Heroes units in VS games, not having your resources perfectly laid out in neat little rows, trolls. More focus on micro rather than macro. The ideat was for it to be an alternative to Brood War rather than a replacement.
The biggest differences revolve around the focus on hero units. You need to regularly kill creeps NPC units to earn XP and items for you hero units so turtling is less rewarding. Your armies are smaller than in SC and the bigger your army is the more gold you lose to upkeep so you are encouraged not to max out unless there is a big fight coming up.
All races have workers and structures with defensive capabilities so the effectiveness of rushes is limited. There is a much bigger focus on spellcasting especially spells that limit the movement of enemy units and heroes so you can take them out. Invisibility is more limited and all invisible units reveal themselves if they attack. I like the faster and economic freedom of Starcraft2, large clusters of units duking it out is far more fun for me instead of babying a few heroes and using them to win.
I would enjoy this game more without the heroes. Everything tehe. No, this is wrong. You try that on a unit and you get a mess. Think deductively not inductively. The War3 editor still has all its good user-friendly stuff. Ctrl-C, ctrl-V works. There are no hoops you have to jump through just to get a damn unit to work. The small stuff is still fast. Unit editing turned me off to SC2.
These tags that you talk about? Ctrl-C, ctrl-V. XP makes the game more strategic. Lol, StarCraft is known to be one of the first RTS games to successfully make the races masterfully unique yet still highly balanced. So yep, the races are as different as it gets. Joined Sep 24, Messages 4, Resources: 1 Resources Maps 1.
Adiktuz said:. Click to expand Joined Jul 6, Messages 11, Joined Jan 7, Messages 7, Resources: 9 Resources Icons 1 Maps 8. StarCraft has the property of having those three unique races, it is still somewhat fun to play, I replayed the first Protoss campaign a month ago or so, and I feel like playing the one of Brood War. The campaigns of the original game are very very easy though, and the strategy is almost always to starve your enemy out of resources whilst doing an effort to take out heavily towered bases, so they tend to get boring.
Brood War is a little more challenging due to the higher difficulty and the fact that resources for your enemies are unlimited from what I can tell. It has a few advantages compared to StarCraft II. PurplePoot argues with me that it's my micro or macro or whatnot, but from my experience, StarCraft 1 is, micro-wise, a lot more like WarCraft III: first, it has a reduced number of units compared to StarCraft II, and second, the ooold pathing system makes units sometimes wander around in circles and take longer to lock on the pointed target.
Meaning, you can actually better preserve your units. Now, I was playing in SC1, both campaign and skirmish with a speed of one point below the maximum, but this is certainly not what dictates the large difference. The shields concept was interesting, but it would have fit WarCraft III way more, because in StarCraft, especially SC2, it doesn't do much of a difference because people don't care about them; units are supposed to just charge into battle and die, in opposition to WarCraft III where micro plays a determinant role -- all the items you're provided at each race's specific shop, as well as the game's mechanics themselves, are centered around that.
And you'd best realize this quickly if you're looking into playing the game. Last edited: Jun 28, Wow, thanks for that Rui, I've got a better idea of SC now. I think one of the biggest things for me will be no Hero system.
I mean, I've played Warcraft 2, but the thing with that was that the races were basically identical, and you only had 2. So playing with 3 very different races, and with no real heroes and basically making armies to charge into a base will be pretty interesting. Having said that, I still think Starcraft is still deeper than WC3. WC3 focuses more on the battle between armies rather than total management of resources and base defenses.
Starcraft also didnt have any "cheese" attacks such as the "cyclone" spell from the Night Elves nor the Steamtank Rush from the humans. Though both games feature specific counter-units for every unit, Starcraft also featured abilities that could be exploited in many different ways. Whether it was parasiting an overlord to show all hidden enemy units or using an Arbiter to perform the dreaded "Reaver drop", Starcraft offered so many treats that two players could come up with serveral different strategies for using the exact same units.
Its amazing that I can flow through Warcraft simply by adapting my many Starcraft strategies to the units and tasks at hand. I've been able to use many Protoss ideas with the Undead and even Zerg strategies with the Orcs. Finally, its a testament to the greatness of Starcraft that a 5yr old game is still the standard by which most RTS-games are measured.
Are they really so cheap? They have their place and counters, too. Dark Swarm is ineffective against melee and splash damage, and stops your own ranged attacks. Plague can be cured by Terrans, and while it and Psi-storm are awfully effective against small clumps of air units which stack , they won't do much to marauding hordes of small units.
I think I forgot to save the replay where I was being a bitch with just Protoss mage units and my friend just sent like 8 hotkeys of marines at me. Cyclone is analogous to the Arbiters' Stasis Field, only it only hits one unit at a time. The concepts behind both games are very similar. That's what I was talking about with mages vs.
It's like, a handful of big guys will often own hordes of little guys, but mages will own the big guys with enough support e. You really need mixed forces in both games. They just have too much armor and HP to stop with Psi-Storm, you'd need a huge squadron of Ghosts in every base, Plague is too slow-acting if there's a lot of 'em, the Yamato has insane range, Devourers' spores don't have an immense effect when the damage is that great to begin with, etc.
Obviously WC3 is more "complex". It has true 3d, more races and more units. Well seeing as I was actually good at Starcraft but get my ass handed to me in Warcraft, and I being the smartest man alive must mean that SC is more complex! Easy Call. Cyclone is cheese?
Steamtank rush is cheese? Come on - cyclone is like a tier 2. Steamtanks are at least tier 2 as well. I would actually think that an Archmage rush is more cheesy than that.
What about AM mass teleport? If anything, it's actually MORE complex to pull something like that off. You have to use a sorc to invis one of your units, send that unit into your enemy's base, then use your level 6 AM to teleport your units in there. The emphasis in WC3 is also more on the armies themselves rather than the economy.
There are still some very important issues in WC3 such as when to expand and where, and in fact, those are more critical in WC3 than SC. I'm actually downloading SC2 right now to give it another try. My posts always kills threads. This will be the last post of this thread. Move along User Info: jake-sf. I have little more than hatred towards SC2.
The single player was destroyed by Blizzard's absolutely horrible writing and the campaigns are disappointing for various reasons. The multiplayer, the custom matches and the editor at the time of release, anyway, I never really got back were all much worse of. Though I do not care a single moment about the standard player vs player matches.
SC2 killed the competitive side. And as I said, the game looks and sounds pretty bad. Everything is cartoonish and melts into each other, and the sounds are all squishy, plastic and stupid. I'm serious when I say all of it was a downgrade from SC1. WC3 was cartoonish but it was supposed to be, and besides, it was a much better game as a whole, though my preference is Brood War anyway. I strongly wish SC2 did not exist. User Info: LiquidDee.
They are very different games. I prefer Starcraft 2. The campaign might be the best one out of all the RTSs I've played as far as gameplay goes Let's not talk about the story.
Warcraft 3 was also a great game, more focused on micro and individual units. The campaign was pretty good and battle net was much better back then which helped a lot.
0コメント