Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

SC2 HOtS.

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,250
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
MBS is something I can live with, as is automatic worker rallying. They really only serve the purpose of stretching the player thin mechanically. Smartcasting and pathing, however, were very important to making BW what it was. The pathing especially, most strategy games have some mechanic that makes it cumbersome and time consuming to move large armies around - if they're easy move around, then nothing stops the player from keeping all their shit together in one huge ball, just like it happens in SC2. I think it would actually help a lot if they just increased unit collision radius and made maps a bit larger and more open, but that's too complicated of an idea for Dustin Browder apparently.

A good game doesn't make it hard to move your armies in a ball if you want to - a good game incentivises splitting your army.
 

JrK

Prophet
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
1,764
Location
Speaking to the Sea
Hai gais, a little bird told me that the writing in Heart of the Swarm is even worse than in Wings of Liberty
Oh, wait, that's actually true. Somehow. Painfully.
Watching a LP on the youtubes because I expected cringe but wanted to see for myself. It's like WoL was only a prelude of the awful shit writing that would come. Blizzard has hit new lows with voice actors telling you what is happening all the time (drop pods!, flash freeze!, healing station!, you've gained a new ability so use it!) , even though it just happened and... is right there.... on the screen.
 

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
MBS is something I can live with, as is automatic worker rallying. They really only serve the purpose of stretching the player thin mechanically. Smartcasting and pathing, however, were very important to making BW what it was. The pathing especially, most strategy games have some mechanic that makes it cumbersome and time consuming to move large armies around - if they're easy move around, then nothing stops the player from keeping all their shit together in one huge ball, just like it happens in SC2. I think it would actually help a lot if they just increased unit collision radius and made maps a bit larger and more open, but that's too complicated of an idea for Dustin Browder apparently.

A good game doesn't make it hard to move your armies in a ball if you want to - a good game incentivises splitting your army.

Go ahead and "incentivise" splitting an army to someone who can just walk it across the map and kill the opponent easily. Why the fuck should a Zerg split his army for defense if he just clicks 50 Zerglings wherever a drop lands and they get there in 3 seconds over creep?

Besides, the difficulty and cost of moving large armies is what makes the most basic tactical concepts actually have meaning. What does having a defensive chokepoint in front of your base matter if the opponent can move 100 supply of army through it in two seconds? The pathing in BW accidentally made things like these matter, and it's also why a bunch of cannons and a high templar on top of a ramp can defend against infinity Hydralisks in BW, while in SC2 they die to a control group of Roaches. Or how in BW ZvT, the Zerg would defend their third base with basically only static defense and 2-3 Lurkers - in SC2 you either have your whole army engage the Terran in the middle of the map, or you lose the base. If you can fit your whole army basically anywhere, you automatically exclude all these scenarios. This is also why they had to throw in weird gimmicky stuff like Forcefields.
 

kris

Arcane
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
8,836
Location
Lulea, Sweden
Units probably have to much health and heal to quickly. Because splash damage seem like a small factor here. That should be the thing to discourage fighting with a blob, but it really isn't. Mind storm is really the only thing that is tried to be avoided, but you need several of them to make any kind of difference. (I speak more from what I seen than played myself on this one)
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
MBS is something I can live with, as is automatic worker rallying. They really only serve the purpose of stretching the player thin mechanically. Smartcasting and pathing, however, were very important to making BW what it was. The pathing especially, most strategy games have some mechanic that makes it cumbersome and time consuming to move large armies around - if they're easy move around, then nothing stops the player from keeping all their shit together in one huge ball, just like it happens in SC2. I think it would actually help a lot if they just increased unit collision radius and made maps a bit larger and more open, but that's too complicated of an idea for Dustin Browder apparently.

A good game doesn't make it hard to move your armies in a ball if you want to - a good game incentivises splitting your army.
That would require blizzard to code some sort of turning speed into the units. Then suddenly a zero turn speed on something like a dragoon would be an interesting unit feature.

Won't happen.

Cowboy Moment, he's talking about flanking.
 

