in piracy then in aiding lan parties) given that the battle.net system serves the exact same function and 99% of people playing this game are going to have an active internet connection.
There are more races coming Baron. But the kicker is that it's going to be XPack content. Blizzard's 'official' reason: "We can focus more on building the storyline if we space it out"
Yes, it's as if companies putting out RTS games put new races into expansions. Games like command and conquer and dawn of war! This complaint is bull***.
Translation: "F**k your customer loyalty and patience for the last 12 years. You want a 100% complete game, you'll have to pay more than a meagre $70 for it!"
But being that they merged with Activision, that should hardly come as a suprise.
Like I said, it's a good beer and pretzels RTS for the casual player. Or it's great if you're a fan of the old titles. But as far as a modern RTS goes, it's as if it's format is behind by a deca-right...
Yes, because so many people loved the changes made to the command and conquer series! Clearly in refining what was popular before blizzard has made a game that is "behind the times". You know what needs updating too? First person shooters, you shoot too much and it's all in first person. They should change it all so it's more "modern".
Sorry Kyric, but the Source Engine is just one of many engines that have Starcraft II beat IMO.
The source engine is old and outmodded. No ones been praising left 4 dead 2 or portal for their lush and detailed environments. Thats because they are incapable of them (also they are incapable of large outdoor spaces which is why they are all canyon shooters at best). The source engine has held up well, but it's an engine for the FPS genre and performs horrifically in anything close to an RTS platform game (draw distance is inherently tied to processor use for instance, a giant empty box can kill a high end computer if it's big enough).
That's not to say that the SCII Editor isn't a wonderful piece of technology, but it's certainly not the cream-of-the-crop. Hell, I've even seen a mod for FO3, which is Bethesda drivel, that turns the game into an RTS/RPG hybrid.
Thats an out of engine mod using coders and out of engine assets. It is not using anything packaged with fallout 3. This comparison is also bull****.
Blizzard's editor isn't -really- isn't anything special. Developers have been putting out editors capable of cross-genre builds for years.
No not really. They've been releasing SDKs for years, which is a far cry from a comprehensive user oriented map editor.
Havok Engine. Been around forever. Has way less bugs then SC II.
The havok engine is a piece of proprietary physics software that is recoded and optimized in every game that its placed in. In many games it's buggy as gak. It doesn't have bugs because it's not an interactive product. It's a set of tools.
That statement is so silly I almost ignored it. But frankly, if I was GW, I'd be sending Blizz C&Ds instead of sending them to fan sites.
Who cares, both companies are ripoff artists.
You three should become a bit more aquianted with game development or at least try to argue from a factual basis in the future. This isn't rantcraft 2.
HoTS is being called "First in a series of expanions", meaning that the story of SCII will be told through several expansions
HoTS will, as per Blizzard, focus on Kerrigan during the events of the original SCII, leading up to and going a little ways past Jim finding her after the Artifact's blast.
The second expansion after HoTS is supposedly going to cover the Protoss in a lot of depth, so it's unlikely HoTS will contain any Protoss missions.
No word on the UED returning. I'm guessing that won't happen for a while (if at all).
Ah had not read up on that, so we are basicly going to pay for allto of expansions with basicly the same price over and over? Gotta milk them money Activision!
But nice that we are getting some background story what happend to Kerrigan during Wings of Liberty.
Pretty much. You're paying for background. It's supposed to be out later this year. Apparently there won't be any new units or buildings. No word on more MP maps either. Sounds like it's just going to be another campaign for around the $30-$40 range.
metallifan wrote:Pretty much. You're paying for background. It's supposed to be out later this year. Apparently there won't be any new units or buildings. No word on more MP maps either. Sounds like it's just going to be another campaign for around the $30-$40 range.
I've never heard a single thing that states "no new units or buildings" anywhere. Where are you getting this information? It's not the wiki, I've read that, it's not the wikia, I've read that, it's no blizzard site, and it's not ign, gamespot, gamespy, or kotaku. Is this just something you hear on a forum somewhere? It's patently ridiculous to assume that they would include no new multiplayer content.
Shuma, where did I say "No new multiplayer content"?
I said:
No word on more MP maps either
Which means "I haven't heard anything about new MP maps yet", just as it reads. Not "They're not adding any"
Come on mate, you're not Fateweaver. Just not all there right now? All I've read is that there won't be new units. I just haven't heard anything about new maps/content for MP.
BaronIveagh wrote:Havok Engine. Been around forever. Has way less bugs then SC II.
Havok is a physics engine, not a game engine. You can't build a game just off Havok like you could Source (Which I believe actually contains some version of Havok) or Unreal. Physics Engine != game engine.
Losing LAN support is annoying but it's not really a necessary evil anymore (doing more to simply aid in piracy then in aiding lan parties) given that the battle.net system serves the exact same function and 99% of people playing this game are going to have an active internet connection.
This. LAN parties were fun, but the internet isn't the slow laggy crapfest it was back in the day. Heck, you can still have the equivalent of a LAN party! Just go to a place with public internet access, hook up and have fun. If you have a good enough home connection you can even do it at your house. There are some insanely fast internet options out there today.
The source engine is old and outmodded.
QFT. Valve has done a lot for the the mod community, and the Source engine was a wonderful thing, half a decade ago... Honestly, I'd like to see Valve release something new. Source is still a wonderful engine for a lot of things, but the poor thing is getting old and senile.
metallifan wrote:Shuma, where did I say "No new multiplayer content"?
I said:
No word on more MP maps either
Which means "I haven't heard anything about new MP maps yet", just as it reads. Not "They're not adding any"
Come on mate, you're not Fateweaver. Just not all there right now? All I've read is that there won't be new units. I just haven't heard anything about new maps/content for MP.
Stop equivocating, you said no new units or structures. That is bs, you are making things up. The entire point of my post was to call out the entirety of your post, I don't really care if you make a small ironic accommodation in the middle of it. Thats like a piece of ham in a sandwich that used bricks instead of bread.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Blizzard did quite a lot, the online space of battlenet is quite revolutionary in the genre and there have been several non cosmetic changes to the gameplay. The campaign is lengthy and sizeable with great online integration and a significant number of units and possible strategies and there is a single player challenge mode which presents even more play value for the dollar. The game has not been in development for yen years straight and it's one of the most densely content packed RTS titles to ever have been released. It puts the gak EA has been throwing out for command and conquer to shame and it's offerings are every bit as competitive as what relic has been doing (while providing a much more complete online game out of the box).
You're a hater without a cause.
Um, if battlenet is revolutionary, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. I'd call it steam's ugly cousin, but that's be insulting to steam. I grant the campaign is lengthy. In fact, it's way lengthier then it probably should have been, since it seemed like every other mission was 'wait this long, occasionally shoot zerg/protoss, and win scenario'. If I can turtle and sit afk and win the battle (possible with auto-repairing scvs + the 'honest it's not living metal' upgrade) thats not exactly deep gameplay there.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I held for well longer than was needed as well. Perhaps you should play on a harder difficulty.
I always do the first playthrough on 'normal' or it's equiv when I get a game. Mostly since I'm never sure if it's going to be 'Hard' or '8 star hard'
ShumaGorath wrote:
Losing LAN support is annoying but it's not really a necessary evil anymore (doing more to simply aid in piracy then in aiding lan parties) given that the battle.net system serves the exact same function and 99% of people playing this game are going to have an active internet connection.
It's really annoying if you're in that one percent that are, say, connected via a government network and not allowed to have an alternative outside connection. Or if you're like a growing segment of the population that has had to turn off their home highspeed internet to save money due to unemployment. Or if you play on a laptop and are someplace the connection is spotty/battlenet blocked (hotels/some internet cafes)
Of course, if Blizz does take battlenet pay to play, like they've been talking about since last year, we might hear a change of tune.
Um, if battlenet is revolutionary, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
How much?
. I'd call it steam's ugly cousin, but that's be insulting to steam.
Yeah, I know. Battlenets never crashed when I tried closing it, it's nothing like steam! Realistically it's vastly closer to WoWs in game networking system (which it is based on) then steam which includes a significantly different interface.
I grant the campaign is lengthy. In fact, it's way lengthier then it probably should have been, since it seemed like every other mission was 'wait this long, occasionally shoot zerg/protoss, and win scenario'.
There were like four forcefully timed missions out of 27. There were several others that could not be completed until scripted events (Such as the train mission) but you're vastly overstating this.
If I can turtle and sit afk and win the battle (possible with auto-repairing scvs + the 'honest it's not living metal' upgrade) thats not exactly deep gameplay there.
Cool, you can't do that IN A SINGLE MISSION IN THE GAME.
I always do the first playthrough on 'normal' or it's equiv when I get a game. Mostly since I'm never sure if it's going to be 'Hard' or '8 star hard'
Same.
It's really annoying if you're in that one percent that are, say, connected via a government network and not allowed to have an alternative outside connection. Or if you're like a growing segment of the population that has had to turn off their home highspeed internet to save money due to unemployment. Or if you play on a laptop and are someplace the connection is spotty/battlenet blocked (hotels/some internet cafes)
If your unemployed why are you buying a sixty dollar videogame and intermittent internet connectivity has never been an issue for me and I "LAN" regularly at my apartment. I'm not one of the one percent though, and since it's one percent I don't really care.
Of course, if Blizz does take battlenet pay to play, like they've been talking about since last year, we might hear a change of tune.
Yeah, they have monthly and daily fees in several regions. They also have box sales in those places too. The micro transaction pricing structure is commonplace in asian countries.
You should probably do research into pricing trends in the asian continent before decrying the use of a standard pricing scheme by a company with a large sales volumes in those areas. Most companies (including blizzard) refuse to use such pricing structures in the west because it's counterintuitive to rapidly recouping the cost of development in their primary markets (where people have more money).
Cool, you can't do that IN A SINGLE MISSION IN THE GAME.
Actually, that's how I won the train mission. I set the diamond backs and some other stuff to patrol between the two dug in points and the end points of the tracks and killed every train. There were enough bunkers to kill the kill team since they split between the two points due to pathing.
Cool, you can't do that IN A SINGLE MISSION IN THE GAME.
Actually, that's how I won the train mission. I set the diamond backs and some other stuff to patrol between the two dug in points and the end points of the tracks and killed every train. There were enough bunkers to kill the kill team since they split between the two points due to pathing.
... Ok, yeah, I can see that on normal. I will give you that one.
Um, if battlenet is revolutionary, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
How much?
. I'd call it steam's ugly cousin, but that's be insulting to steam.
Yeah, I know. Battlenets never crashed when I tried closing it, it's nothing like steam! Realistically it's vastly closer to WoWs in game networking system (which it is based on) then steam which includes a significantly different interface.
I grant the campaign is lengthy. In fact, it's way lengthier then it probably should have been, since it seemed like every other mission was 'wait this long, occasionally shoot zerg/protoss, and win scenario'.
There were like four forcefully timed missions out of 27. There were several others that could not be completed until scripted events (Such as the train mission) but you're vastly overstating this.
If I can turtle and sit afk and win the battle (possible with auto-repairing scvs + the 'honest it's not living metal' upgrade) thats not exactly deep gameplay there.
Cool, you can't do that IN A SINGLE MISSION IN THE GAME.
I always do the first playthrough on 'normal' or it's equiv when I get a game. Mostly since I'm never sure if it's going to be 'Hard' or '8 star hard'
Same.
It's really annoying if you're in that one percent that are, say, connected via a government network and not allowed to have an alternative outside connection. Or if you're like a growing segment of the population that has had to turn off their home highspeed internet to save money due to unemployment. Or if you play on a laptop and are someplace the connection is spotty/battlenet blocked (hotels/some internet cafes)
If your unemployed why are you buying a sixty dollar videogame and intermittent internet connectivity has never been an issue for me and I "LAN" regularly at my apartment. I'm not one of the one percent though, and since it's one percent I don't really care.
Of course, if Blizz does take battlenet pay to play, like they've been talking about since last year, we might hear a change of tune.
Yeah, they have monthly and daily fees in several regions. They also have box sales in those places too. The micro transaction pricing structure is commonplace in asian countries.
You should probably do research into pricing trends in the asian continent before decrying the use of a standard pricing scheme by a company with a large sales volumes in those areas. Most companies (including blizzard) refuse to use such pricing structures in the west because it's counterintuitive to rapidly recouping the cost of development in their primary markets (where people have more money).
I'm loving the game. Picked it up this past week and i've played through the first four missions. The whole always connected to BNet was a bit iffy to me at first but It's growing on me with the news and community updates right there. The achievements are fun and the launcher/patcher works great. It reminds me a lot of WoW.
I haven't played anything but the campaign yet and so far I like the story and the way they've put it together. It's not revolutionary I suppose as far as things go, but it's still damn fun.
I'm playing on a Mac that's four years old so I can't have the graphical settings up too high but I've found a good balance that makes it look great and still very playable. Having my system maxed on on RAM helped out big time.
I was going to let it go at forcing him to admit that I had at least one point, but since some joker thought his post was made of win, I must now expose it as epic FAIL.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, I know. Battlenets never crashed when I tried closing it, it's nothing like steam! Realistically it's vastly closer to WoWs in game networking system (which it is based on) then steam which includes a significantly different interface.
I suppose it's not, since steam wasn't hacked within two hours of activation, like battle.net was.
ShumaGorath wrote:
If your unemployed why are you buying a sixty dollar videogame and intermittent internet connectivity has never been an issue for me and I "LAN" regularly at my apartment. I'm not one of the one percent though, and since it's one percent I don't really care.
That one percent is laying down their lives for you in desert hellholes and obscure third world countries. Or deciding how much you pay in taxes next year. Both should be cause for your concern.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, they have monthly and daily fees in several regions. They also have box sales in those places too. The micro transaction pricing structure is commonplace in asian countries.
You should probably do research into pricing trends in the asian continent before decrying the use of a standard pricing scheme by a company with a large sales volumes in those areas. Most companies (including blizzard) refuse to use such pricing structures in the west because it's counterintuitive to rapidly recouping the cost of development in their primary markets (where people have more money).
I'm also familiar with the South American pricing. SCII will set you back 119 Argentine Pesos, 235 for Unlimited use. Admittedly, it's half price for your initial purchase, but figure on paying 3-6 times that in subscription fees. Further, in some locations, they're charging the full 60 bucks (equiv) for the box and then again for the subscription (Estonia, Ukraine).
In Singapore, it actually costs $20 more up front (current conversion) then it does here, AND they get the subscription fee. Isn't THAT a pleasant thought...
And people wonder why software piracy is rampant there!
Wow, a lot of back and forth on the merits of the game! For me, I just finished the campaign yesterday, and I thought it was a blast from start to finish! Took me a couple of tries to get the hang of the "All In" mission, though. Now it's time to focus on the multiplayer! Anyway, for me this game was well worth the price, and I can't wait for the expansions.
BTW, the only thing I really take issue with from the above discussion is the characterization of this game as "Beer and Pretzels." This suggests the game has no depth of strategy to it and can be played competitively with little or no thought. I think that is factually inaccurate, especially in multiplayer.
I suppose it's not, since steam wasn't hacked within two hours of activation, like battle.net was.
Steam was hacked when it was in beta. My roomate had dawn of war 2 on a hacked steam/windows live account. None of these services are impenetrable. It also features a slew of phishing and account stealing scams.
That one percent is laying down their lives for you in desert hellholes and obscure third world countries. Or deciding how much you pay in taxes next year. Both should be cause for your concern.
I'm pretty sure the CBO and congress have access to better internet then I do and the soldiers can just play halo.
I'm also familiar with the South American pricing. SCII will set you back 119 Argentine Pesos, 235 for Unlimited use. Admittedly, it's half price for your initial purchase, but figure on paying 3-6 times that in subscription fees. Further, in some locations, they're charging the full 60 bucks (equiv) for the box and then again for the subscription (Estonia, Ukraine).
In Singapore, it actually costs $20 more up front (current conversion) then it does here, AND they get the subscription fee. Isn't THAT a pleasant thought...
And people wonder why software piracy is rampant there!
Those prices are designed specifically to counteract software piracy. Microstransaction and subscription models reduce the ease of use in pirated software. Regional price increases aren't particularly surprising either. Australia pays 80-100 dollars for the same boxes we do.
I was going to let it go at forcing him to admit that I had at least one point, but since some joker thought his post was made of win, I must now expose it as epic FAIL.
You're going to have to try harder then just appealing to the soldiers.
I'm pretty sure the CBO and congress have access to better internet then I do and the soldiers can just play halo.
I can vouche for Iraq's internet sucking. Soldiers have been very vocal about DRM's that require constant internet for play because when deployed they just don't have access to internet of that quality if any at all. It's not just soldiers though. A lot of rural areas have horrible internet even here in the States. I don't think it's wrong for such people to complain about internet that isn't available to them being a requirement for the game to be usable.