AMG

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
374
Units probably have to much health and heal to quickly. Because splash damage seem like a small factor here. That should be the thing to discourage fighting with a blob, but it really isn't. Mind storm is really the only thing that is tried to be avoided, but you need several of them to make any kind of difference. (I speak more from what I seen than played myself on this one)
It's more complex than that. Splash damage is very effective. If there is splash damage present you don't fight it with a blob, you split your army, or I think scatter is the better term to use, or disengage for a second. The problem is that in SC2 army movement is too easy, high ground, choke points, static defense aren't much of an advantage because it is ridiculously easy to swarm these defences. Unless it's tanks, the dude spends his spells and you engage again. As cowboy wrote, in BW trying to get a few dragoons to shoot the fucking tank on a highground was an exercise in frustration, or getting your 2 groups of marines to run through chokepoint took 2 minutes. In SC2 you just box whatever shit, click past the chokepoint, some units get killed in the process but whatever, and attack. The concept of defending against superior attacking force is absent in SC2. If you want to defend something, you need to have similar force as your opponent. The exceptions are very few, the only units currently in the game providing area control are tanks I think(and they are shit vs toss), also sentries and infestors make defensive scenarios work due to their dumb spells. There is also other side of the coin, with unlimited selection and better pathfinding, reinforcing defesive poistions is also easier. Thats why games of SC2 very often devolve into sitting on 3 bases and doing drops or air harrasment while dancing with the army around the map until you get deathball, while in BW you get engagements and skirmishes all over the map.
 

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
What does flanking have to do with anything? I'm not talking about positioning units in an engagement, I'm talking about unit movement on the map as a whole. You can flank armies just as well in SC2 as in BW if the situation allows for it, that's not really the point.

Units probably have to much health and heal to quickly. Because splash damage seem like a small factor here. That should be the thing to discourage fighting with a blob, but it really isn't. Mind storm is really the only thing that is tried to be avoided, but you need several of them to make any kind of difference. (I speak more from what I seen than played myself on this one)
It's more complex than that. Splash damage is very effective. If there is splash damage present you don't fight it with a blob, you split your army, or I think scatter is the better term to use, or disengage for a second. The problem is that in SC2 army movement is too easy, high ground, choke points, static defense aren't much of an advantage because it is ridiculously easy to swarm these defences. Unless it's tanks, the dude spends his spells and you engage again. As cowboy wrote, in BW trying to get a few dragoons to shoot the fucking tank on a highground was an exercise in frustration, or getting your 2 groups of marines to run through chokepoint took 2 minutes. In SC2 you just box whatever shit, click past the chokepoint, some units get killed in the process but whatever, and attack. The concept of defending against superior attacking force is absent in SC2. If you want to defend something, you need to have similar force as your opponent. The exceptions are very few, the only units currently in the game providing area control are tanks I think(and they are shit vs toss), also sentries and infestors make defensive scenarios work due to their dumb spells. There is also other side of the coin, with unlimited selection and better pathfinding, reinforcing defesive poistions is also easier. Thats why games of SC2 very often devolve into sitting on 3 bases and doing drops or air harrasment while dancing with the army around the map until you get deathball, while in BW you get engagements and skirmishes all over the map.

The fundamental problem, I think, is that everything is just too extreme. Units move too fast (units in SC2 are noticably faster than their BW counterparts), you can produce them too quickly in reaction to things you see, and you can see everything thanks to watchtowers, and everything deals too much damage in bulk. So no matter what they do with the units themselves, it tends to rapidly swing from one extreme to another - like with the Queen range buff, Zerg suddenly became unattackable in the early game without commiting any resources to defense.
 

pan

Learned
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
214
Just watched the HotS cutscenes on youtube.

Thoughts:

  • The opening battle scene is cool

  • Raynor tries entering a laboratory by approaching the guard and asking to be let in. The guard, who is heavily armed and armoured, refuses, because Raynor isn't authorised to enter. Then Raynor repeats his request in a threatening manner and is immediately let in.