BaronIveagh wrote:I was going to let it go at forcing him to admit that I had at least one point, but since some joker thought his post was made of win, I must now expose it as epic FAIL.
Aw thanks, I always wanted to be like the Joker...
Ruckdog wrote:Wow, a lot of back and forth on the merits of the game! For me, I just finished the campaign yesterday, and I thought it was a blast from start to finish! Took me a couple of tries to get the hang of the "All In" mission, though. Now it's time to focus on the multiplayer! Anyway, for me this game was well worth the price, and I can't wait for the expansions.
BTW, the only thing I really take issue with from the above discussion is the characterization of this game as "Beer and Pretzels." This suggests the game has no depth of strategy to it and can be played competitively with little or no thought. I think that is factually inaccurate, especially in multiplayer.
I definitely agree for the most part - but I for one played just about every campaign mission the same. For the most part, build some defenses, turtle up for a while while I build up a kill team (typically the MMM strategy - Marines, Medics, Marauders) and sent it out to take out the enemy base(s). Oh, sure, some missions required a bit more flexibility - the train mission, for example, and definitely the zombies mission, but for the most part, it didn't require much more than that.
...then again, I'm playing on Normal, so take my experiences with a grain of salt. Normal is pretty easy, other than All In.
ShumaGorath wrote:Steam was hacked when it was in beta. My roomate had dawn of war 2 on a hacked steam/windows live account. None of these services are impenetrable. It also features a slew of phishing and account stealing scams.
Actually I was referring to actually hacking the system and giving yourself achievements. Phishing for account info is easy. Breaking the actual server side protections is harder.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I'm pretty sure the CBO and congress have access to better internet then I do and the soldiers can just play halo.
If you think those are the only people that adjust your taxes, you really don't know how US government works. Or doesn't, depending on your view. And it's nice to see such a refreshingly charitable view toward those that keep your ass safe.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Those prices are designed specifically to counteract software piracy. Microstransaction and subscription models reduce the ease of use in pirated software. Regional price increases aren't particularly surprising either. Australia pays 80-100 dollars for the same boxes we do.
So, wait, charging even more extortionist prices and crippling software encourages people to not pirate said software? That's like saying that dosing a man up on viagara before tossing him in a room full of drunk, naked, hotties high on aphrodisiacs discourages him from getting laid. This runs against what would appear to be common sense.
Actually I was referring to actually hacking the system and giving yourself achievements. Phishing for account info is easy. Breaking the actual server side protections is harder.
Thats why I said It also. That implies a differentiation from what I was directly quoting in some way. Steam was hacked when it was in beta and has been hacked continuously ever since. You can download gamerips of steam and get everything for free and you've been able to for years.
As an aside since I'm not sure I actually believe you, please site a source when you claim that battle.net has been hacked to give all achievements for free. A cursory googling didn't find anything, but I didn't look all that hard.
If you think those are the only people that adjust your taxes, you really don't know how US government works. Or doesn't, depending on your view. And it's nice to see such a refreshingly charitable view toward those that keep your ass safe.
You know what? Lets just agree that you said something wacky and inscrutable concerning the taxes. Did you mean wellfare recipients or something? Who is governing my tax rates, is trying to play starcraft, but does not have access to the internet? Also if soldiers want to lan starcraft on all their lovely high end laptops they keep in their napsacks then I feel sorry for them. It must be hard for them to not be able to access a brand new computer entertainment title easily. When I was 12 I didn't have a nintendo. I know exactly how they feel.
So, wait, charging even more extortionist prices and crippling software encourages people to not pirate said software?
The prices are artifacts of regional repricing, that occurs with most forms of software. The fees are reletively meaningless, it's the methodology behind starcraft battlenet which requires a unique login signature and account to be utilized online that helps to prevent piracy. Those monthly/daily/weekly fees are tied to the battle.net account itself. It's one of the reasons MMOs are targeted specifically to asian markets heavily. It's a difficult genre to pirate meaningfully (unless you just want to play alone or on a shell server with like 100 people on it max). Exactly what point are you making anyway? That blizzard is evil and trying to rape people or something? It's a videogame, not food, if it didn't sell they wouldn't charge that for it.
that's like saying that dosing a man up on viagara before tossing him in a room full of drunk, naked, hotties high on aphrodisiacs discourages him from getting laid.
No, but I appreciate that you took the time to make an example for a situation you don't fully comprehend.
This runs against what would appear to be common sense.
ShumaGorath wrote:
As an aside since I'm not sure I actually believe you, please site a source when you claim that battle.net has been hacked to give all achievements for free. A cursory googling didn't find anything, but I didn't look all that hard.
Was quite the online scandal back at launch in 1997. Basically, a coder calling himself Bobafett created what amounted to an early trainer. When Diablo connected to battle.net, you could change how many times you had killed Diablo, play online in god mode, etc, etc, because of how battle.net worked at that time.
ShumaGorath wrote:
You know what? Lets just agree that you said something wacky and inscrutable concerning the taxes. Did you mean wellfare recipients or something?
Actually I was talking about local and state governments (welfare recipients get more money then some of the departments that do things like keep the streets clean). Also toss in anyone who connects via the same connection they use for buisness, SOx compliance basically precluding the ability to connect to battle.net
ShumaGorath wrote:
The prices are artifacts of regional repricing, that occurs with most forms of software. The fees are reletively meaningless, it's the methodology behind starcraft battlenet which requires a unique login signature and account to be utilized online that helps to prevent piracy. Those monthly/daily/weekly fees are tied to the battle.net account itself. It's one of the reasons MMOs are targeted specifically to asian markets heavily. It's a difficult genre to pirate meaningfully (unless you just want to play alone or on a shell server with like 100 people on it max).
Actually, I've seen pirate servers for at least one mmos with over a thousand members, but we'll leave it at that. Blizzard is charging more because they claim that they want to build servers in Singapore but do not have the money to build them. So atm people there are paying a premium only to be routed via a high ping connection to the US. Blizz has not announced when these local servers will be up, if ever. They're manufacturing the product locally, in simple plastic sleeves.
As far as MMOs for Asia, I'm familiar with the Japan/South Korea market for these. I'm also familiar with China not permitting MMOs in China to interface with servers outside China (most gold farmers either have a good proxy or are actually in a country other then China. This policy lead to several internal disasters for EvE Online's separate Chinese server.) The difference is that most of those games are free to play, and instead have premium items/content that you pay for. What Blizz is doing is charging for the right to play a game you've already bought, in any country they can get away with it.
Was quite the online scandal back at launch in 1997. Basically, a coder calling himself Bobafett created what amounted to an early trainer. When Diablo connected to battle.net, you could change how many times you had killed Diablo, play online in god mode, etc, etc, because of how battle.net worked at that time.
Are you kidding? They didn't even have achievements back then and this version of battlenet is totally different then the one that launched with diablo thirteen years ago. You were just making it up, I knew it.
Actually I was talking about local and state governments (welfare recipients get more money then some of the departments that do things like keep the streets clean). Also toss in anyone who connects via the same connection they use for buisness, SOx compliance basically precluding the ability to connect to battle.net
This all sounds like a tremendous strawman.
Actually, I've seen pirate servers for at least one mmos with over a thousand members, but we'll leave it at that.
Yeah, I had a friend on a private WoW server with over a thousand people, but thats actually pretty bare for playercount. You generally have to be careful since hacking and manipulation is rampant in private servers and you generally have to wait to get new content. It's about making the value proposition for doing so as poor as possible so that people don't try.
Blizzard is charging more because they claim that they want to build servers in Singapore but do not have the money to build them.
Site source.
So atm people there are paying a premium only to be routed via a high ping connection to the US. Blizz has not announced when these local servers will be up, if ever. They're manufacturing the product locally, in simple plastic sleeves.
Again, site source please.
As far as MMOs for Asia, I'm familiar with the Japan/South Korea market for these. I'm also familiar with China not permitting MMOs in China to interface with servers outside China (most gold farmers either have a good proxy or are actually in a country other then China. This policy lead to several internal disasters for EvE Online's separate Chinese server.) The difference is that most of those games are free to play, and instead have premium items/content that you pay for. What Blizz is doing is charging for the right to play a game you've already bought, in any country they can get away with it.