  • Once inside the lab it becomes clear that Raynor was expected all along, that he must have been there quite often and that he probably played some central role in the labs operations. It's obvious that there was no reason for him being unauthorised to enter it in the first place. Having Raynor asking to be let in, the guard saying 'oh cool you're that guy my boss told me to let in/I see you in here every day' wouldn't be dramatic enough, so they made this into a retarded and pointless scene where Raynor gets to act 'bad ass,' or, rather, juvenile.

  • Raynor meets Kerrigan inside of the laboratory and they have a dramatic conversation. The conversation reaches it's climax of dramatic tension as a steel wall begins to close between them and Raynor's last words are "I didn't give up on you Kerrigan, don't you give up on us!" Now, what I don't understand is why the steel wall began to close. Raynor asked if he could speak with Kerrigan and then Valarian said 'okay,' then after ten seconds of talking the wall begins to close and I don't understand why their dialogue had to be so brief, other than to arbitrarily make it more dramatic.

  • Some elite covert ops guys assault the lab in an attempt to capture Kerrigan. They find Kerrigan within one second of entering the lab and then she slaughters them in one second. This seems like a rather superfluous thing to make a cut scene over...

  • Kerrigan walks into the Hyperion command deck, asks where Jim Raynor is, Valarian tells her that Jim didn't make it and so she begins to force choke Valarian. But, luckily for Valarian, a huge fleet of battle cruisers appears and start attacking the Hyperion, forcing Kerrigan stop murdering people because of her temper tantrum (query: she and Jim are supposed to be the heroes, right?).

  • Kerrigan is having some sort of soliloquy about something when she hears from a television set that Jim Raynor was captured and executed (yay). Now all that's left is for her to be killed as well, then the universe will be rid of it's two most violent assholes.

  • Kerrigan finds the ghetto general and kills him, but allows his troops to live. This cut scene is actually pretty cool and the drama of it is warranted for once.

  • Zeratul finds Kerrigan and wants to speak with her, but upon seeing him she mutters his name and the launches into a ferocious attack. She punches him so hard that he flies through a huge stone pillar, then she somersaults through the air and lands on top of him to deliver the killing punch. But, before she can do so he grabs her face and says 'believe,' giving her visions of preterzerg -- those organisms which modern Zerg evolved from. The point of all of this is to give Kerrigan the idea that she too must evolve, although it's not explained why.

  • Kerrigan evolves into a wicked witch/zerg.

  • Kerrigan confronts Duran, who takes the form, first, of Raynor and then pre-Zerg Kerrigan. They have a battle, in which they blast energy balls at each other like in Dragonball Z, before Kerrigan wins.

  • Apparantly Raynor is still alive and Kerrigan rescues him, but Raynor says that because Kerrigan evolved back into a zerg he no longer loves her *drama*

  • Kerrigan busts into Mengsks skyscraper and confronts him at the top. Mengsk reveals that this had been planned for and presses a button which makes a big obilisk rise from the floor. The obelisk then electrocutes Kerrigan rendering her helpless. Mengsk is about to kill Kerrigan but then at the last second Raynor comes into the room and throws Mengsk across the room. Kerrigan stands up and takes the moral high ground saying that 'this is revenge for you kill people,' nevermind the fact that she and Raynor kill people all the time, before murdering Mengsk in a very violent manner by blowing him up in such a huge explosion that the entire top floor of the skyscraper is destroyed. Then Kerrigan says goodbye to Raynor and floats into the sky.

  • The finale is Kerrigan saying that she now knows who the true enemy is, referencing someone in 'the void,' saying that she will go and face him in dramatic fashion as always.
 

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,250
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
Go ahead and "incentivise" splitting an army to someone who can just walk it across the map and kill the opponent easily. Why the fuck should a Zerg split his army for defense if he just clicks 50 Zerglings wherever a drop lands and they get there in 3 seconds over creep?

yes who cares about chokes! zerg can ignore them anyway!