Considering china has the largest internet market on the planet having servers that don't connect outside of the regions not really a big deal. Many are free to play, but most of the major players from western developers are not. Blizzard is charging for a content subscription for access to battlenet (something which helps to prevent/reduce piracy) which is a model you may not like but I'm still not sure what the point is of this conversation. If they could enforce international copyright law effectively then I doubt there would be such issues but the asian governments haven't been particularly good at doing so or caring.
BaronIveagh wrote:Was quite the online scandal back at launch in 1997. Basically, a coder calling himself Bobafett created what amounted to an early trainer. When Diablo connected to battle.net, you could change how many times you had killed Diablo, play online in god mode, etc, etc, because of how battle.net worked at that time.
DUDE! your kidding me right? What year is it right now? Let me check my WINDOWS 7! computer and see....we are how many OS's Past windows 95, CE 1.0, and 98? 4, 5? maybe 6 if there is one i havent heard of or missed. Do you really think that the security on those OS's were that good? infact, im not sure there was even any security at that time (i mean there was, but so little that there might as well not have been ANY!)
1997...Gimme a break! as soon as i read this post i almost fell over with a X.x on my face! LITERALLY!
i enjoyed reading your's and shuma's posts, you were both arguing pretty well, but when this came up, it was over. Game over dude.
i keep re-reading it....it wont leave my mind!
X.x
On a side note, for anyone that is not computer knowledgeable, that time era was in the beginnings of microsoft's "GUI" (Graphical user interface) which is what lets you "point and click" Icons and see things like pictures on a computer. if you were running DOS, you would not be using a mouse, rather a keyboard to type "Start scraftII.exe" or "Open C:\Programfiles\blizzard\Starcraft....." there would be no....CLICK CLICK!......CLICK CLICK!......CLICK CLICK!.
And for the guy that is using a Mac....DAmn, im sorry.
ShumaGorath wrote:Are you kidding? They didn't even have achievements back then and this version of battlenet is totally different then the one that launched with diablo thirteen years ago. You were just making it up, I knew it.
No, I wasn't. It really did happen. (and at that time, it tracked how many times you, personally, had killed Diablo, which was visible to other players. Looks like an achievement to me) In fact, diablo continues to be hard to play in public games due to the sheer number of cheats that bnet does not prevent.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Site source.
Again, site source please.
"GAX: What does the licensee agreement mean?
Ong: Blizzard will be setting up and operating their own local battle.net servers here in Singapore. All the technical backend, hardware and software maintenance will be controlled and operated by Blizzard. All the customer service related things, like the call center, local tournaments, sales events and exhibitions will be run by IAHGames. The call center team will be trained by Blizzard.
GAX: Will there be any other pricing options for StarCraft II?
Ong: There will be an alternative pricing plan available for StarCraft II, but that won’t be available until after launch. For now we can’t say anything as we’re still working out the details with Blizzard.
That alternative pricing plan sounds interesting, but IAHGames are keeping quiet on the details for now.
So we know Blizzard is the reason the game will cost S$109. As for why, it appears to be due to the factored in cost of setting up and operating the local battle.net servers"
- GameAxis Interview with Roland Ong, CEO of IAH, Blizzards distributor in SE Asia.
A similar story appeared in The Strait Times.
@Kyric: Would it also amuse you to learn that I can break your Windows 7 admin account and change the password in less then 2 min using the same SAM editing that I used in 1993? Windows hasn't actually changed that much, no matter how many new bells and whistles they hang on it.
And for those who are not computer literate, the GUI has been around since the late 70's/early 80's. Windows 1 was released back in 1985. The basics of the current Windows GUI were in Windows NT in 1993, or in Windows 3.1 a year earlier, if you want to get primitive.
And for the Apple users, well, they've had GUI since.... 1982, IIRC...
So Starcraft 2- what an excellent game! I'm not too far into the campaign, but I am very much enjoying the twists of the research trees and upgrade structure- I wonder how long it will be until a RTS game hops on the MMO bandwagon and starts offering exclusive unit options in multiplayer. Imagine the possibilities of having richly diversified Terran, Zerg and Protoss forces. Upgrades could be based on single player accomplishments, or opened up with experience in the game. The trick would be to keep the upgrades as balanced alternatives to the default. For instance, perhaps you could have those enormous transports, but you wouldn't be able to build Medivacs. Wraiths swapped out for Vikings, that sort of thing.
Perhaps I've been spoiled by the high degree of customization possible in the campaign, but I'd love to play a multi-player RTS like this. I see the seeds of a genre changing move in this game, and lament that they were not brought to fruition.
BaronIveagh wrote:And for those who are not computer literate, the GUI has been around since the late 70's/early 80's. Windows 1 was released back in 1985. The basics of the current Windows GUI were in Windows NT in 1993, or in Windows 3.1 a year earlier, if you want to get primitive.
And for the Apple users, well, they've had GUI since.... 1982, IIRC...
Oh Lord, please not another Mac vs Windows debate XD. I've seen too many.
@Kyric: Would it also amuse you to learn that I can break your Windows 7 admin account and change the password in less then 2 min using the same SAM editing that I used in 1993? Windows hasn't actually changed that much, no matter how many new bells and whistles they hang on it.
And for those who are not computer literate, the GUI has been around since the late 70's/early 80's. Windows 1 was released back in 1985. The basics of the current Windows GUI were in Windows NT in 1993, or in Windows 3.1 a year earlier, if you want to get primitive.
And for the Apple users, well, they've had GUI since.... 1982, IIRC...
alright, just to let you know, i was born in 1990, so i was 3 in 93, good job. dont know much about SAM, but what it seems like is just a text editor that HELPS you write command lines. WooHOO! i can do my own command lines and would prefer it that way.
2: yes, 1993, WOULD YOU STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT! you said 97 was when blizz was hacked, i aws pointing at 95, 1.0, and 98 of which were in that TIME FRAME. yes, i know GUI has been around awhile, but it was still experimental until XP came out. im not saying that XP was PERFECT, im saying that XP took the wrinkles out of the OS and put some drive into it. NOW, BACK TO WIN 95! IT SUCKED! anyone could have brought that damn thing down. and yet you are so excited because Battle net was brought down on a low life OS whereas Steam was brought down on higherend OS's. with HIGHER security!
Sure, use your C Text editors, but C++ is the current language of today's computers, your little "Samantha" text editor wont get you too far anymore with an advanced user.
Apple users having the same gui....no wonder it sucks.
will never buy 1. waste of money. (and the 1 time i worked on 1 for my attourney's kid, oh my god...HEY! Ever wonder why Apple has something called "Boot camp"? Because Mac OS isnt good enough compared to windows! so it lets you dual boot windows! Funniest fething thing ever!)
Automatically Appended Next Post: effing is turned to fething,...thats too good! ! xD
No, I wasn't. It really did happen. (and at that time, it tracked how many times you, personally, had killed Diablo, which was visible to other players. Looks like an achievement to me) In fact, diablo continues to be hard to play in public games due to the sheer number of cheats that bnet does not prevent.
I don't actually care, when this entire discussion started I was not speaking to legacy versions of battlenet from when online gaming was brand new.
Apple users having the same gui....no wonder it sucks.
Apple has had the "same" UI since os10 came out which was a dramatic reinterpretation of the desktop GUI and was only in 2002. Windows by contrast has released only incremental periodic updates and is often claimed to be playing feature catchup with the mac GUI.
Gentlemen, please stop talking out your tuchasses.
@Kyric: Would it also amuse you to learn that I can break your Windows 7 admin account and change the password in less then 2 min using the same SAM editing that I used in 1993? Windows hasn't actually changed that much, no matter how many new bells and whistles they hang on it.
And for those who are not computer literate, the GUI has been around since the late 70's/early 80's. Windows 1 was released back in 1985. The basics of the current Windows GUI were in Windows NT in 1993, or in Windows 3.1 a year earlier, if you want to get primitive.
And for the Apple users, well, they've had GUI since.... 1982, IIRC...
alright, just to let you know, i was born in 1990, so i was 3 in 93, good job. dont know much about SAM, but what it seems like is just a text editor that HELPS you write command lines. WooHOO! i can do my own command lines and would prefer it that way.
2: yes, 1993, WOULD YOU STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT! you said 97 was when blizz was hacked, i aws pointing at 95, 1.0, and 98 of which were in that TIME FRAME. yes, i know GUI has been around awhile, but it was still experimental until XP came out. im not saying that XP was PERFECT, im saying that XP took the wrinkles out of the OS and put some drive into it. NOW, BACK TO WIN 95! IT SUCKED! anyone could have brought that damn thing down. and yet you are so excited because Battle net was brought down on a low life OS whereas Steam was brought down on higherend OS's. with HIGHER security!