Besides, the difficulty and cost of moving large armies is what makes the most basic tactical concepts actually have meaning. What does having a defensive chokepoint in front of your base matter if the opponent can move 100 supply of army through it in two seconds?

fair point, but the solution to the lack of logistical depth isn't artifically limiting the player by forcing him to click on buildings. i want to use my APM when it matters, where it matters. and deciding when and where that is, is part of the actual strategizing going on in computer games of the real time strategy genre. anyway the problem is compounded by at least two facts:

a) maps are too small and especially so are important strategical points of interest like chokes
b) all units move roughly at the same speed

these are issues all RTS games have, except maybe SupCom. RTS games are incredibly minimalistic simulators of actual warfare and for good reason: at the end of the day it's just one duder controlling everything. the human brain is good but it is not that good that it can actually compute a real war in real time, certain concessions have to be made to keep the game an actual game.
people really go overboard blaming SC2 for all the problems RTS games have, when it is just that: an RTS game.

there are however a couple of methods to mitigate those problems, for example by leveraging unit design and HotS does a good job here. the other is sane map design.

The pathing in BW accidentally made things like these matter,

The pathfinding in BW was also shit. If you build your house out of shit it is time to switch the architect. There are some subtle nuances in the fundamental game design of RTS that need to be solved, and that's not done by keeping pathfinding artificially shit.
 

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
  • Kerrigan busts into Mengsks skyscraper and confronts him at the top. Mengsk reveals that this had been planned for and presses a button which makes a big obilisk rise from the floor. The obelisk then electrocutes Kerrigan rendering her helpless. Mengsk is about to kill Kerrigan but then at the last second Raynor comes into the room and throws Mengsk across the room. Kerrigan stands up and takes the moral high ground saying that 'this is revenge for you kill people,' nevermind the fact that she and Raynor kill people all the time, before murdering Mengsk in a very violent manner by blowing him up in such a huge explosion that the entire top floor of the skyscraper is destroyed. Then Kerrigan says goodbye to Raynor and floats into the sky


Nice one, almost had me there. :troll:
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
yes and thats exactly what's bullshit. i rather spend my APM on managing my armies and fighting than clicking on buildings.

No this is what adds depth to RTS, it isn't about being quicker but about making decisions, your focus is a resource in RTS. You have to make plenty of decision on when you can stop focusing on your army to go back to base without it the game is dumbed down significantly. When you are supposed to be able to do everything like in SC2, it all comes down to being fast enough or not, there is no place for decision making on what to focus on, and when. In SC:BW even best players had to choose on sacrificing they control of army or production, and they had to know when to do that.

i could also penetrate my ass with a huge dildo.

Well no game can compete with that.
 

AMG

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
374
fair point, but the solution to the lack of logistical depth isn't artifically limiting the player by forcing him to click on buildings. i want to use my APM when it matters, where it matters. and deciding when and where that is, is part of the actual strategizing going on in computer games of the real time strategy genre.
What does clicking on buildings have to do with logistics and SC2 UI+pathfinding making engagements dumb? Also, why do you ignore the fact that SC2 forces you to click on buildings all the time as well, except it does so more elegantly? And you contradict yourself. How can you strategize on using your APM when you don't need to click on buildings? You can only strategize your APM if you are constatly stretched on it. If you only need to use APM where it matters then there is no strategy, you just use it where it matters. But this argument is irrelevant, since APM distribution is very similar between BW and SC2, I don't know why you keep mentioning this.
 

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,250
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
No this is what adds depth to RTS,

bullshit. a good RTS allows me to spend my APM where I want when I want on what I want and doesn't artifically limit my choices. forcing the player into a certain action without giving him a choice is the exact opposite of creating depth.

You have to make plenty of decision on when you can stop focusing on your army to go back to base without it the game is dumbed down significantly.

How is chainclicking factories making a decision? It isn't. Making short term decision is what happens when I micro my units and that obviously can only happen if I can pump my APM in there.
 

AMG

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
374
APM sinks don't limit choices. They create choices. SC2 designers obviously agree with me, hence mule/inject/cb/creep/producing workers and so on.
 

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,250
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
What does clicking on buildings have to do with logistics and SC2 UI+pathfinding making engagements dumb?

Nothing. You seem to be unable to follow the discussion so here are the two main topics discussed being so far:
* Artifically imiting player choices by implementing APM drains, like repeated clicking on buildings
* Limited scope of the game funneling forces too close to each other, causing uninteresting gameplay.

Also, why do you ignore the fact that SC2 forces you to click on buildings all the time as well, except it does so more elegantly?

I can "click" my buildings without actually going out of the fight. It's two or three hotkeys without moving your screen. That is acceptable middleground between completely automated production like in TA like games and the clickfest that is broodwar.

And you contradict yourself. How can you strategize on using your APM when you don't need to click on buildings?

You still have to click on buildings, when expanding for example. SC2 just doesn't force you to do the *repeated* clicking to produce the same thing over and over again, like in Broodwar or - worse even - Dominions 3. There is no reason why I should switch away from a battle to click on 6 factories to build a tank in each, when I can do the same with just 2 hotkeys without even moving the screen.

You can only strategize your APM if you are constatly stretched on it.

Obviously, and SC2 is logically stretching your APM elsewhere, that is in fights. 300 APM don't just go poof, if you don't have to spend them on managing boring build queues you can instead invest them into interesting stuff like winning battles through brilliant micro. The only important factor here is that the units need to actually "support" degrees of APM. The vulture is an often cited example here, because it is generally shit but specifically awesome and it's low HP high mobility gives you a real return on investment for your APM. That is what I want in my RTS, not clicking on buildings. Clicking on buildings is awful.

But this argument is irrelevant, since APM distribution is very similar between BW and SC2,

Well, if that is true it means people still spend the same amount of time microing buildings in SC2 as they did in BW. Where's your problem?

APM sinks don't limit choices. They create choices. SC2 designers obviously agree with me, hence mule/inject/cb/creep/producing workers and so on.

I never claimed the contrary. The question though is, are those APM sinks of interesting nature that drive the game forward and are exciting for the player to play and the viewer to watch? Or are they the equivalent of autists sorting their collection of blue marbles for the 34th time today?
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
You have to make plenty of decision on when you can stop focusing on your army to go back to base without it the game is dumbed down significantly.

How is chainclicking factories making a decision? It isn't. Making short term decision is what happens when I micro my units and that obviously can only happen if I can pump my APM in there.

Decision is in when you will go back to base to macro, and when you will pay more focus on your army in expense of worse macro. When you are sending your units you must know when you need to focus on controlling them or when you can go back to base to macro, going back to base to macro in parts of the battle happens allot in SC:BW but you must know when to do it, and bad decisions there are costly. You must predict how the fight will go for the next few seconds, and if it is worth it to go back to base to macro or if micro is too important at that time, some parts of the battle require more control then others.
 

AMG

Arbiter
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
374
Nothing. You seem to be unable to follow the discussion so here are the two main topics discussed being so far:
* Artifically imiting player choices by implementing APM drains, like repeated clicking on buildings
* Limited scope of the game funneling forces too close to each other, causing uninteresting gameplay.
You reply to cowboy's post about army movements with this : solution to the lack of logistical depth isn't artifically limiting the player by forcing him to click on buildings
So you seem to imply that clicking on buildings have something to do with logistics. Who can't follow discussion here?

I can "click" my buildings without actually going out of the fight. It's two or three hotkeys without moving your screen. That is acceptable middleground between completely automated production like in TA like games and the clickfest that is broodwar.
You can't inject, mule or cb without going out of fight(you "can" using minimap, but it is a terrible method). You can't warp in without going out of the fight. You can't build depot, rax, expo without going out of the fight. Of course you are right that broodwar constantly forces you to jump around to a much larger degree, but the difference between BW and SC2 isn't as large as you imply and is illusory.


You still have to click on buildings, when expanding for example. SC2 just doesn't force you to do the *repeated* clicking to produce the same thing over and over again, like in Broodwar or - worse even - Dominions 3. There is no reason why I should switch away from a battle to click on 6 factories to build a tank in each, when I can do the same with just 2 hotkeys without even moving the screen.
Of couse that is an improvements over BW. But that doesn't change the nature of the game which is just as much of a clickfest as BW. It just apperas less tedious on a surface.