Sure, use your C Text editors, but C++ is the current language of today's computers, your little "Samantha" text editor wont get you too far anymore with an advanced user.
Since you obviously don't know what a SAM is...
"The Security Accounts Manager (SAM) is registry file in Windows NT, Windows 2000, and later versions of Windows. It stores users' passwords in a hashed format (in LM hash and NTLM hash). Since a hash function is one-way, this provides some measure of security for the storage of the passwords." - Wikipedia
As far as the OS of the time, I think you mean 95, 98 and NT, and/or possibly 3.11. 95 was a piece of crap, no arguments there. Not sure what you're talking about GUI being 'experimental' at this point, since various GUI's had been around for more then a decade. I think you might be talking about the 32 bit windows kernel, but I'm not too sure...
Windows largely has the same built in security features now that it did in 1993. How is it more secure?
There are more security programs, such as firewalls, available for it, such as Norton, McAffee, etc.
@ Shuma - I was talking about GUI's in general, not the current gen of apple GUI.
@ Shuma - I was talking about GUI's in general, not the current gen of apple GUI.
I read that as "the same gui", kyrics post influenced me to read it wrong. My B.
Understandable. (What I find more nauseating about his posts is apparently I've been repairing windows based machines since he was 3... I feel old now.)
I wonder if I should tell him about how there are still people out there using notepad to code....?
Ok smartass, had you clarified that from the beginning, it woulda made life so much easier. i was pretty sure you were talking about the Samantha Text editor (language of C). but good job for calling on something that a 20 year old didnt know. make ya feel proud?
Second, like i said, in win XP and later versions, security was bumped, Taken from Wikipidea:
In Windows NT 3.51, NT 4.0 and 2000, an attack was devised to bypass the local authentication system. If the SAM file is deleted from the hard drive (e.g. mounting the Windows OS volume into an alternative operating system), the attacker could log in as any account with no password. This flaw was corrected with Windows XP, which shows an error message and shuts down the computer.
Which is to show that SAM files are no longer as vulnerable as they were back then. There are FAIL SAFE's. Touch the file, and windows crashes. End of story.
So you wanna make a virus...Feel free, you will get in Lotta trouble because i can guarantee that you do not have the equipment to keep yourself hidden from the "Internet patrol"
Automatically Appended Next Post: yes, coding in notepad is no surprise. Want me to make you a batch file thats all pretty and says some funny stuffs? i can change your password too! and even....wait for it!....SHUT DOWN YOUR COMPUTER!? not hard, not a surprise. and yes you are old.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and you have been fixing since i was 3...but yet im 20, look how much i know compared to you. Enough to hold my ground, and that makes me proud! how's it make you feel?
yes, coding in notepad is no surprise. Want me to make you a batch file thats all pretty and says some funny stuffs? i can change your password too! and even....wait for it!....SHUT DOWN YOUR COMPUTER!? not hard, not a surprise. and yes you are old.
ok, answered!
and i was infact referring to Win CE 1.0 in my previous posts, which released AFTER 95
Kyric wrote:Ok smartass, had you clarified that from the beginning, it woulda made life so much easier. i was pretty sure you were talking about the Samantha Text editor (language of C). but good job for calling on something that a 20 year old didnt know. make ya feel proud?
Second, like i said, in win XP and later versions, security was bumped, Taken from Wikipidea:
In Windows NT 3.51, NT 4.0 and 2000, an attack was devised to bypass the local authentication system. If the SAM file is deleted from the hard drive (e.g. mounting the Windows OS volume into an alternative operating system), the attacker could log in as any account with no password. This flaw was corrected with Windows XP, which shows an error message and shuts down the computer.
Which is to show that SAM files are no longer as vulnerable as they were back then. There are FAIL SAFE's. Touch the file, and windows crashes. End of story.
So you wanna make a virus...Feel free, you will get in Lotta trouble because i can guarantee that you do not have the equipment to keep yourself hidden from the "Internet patrol"
Ok, no, what they did there was to blank the SAM, so that it treated all passwords as blank. What I do is edit the SAM so that the password is now whatever I want.
Here's the trick: load another OS from disk (linux is the best for this, currently). Specify the directory path to the SAM file. For XP users, WINDOWS/system32/config. Run your password/registry editor of choice. Edit SAM file. Save. Reboot PC, run regular OS, log in.
Kyric, stop putting on airs. You are not holding your ground in any way, shape or form (though I admit, I didn't think of CE, handhelds and embedded platforms not typically being in my sphere). And what the heck are you talking about writing virii for?
Anywho! SC wins! it is a happy awesome program that struggled in its wake! but when....oh wtf, my choo choo died....(for those that dont understand, its a "Train of thought")
WIN!
SAM Has nothing to do with Blizzard anyways, why were we talking about that?...oh cuz you wanted to kill my win 7 ok.
Last thing about the sam, it has to be booted on top of my OS. GLHF!
i have to say that i appreciate the multi player of SCII. especially with that ingame friends list and chat stuff! i was excited when i saw that cuz i could easily talk with friends like it was Xfire!
Automatically Appended Next Post: HF IS NOT HEAVY FLAMER! the computer is calling you gay baron! better SAM it to death!...
Kyric wrote:Anywho! SC wins! it is a happy awesome program that struggled in its wake! but when....oh wtf, my choo choo died....(for those that dont understand, its a "Train of thought")
WIN!
SAM Has nothing to do with Blizzard anyways, why were we talking about that?...oh cuz you wanted to kill my win 7 ok.
Last thing about the sam, it has to be booted on top of my OS. GLHF!
i have to say that i appreciate the multi player of SCII. especially with that ingame friends list and chat stuff! i was excited when i saw that cuz i could easily talk with friends like it was Xfire!
Automatically Appended Next Post: HF IS NOT HEAVY FLAMER! the computer is calling you gay baron! better SAM it to death!...
AGH! im jealous! yea, the custom games are the BEST! havent heard of cortex roleplay! is it a first person deal or what? one of my fav's is nexus wars, and parasite is pretty cool.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Kyric wrote:Anywho! SC wins! it is a happy awesome program that struggled in its wake! but when....oh wtf, my choo choo died....(for those that dont understand, its a "Train of thought")
WIN!
SAM Has nothing to do with Blizzard anyways, why were we talking about that?...oh cuz you wanted to kill my win 7 ok.
Last thing about the sam, it has to be booted on top of my OS. GLHF!
i have to say that i appreciate the multi player of SCII. especially with that ingame friends list and chat stuff! i was excited when i saw that cuz i could easily talk with friends like it was Xfire!
Automatically Appended Next Post: HF IS NOT HEAVY FLAMER! the computer is calling you gay baron! better SAM it to death!...
O.o! xD
I think, Shuma, that we've broken his brain...
Nope. The attourneys here that "Lose" their email...just kills me...and i have been here since 7:30 dealing with some exchange servers that dont wanna co-operate. Mail migration can take it out of you when ya gotta do it apun everyone else's time, and it takes a long time because someone has 20GB Email! Meh, but what do you know. you aren't in my shoes. Exchange 2010! here i come!
Nuke Noodles? interesting...is it on the list? and its called Cortex Roleplay....ill have to try when i get home! it is solid right? like the triggers are complete and such?
... Again, not sure what you're up to, but it sounds like you should have arraigned to do the server migration over the weekend or at something like 3:00am. I know when I do my server work, I like to do it between 2 and 3 am to reduce system impact.
It reduces the number of executives screaming that millions of dollars are on the line and why is this not working, the slot machines are down and OMG the guy from Ballys swore this would work as soon as we turned it on and all three people on the gaming floor want to know when the nickel slots will be back up...
errm....i was in over the weekend. and it happened that at 7:00 yesterday, just after i left, while migrating users to the 2010 exchange (from 03), the 03 server locked up, and the 2010 said...wtf!? where did it go?!, so i came in at 7:00 (yea for 5:30 wake up call!) and had to fix it before everyone freaked out that thier blackberry and email wasnt working.
but yes, migrations are done on weekends. not that dumb.
Kyric wrote:Anywho! SC wins! it is a happy awesome program that struggled in its wake! but when....oh wtf, my choo choo died....(for those that dont understand, its a "Train of thought")
WIN!
SAM Has nothing to do with Blizzard anyways, why were we talking about that?...oh cuz you wanted to kill my win 7 ok.
Last thing about the sam, it has to be booted on top of my OS. GLHF!
i have to say that i appreciate the multi player of SCII. especially with that ingame friends list and chat stuff! i was excited when i saw that cuz i could easily talk with friends like it was Xfire!
Automatically Appended Next Post: HF IS NOT HEAVY FLAMER! the computer is calling you gay baron! better SAM it to death!...
O.o! xD
I think, Shuma, that we've broken his brain...
Why don't you go back to talking about blizzards evil media empire or how battlenet was hacked within a week, I think the only brain thats been broken through this conversation is mine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asherian Command wrote:Who here hates stalker spammers? And roaches...
Shuma is right. Spam those marauders! either that, or if you are zerg, go with a ling spam. 40 lings should be plenty to destroy 15 stalkers. (stalkers are 2 food ea, and lings are 1 ea...20 food vs 30, and they lose more money/resources.)
Finally beat the game last night. Going to have to go thru and do it again though because two of the nights I was playing my internet went bad so I was disconnected from Bnet and it didn't register any of the achievements.
On another note, have you played against any morons yet? I don't mean people you simply beat, by however much, but ones who said something stupid that just made it worth it.
Went into one game today against a Favored opponent, playing the same `Nids race, and with an avatar indicating he'd won at least 25 games when I'd not earned the 10 win avatar yet. I'm thinking ah crap. After I stopped his every wave from even getting up the ramp into my base, killed his Mutas with a larger flock of my own Mutas, and proceeded to waltze into his base and start destroying everything, he lets go with a "Nub" right before surrendering.
Aduro wrote:On another note, have you played against any morons yet? I don't mean people you simply beat, by however much, but ones who said something stupid that just made it worth it.
Went into one game today against a Favored opponent, playing the same `Nids race, and with an avatar indicating he'd won at least 25 games when I'd not earned the 10 win avatar yet. I'm thinking ah crap. After I stopped his every wave from even getting up the ramp into my base, killed his Mutas with a larger flock of my own Mutas, and proceeded to waltze into his base and start destroying everything, he lets go with a "Nub" right before surrendering.
Lol. Well i've met those people. They are dicks. they probaly had help from pros.
Or they hacked it.
I remember 3 my friends and I faced a army of noobs. As they had the brutal campagin icons. And we had the raynor icons. And we still kicked their arse.
The computer is different than an actual person. I will use DoW as an example, you can play against the computer set at its highest difficulty and it will never techpriest rush. For those kind of shenanigans you need a person.
The computer is different than an actual person. I will use DoW as an example, you can play against the computer set at its highest difficulty and it will never techpriest rush. For those kind of shenanigans you need a person.
Most RTS AI"s boil down to: Build. Build. Build. Attack head on on with mix of random units.
halonachos wrote:The computer is different than an actual person. I will use DoW as an example, you can play against the computer set at its highest difficulty and it will never techpriest rush. For those kind of shenanigans you need a person.
The single player of starcraft 2 is also significantly different then the multiplayer with different rules, strategies, and tactics.
Aduro wrote:On another note, have you played against any morons yet? I don't mean people you simply beat, by however much, but ones who said something stupid that just made it worth it.
Went into one game today against a Favored opponent, playing the same `Nids race, and with an avatar indicating he'd won at least 25 games when I'd not earned the 10 win avatar yet. I'm thinking ah crap. After I stopped his every wave from even getting up the ramp into my base, killed his Mutas with a larger flock of my own Mutas, and proceeded to waltze into his base and start destroying everything, he lets go with a "Nub" right before surrendering.
I haven't, but my buddy has. In one of his placement matches, he (playing Terran) went up against another Terran player. Well, midway into the game, the opponent apparently dropped a bunch of Marauders into his base while he was rebuilding. So my buddy lifted all of his liftable buildings, and the Marauders couldn't do jack. While the actual terminology is a bit too forum-unfriendly to use, the opponent basically called my buddy a derogatory name for a homosexual person and ragequit.
I've had a Terran do something like that to me. Horde of Zerglings attacked and wiped out everything he had, except for two Command Centers and a Barracks, which he lifted off and started to fly around, Zerglings just walking along under them. Conveniently one of my initial build goals is Mutalisks, so I had a small flock of those in a couple of minutes. He still stuck around, wasting both of our time, until his buildings were destroyed.
BaronIveagh wrote:A secret video from within Blizzard...
Win.
I will say that I personally don't care about the "no LAN" issue, because I have never had occasion to use it. The thing I'm pissed at is how Blizzard upped the price to 60 bucks, because they knew that of all the games to be released on PC this decade, this is the one everyone will buy for sure. Of course it's a moot point because I'm still going to buy it.
BaronIveagh wrote:A secret video from within Blizzard...
Win.
I will say that I personally don't care about the "no LAN" issue, because I have never had occasion to use it. The thing I'm pissed at is how Blizzard upped the price to 60 bucks, because they knew that of all the games to be released on PC this decade, this is the one everyone will buy for sure. Of course it's a moot point because I'm still going to buy it.
Technically WoW and it's last two expansions outsold it in the opening weeks, though the game is likely to have strong sales for quite some time.
Eh, I'm all for starting it up again (on track of course)
How about build orders? I've been struggling with trying to get my macro down pat enough to be able to counter all of the Protoss players that are cannon rushing. I had that happen to me 4 games straight last night! So irritating.
Ruckdog wrote:What do you use to counter? I've heard marines are good as a terran player.
Marines are a great counter to voidrays, especially if you've researched stimpacks which will allow them to chase them down and hammer them well before they can fire the big ray.
With cannon rushing 20 zerglings brought in by overlords shred their normally unprotected economy...
Otherwise just use some ranged units to pop the drone that is trying to warp them in.
I've found that simply scouting a bit and being aware of whats in your bases plot is the best way to avoid a canon rush, though simply rushing their own base which will likely be largely unprotected works wonders as well.
Aduro wrote:I do so hate Void Rays... But what's this Cannon rush thing? I don't think I've seen that one yet.
Protoss immediatly build a forge and then begin building photon canons just outside the sight range of your base, usually on your ramp so you can't leave. It's pretty devastating if it's done right to a player that doesn't know it's there. Photon canons per mineral spent beat all tier one units quite handily and can take down buildings quickly. It's sort of a holdover strategy from starcraft 1, it's not really practical at high levels of play but it can win easily against many opponents.
LunaHound wrote:Im liking spamming Infested Terrans with my Infesters :'D
nothing like having a carrier that can move while burrowed and throwing the Terrains into enemy base
I've found that they're great for taking out enemy expansions with little investment on my part. Two can spawn sixteen infested terrans at full energy which is more than enough to kill 12 SCVs and a command center before reprisal kills my free suicide troops.
To kill the terran spawns even though they expire eventually but not before they blow up my base
or
Try to find the infesters that are probably long gone by now , while the terran spawn kill my base. Knowing they'll be back in a few minute to do it all over again
To kill the terran spawns even though they expire eventually but not before they blow up my base
or
Try to find the infesters that are probably long gone by now , while the terran spawn kill my base. Knowing they'll be back in a few minute to do it all over again
lol its so funny -_-
I see nerf comming soon
I doubt it, their utility is greatly limited once detectors become common and most base defenses can kill them quickly. They also require micromanagement to function at all.
To kill the terran spawns even though they expire eventually but not before they blow up my base
or
Try to find the infesters that are probably long gone by now , while the terran spawn kill my base. Knowing they'll be back in a few minute to do it all over again
lol its so funny -_-
I see nerf comming soon
I doubt it. I've gotten into the habit ages ago of always having something that can detect cloak/burrow/anything else that makes a unit invisible and putting one in any base I make. I've been rush and surprised by such things too many times not to. Infestors don't live long when somethings shooting at them. Just run the little SCV's away from the slow moving terrans and get rid of the infestor.
But once the terrans are thrown into your base , its pointless to detect the Infestors though , not to mention the terrans can take out detectors as well.
Got the game today after peer pressure and I must say, it's the same game of back then, but with some neat additions. I'm enjoying the campaign so far.
LunaHound wrote:But once the terrans are thrown into your base , its pointless to detect the Infestors though , not to mention the terrans can take out detectors as well.
Terrans have to hatch so you have a few seconds to move you're SCV's and call in reinforcements. The detector can tell you the infestor is there before it launches. You put it just a little bit in front of the command center, sometimes I put it offsides to cover a map edge a little bit. I don't really care if it lives unless it's an expensive raven but I don't usually sit a Raven at a base. I put them with the army, usually two. The point is that that turret detector buys you an extra second(s) to go in and clean up before too much damage is done. Hellions are usually something I have around against zerg. They'd be good for this.
Generally I'm more concerned about stuff coming from the air than the ground so I end up leaving turrets close to the base. I boost the numbers as the game goes on. No base is impenetrable. Believe me I've tried XD. The best resolution is to find ways to buy yourself time so you have more wiggle room in responding.
LunaHound wrote:But once the terrans are thrown into your base , its pointless to detect the Infestors though , not to mention the terrans can take out detectors as well.
Terrans have to hatch so you have a few seconds to move you're SCV's and call in reinforcements. The detector can tell you the infestor is there before it launches. You put it just a little bit in front of the command center, sometimes I put it offsides to cover a map edge a little bit. I don't really care if it lives unless it's an expensive raven but I don't usually sit a Raven at a base. I put them with the army, usually two. The point is that that turret detector buys you an extra second(s) to go in and clean up before too much damage is done. Hellions are usually something I have around against zerg. They'd be good for this.
Generally I'm more concerned about stuff coming from the air than the ground so I end up leaving turrets close to the base. I boost the numbers as the game goes on. No base is impenetrable. Believe me I've tried XD. The best resolution is to find ways to buy yourself time so you have more wiggle room in responding.
Well micro'd infesters will kill hellions through a mix of AOE immobilizers and mind control. All of their abilities outrange the hellions shot and IIRC the infesters are not classified as light units so the hellions will not kill them very quickly. It's also very easy to simply immob the hellions then run away underground forcing you to scan sweep and risk running into roach support which will crush the hellions quickly. The infester is a great harassment unit, it's not meant to take down defended bases alone and it's not good at it (similar to the mutalisk in this regard).
ShumaGorath wrote:Well micro'd infesters will kill hellions through a mix of AOE immobilizers and mind control. All of their abilities outrange the hellions shot and IIRC the infesters are not classified as light units so the hellions will not kill them very quickly. It's also very easy to simply immob the hellions then run away underground forcing you to scan sweep and risk running into roach support which will crush the hellions quickly. The infester is a great harassment unit, it's not meant to take down defended bases alone and it's not good at it (similar to the mutalisk in this regard).
I was more thinking of using the Hellions to hit the infested Terrans. Marines/Marauders (Gah, scratch that. Still immobilized...) would be my guess for the infestor, but I'm working through this as I type XD. Sadly I haven't found many Zerg thus far. I've played them all of two times. Almost all my matches 1v1 have been versus Terran with Toss sprinkles here and there I've played almost nothing but toss/terran combos in 2v2.
ShumaGorath wrote:Well micro'd infesters will kill hellions through a mix of AOE immobilizers and mind control. All of their abilities outrange the hellions shot and IIRC the infesters are not classified as light units so the hellions will not kill them very quickly. It's also very easy to simply immob the hellions then run away underground forcing you to scan sweep and risk running into roach support which will crush the hellions quickly. The infester is a great harassment unit, it's not meant to take down defended bases alone and it's not good at it (similar to the mutalisk in this regard).
I was more thinking of using the Hellions to hit the infested Terrans. Marines/Marauders (Gah, scratch that. Still immobilized...) would be my guess for the infestor, but I'm working through this as I type XD. Sadly I haven't found many Zerg thus far. I've played them all of two times. Almost all my matches 1v1 have been versus Terran with Toss sprinkles here and there I've played almost nothing but toss/terran combos in 2v2.
I play random, so I play a lot of zerg. They're my favorite race to play. That said I've never seen another zerg player using infesters outside of free for all, so I don't think many people prepare for them. They're also great on defense where you can mind control tube from atop a cliff onto unsuspecting units and the infested terrans are great at dealing with almost all harassment units once you immob them.
Their greatest weakness is the sheer requirement for micro and situational use.
Interesting discussion on the infestors...I'll have to mess around with them when I get a chance.
In other news, my 1v1 continues to stink; I'm ranked 64 in the Bronze leauge I did finally get a win yesterday, though. The other player was Protoss, going for Void Rays. I managed to beat them off with my marines, and then was able to tech up enough cloaked Banshees to take down his production lines by sneaking around his cannons.
The thing thats so nice about infested terrans is they only cost energy, and can be used and your infestors can be long gone before they hatch and what not.
Two infestors at full energy can toss enough terrans down to completely destroy an expansion before the other player can react. (unless they keep a decent number of troops at each expansion.
Asherian Command wrote:I just got battlecrusiered spammed and void rayed spammed. Nothing can stop Battlecrusiers. And even 100 marines can't stop void rays.
Hydralisks eat battlecruisers and void rays alive....
Void ray spam is such a stupid easy tactic to deal with, It works great against scrubs, other then that its pretty bad.
Scout base, see early forge and the turtle. You know the are probly going to spam void rays...
Asherian Command wrote:Yeah but i always play terran. As i rushed him and crippled his resources I attacked and somehow he had made 5 voidrays. And 20 zealots.
1st, As terran you are not allowed to comment about the cheese tactics of other armies...
Second stimmed marines can tear through void rays like they are nothing.
If you scout the early void ray spam just build 4 barracks with whatever its called and start pumping out tons of marines.
I did that but somehow the guy pulled it off. he killed all of them. Which makes no sense. I'm guessing he was korean. I nuked the hell out of him. I destoried his mineral gathers. Destoried command centers. Then he copied everything i did minus the nuking. And started attacking my Resource bases. by randomly going around the map. I immediately thought noob. Because he copied everything i did. Over. and over. I killed at least 4x more units of him. Than anything the kill count for me was I killed 2,500. He killed 500 of me. I was severely outnumbered. But i was armored. He barely won. And i had to leave too. I hate dicks that just make you do all the work and somehow manage to attack you randomly. Hell i confused the hell out of him at the end. As his forces tried to kill me but they couldn't i destoried all of his command centers so he couldn't get any more money. And he couldn't do any more but try and kill me. But he failed everytime.
Asherian Command wrote:yeah i'll try that. I've just started to get better. But agianst battle crusiers what do i do? Because basically i got analed
I think terrans answer to battlecruisers is lots of vikings..
Cant remember exactly tho, played terran a lot in the beta, but i play zerg now.
At cost vikings decimate battlecruisers and the reactor allows you to double speed build them. Are you still in the practice league asherian? Air rushes are pretty dominant there because of all the giant piles of stone blocking ground attacks. These tactics are much less common in the regular game.
Asherian Command wrote:Yeah but if someone counted the numbers. I won. I killed 5x more. and I collect 20x more. I could of done more. But i had to leave.
Without a replay its hard to believe you had 5x more kills and resources and still lost....
He spammed marines at first. Which i delt with thanks to siegetanks. I ambushed his armies. And i pushed his forces back. Alot and i slaughtered him alot. But he kept building up a battle crusier force. Basically i exhausted every resource on my side of the map.
Asherian Command wrote:He spammed marines at first. Which i delt with thanks to siegetanks. I ambushed his armies. And i pushed his forces back. Alot and i slaughtered him alot. But he kept building up a battle crusier force. Basically i exhausted every resource on my side of the map.
I don't accept that you can exhaust every resource on your map side while killing him 5-1 and still lose. That doesn't bare out mathematically, he doesn't have infinite resources.
The fact that you lost with that... probably means you were doing something wrong, cause if you had 5-1 resources, you could have just gone 5-1 battlecruisers and be done with.
It sounds like you were winning the big fights, then instead of pushing on and taking the main (destroying tech upgrades etc) you would fall back and rebuild...
I miss my scourge a lot..... Punish players like mad for massing T3 air.
Just out of curiosity , is there a way to make SCVs auto repair something? In the campaign i recall them doing so aslong as i have them click a bunker for example.
But in skirmish , they run off everytime someone attacks ( probably if they take some damage ) but cant they just stay there and repair geez -_-
LunaHound wrote:Just out of curiosity , is there a way to make SCVs auto repair something? In the campaign i recall them doing so aslong as i have them click a bunker for example.
But in skirmish , they run off everytime someone attacks ( probably if they take some damage ) but cant they just stay there and repair geez -_-
LunaHound wrote:Just out of curiosity , is there a way to make SCVs auto repair something? In the campaign i recall them doing so aslong as i have them click a bunker for example.
But in skirmish , they run off everytime someone attacks ( probably if they take some damage ) but cant they just stay there and repair geez -_-
No, that is disabled in the multiplayer.
Are they trying to simulate fear and loss in morale with that?
LunaHound wrote:Just out of curiosity , is there a way to make SCVs auto repair something? In the campaign i recall them doing so aslong as i have them click a bunker for example. But in skirmish , they run off everytime someone attacks ( probably if they take some damage ) but cant they just stay there and repair geez -_-
No, that is disabled in the multiplayer.
Are they trying to simulate fear and loss in morale with that?
:Edit:
According to the wiki SCVs can autocast repair, it's just something you have to activate. I've never seen anyone do it, and I'm looking into how.
ShumaGorath wrote:I play random, so I play a lot of zerg. They're my favorite race to play.
Well you are a trooper I tried Zerg after finishing campaign and I couldn't do it XD. They strike me as the hard to learn harder to master faction.
LunaHound wrote:Just out of curiosity , is there a way to make SCVs auto repair something? In the campaign i recall them doing so aslong as i have them click a bunker for example.
But in skirmish , they run off everytime someone attacks ( probably if they take some damage ) but cant they just stay there and repair geez -_-
Also remember that only one SCV can build but as many as can touch the damaged vehicle/structure can repair. Took me awhile to notice. EDIT: Also, if SCV's are doing something, like gathering, they won't stop to repair something. The auto-repair only kicks in when they're standing around not doing anything else.
I just completed the FFA: Insane achievement and got a picture of Orlan to use. You get the achievement by defeating 7 computers set to insane on free for all at the same time.
ShumaGorath wrote:I play random, so I play a lot of zerg. They're my favorite race to play.
Well you are a trooper I tried Zerg after finishing campaign and I couldn't do it XD. They strike me as the hard to learn harder to master faction.
Probably depends on the player and past experience. I thought I was going to go Terran because that's what I thought the Campaign would teach you to play, and played around with them in single player games, but was getting beat by easy A.I.s. Switched to `Nids, the army I played in SCI, and was able to curb stomp Medium A.I.s after only a couple games. Probably has to do with the Campaign not actually teaching you how Terrans play in non-Campaign games much at all as well.
I got the 3 game Solo Hot Streak Achievement today. Started to go for the 5 game and it started to rain, which for some reason makes my DSL reset ever 5-10 minutes, so I got disconnected and lost. Annoys the crap out of me because the graphs showed me as having a higher Economy as well as Army Value and I was in the process of attacking him when it happened.
Aduro wrote:Probably depends on the player and past experience. I thought I was going to go Terran because that's what I thought the Campaign would teach you to play, and played around with them in single player games, but was getting beat by easy A.I.s. Switched to `Nids, the army I played in SCI, and was able to curb stomp Medium A.I.s after only a couple games. Probably has to do with the Campaign not actually teaching you how Terrans play in non-Campaign games much at all as well.
Yeah, don't really look to the campaign to teach you how to play Terran well. The campaign is there to teach you to memorize the tech tree and upgrades that they can get in any given game. Half the units are just classic ones that can't be used in Multiplayer (Just an estimate, that - no idea how many units are actually classic ones that are campaign only).
Although I will say that having permanent upgrades and such is awesome in campaign. Nothing quite like the Tech Reactor pumping out 2 Battlecruisers at a time...
ok. I fought 3 bots on hard mode. It took me 1 hour and 34 minutes. But i beat them By making them attack me. Basically you can check it at my Starcraft 2 Profile StormWarrior 931
ShumaGorath wrote:I just completed the FFA: Insane achievement and got a picture of Orlan to use. You get the achievement by defeating 7 computers set to insane on free for all at the same time.
Locclo wrote: (Just an estimate, that - no idea how many units are actually classic ones that are campaign only).
Although I will say that having permanent upgrades and such is awesome in campaign. Nothing quite like the Tech Reactor pumping out 2 Battlecruisers at a time...
Firebat, Medic, Goliath, Vulture, Wraiths, Siege Breaker mercs (They still use Arclite cannons on their tanks ala SC1 instead of Crucio)
Those are the only classic-SP-only units I can think of.
Locclo wrote: (Just an estimate, that - no idea how many units are actually classic ones that are campaign only).
Although I will say that having permanent upgrades and such is awesome in campaign. Nothing quite like the Tech Reactor pumping out 2 Battlecruisers at a time...
Firebat, Medic, Goliath, Vulture, Wraiths, Siege Breaker mercs (They still use Arclite cannons on their tanks ala SC1 instead of Crucio)
Those are the only classic-SP-only units I can think of.
Also, I miss my tech reactors...
Almost every starcraft 1 unit for each race is represented in the campaign. If you look carefully you can see scourges, scouts, guardians, and reavers. They're rare in their use though.
If you click on the multiplayer screen, in the lower right there is a button for Custom Games. Just select the Join Game button, and it will bring up a list of the different games available. Hungry Baneling should be near the top, as it is one of the more popular ones. This is also where you can find the Tower Defense and RPG style games.
Oh, and djones, here is an article on SC2 leagues that explains it way better than I could:
If you click on the multiplayer screen, in the lower right there is a button for Custom Games. Just select the Join Game button, and it will bring up a list of the different games available. Hungry Baneling should be near the top, as it is one of the more popular ones. This is also where you can find the Tower Defense and RPG style games.
Checked for a bit, while there are other games, I should point out that I'm in Europe, not the US of A, so is there any other way of getting that map?
If you click on the multiplayer screen, in the lower right there is a button for Custom Games. Just select the Join Game button, and it will bring up a list of the different games available. Hungry Baneling should be near the top, as it is one of the more popular ones. This is also where you can find the Tower Defense and RPG style games.
Checked for a bit, while there are other games, I should point out that I'm in Europe, not the US of A, so is there any other way of getting that map?
You can search for it in game and I think you can download it from the blizzard website.
If you click on the multiplayer screen, in the lower right there is a button for Custom Games. Just select the Join Game button, and it will bring up a list of the different games available. Hungry Baneling should be near the top, as it is one of the more popular ones. This is also where you can find the Tower Defense and RPG style games.
Checked for a bit, while there are other games, I should point out that I'm in Europe, not the US of A, so is there any other way of getting that map?
You can search for it in game and I think you can download it from the blizzard website.
Easy fix. Look up Sc2mapster. They will have it. Hiveworkshop right now can't get it's system up ever since we are lazy.
Would love to do a 1v1 with you shuma, seem like a nice guy for a friendly match, im in the platinum league just playing terran till my micro skills get better. I've experienced alot of cheese moves, its annoying at first but you gotta just play smart and you win. Only annoyance with the MP.
SP - great fun, favourite mission is when you play Raynor, Swan, Tychus, and geeky dude.
I was going on the SC2 forums today and i found this...... Which made me rofl.
I was playing a guy today and i was zerg and he was protoss. I nydused his base and wrecked the whole thing. He says gg than sends a messgage saying "PLAYER:has left the game. Without thinking i leave the game and he wins. Grr
Fail or epic fail? But the Protoss Player has a Win for sure.
Murray wrote:Would love to do a 1v1 with you shuma, seem like a nice guy for a friendly match, im in the platinum league just playing terran till my micro skills get better. I've experienced alot of cheese moves, its annoying at first but you gotta just play smart and you win. Only annoyance with the MP.
SP - great fun, favourite mission is when you play Raynor, Swan, Tychus, and geeky dude.
Sure thing, my info is in the sc2 league thread. I'm running pretty even in the platinum league as zerg though I haven't been playing a whole tonne recently. I'm always up for a game and other than six pool you don't have too worry about too much hijinks from zerg players. We don't really have the benefit of contains or close proxy bases.
Asherian Command wrote:I was going on the SC2 forums today and i found this...... Which made me rofl.
I was playing a guy today and i was zerg and he was protoss. I nydused his base and wrecked the whole thing. He says gg than sends a messgage saying "PLAYER:has left the game. Without thinking i leave the game and he wins. Grr
Anyone still play starcraft 2 XD? I still do and now I'm gold rank! Woot! 5 streak, no problems viking + siegetank spammed 2 vs 2 Threadomancy I sense.
And I know plenty about computers, I just don't know what the top hardware is these days cause i got to lazy to keep track.
. Without an internet connection, the game is worthless. And I have comcast. Crap internet is a given.
I've played almost nothing but toss/terran combos in 2v2.