Obviously, and SC2 is logically stretching your APM elsewhere, that is in fights. 300 APM don't just go poof, if you don't have to spend them on managing boring build queues you can instead spend them on interesting stuff like winning battles through brilliant micro. The only important factor here, is that the units needs to actually "support" degrees of APM. The vulture is an often cited example here, because it is generally shit but specifically awesome and it's low HP high mobility gives you a real return on investment for your APM. That is what I want in my RTS, not clicking on buildings. Clicking on buildings is for autists.
False. If you are not playing with 300 APM at all times then you are playing wrong. And this APM is not in fights, you are just being dishonest. Everybody who played the game knows that you are mostly moving army as one file, scattering when it matters, and doing drops behind aggresion that you often dont even micro. SC2 is just as taxing as BW, the only difference is that menial tasks such as worker rallying and producing were replaced with inject and speeding up the game. You actually spend a lot more time managing army in BW than in SC2, the latter is just faster. And brilliant micro? Please, SC2 micro is so dull that it is not even funny, but you seem to acknowledge this. Actually there is a lot more "cool" micro going on in BW, but because SC2 is a lot faster, frantic marine splitting appears to be engaging. You seem to argue some ideal SC2 with cool units and great maps, but reality is that it isn't.
 

Kane

I have many names
Patron
Vatnik
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
22,250
Location
Drug addicted, mentally ill gays HQ
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015
Decision is in when you will go back to base to macro, and when you will pay more focus on your army in expense of worse macro.

That decision is still there, Einstein. That's specifically the reason blizz implemented larva inject, chrono boost, mules. It's just less constant and less interfering, you now can decide to focus on a battle without falling too far behind. You have more distinct phases where you macro and do epic battle. This is all good for the game. It helps the new players, it makes it easier for the viewers and it shouldn't affect pro gamers at all, given appropriate APM sinks (read: unit design) exists.

When you are sending your units you must know when you need to focus on controlling them or when you can go back to base to macro

You still do exactly that in SC2, wtf are you even talking about?

going back to base to macro in parts of the battle happens allot in SC:BW but you must know when to do it, and bad decisions there are costly.

Exactly, but those are shitty decisions. If I decided to micro instead of macro during that battle, I want not to fall too far behind just because of that decision. Microing is less prohibitive in SC2 and that is a good thing, allthough there will probably be people crying in all eternity how it "diminishes the skill gap abloo bloo bloo".
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
Obviously, and SC2 is logically stretching your APM elsewhere, that is in fights. 300 APM don't just go poof, if you don't have to spend them on managing boring build queues

Multitasking makes RTS gameplay fun. Pressing 7 and pressing mmmmmmDD is an entertainment for sophisticated people, but clicking on buildings instead of clicking 7, and then pressing button is for tedious work, herp derp. What is awful about clicking on buildings, sounds like you are just butt hurt about it.

you can instead invest them into interesting stuff like winning battles through brilliant micro. The only important factor here is that the units need to actually "support" degrees of APM. The vulture is an often cited example here, because it is generally shit but specifically awesome and it's low HP high mobility gives you a real return on investment for your APM. That is what I want in my RTS, not clicking on buildings. Clicking on buildings is awful.

There is much better more impressive micro in SC:BW, often SC:BW player will focus 100% on micro for some time so that whole argument is invalid. Compare SC:BW vulture micro that plant mines, and shoot in less then a second to SC2 vultures with attack that takes ridiculously long, and makes them immobile for all that time, and that don't have mines. Watching good muta micro against terran in SC:BW is sick. In SC2 it is just A move in the right place.
 

Borelli

Arcane
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
1,261
I remember during SC2 production how some of the hardcore fans were mad about multiple building selection removing all macro from the game so Blizz said "don't worry we will add new and exciting macro mechanics".
And what did we get? HQ buildings/queens now have special powers you need to use at REGULAR intervals, for the rest of your life. :( I don't know what's worse.
Sad thing is MBS is actually a good thing because it frees APM to be used elsewhere, even pros don't have all bases covered.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom