[quote name='Koggit']crotch probably hates me now.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Now I have something around which to base the Long Version. Now, it's still a little difficult because I am not
terribly familiar with WC3, but that didn't stop you talkin' about SC, so here goes...
[quote name='Koggit']
You better have gotten WC3, it's the superior game by
far. They're very diferent though. SC is build a base, build an army, fight for victory. WC, by adding heroes and creeps, is all 3 at once all game long, because your hero has
gotta remain in battle all game[/QUOTE]
Wait what? Are you... what? Are you really saying that only one of those phases occurs at any one time?
...
You would not be a very good Starcraft player. No shame there; my macro
ing sucks. But look... building bases, building armies, and using those armies are not phases in Starcraft. They are states in which you are locked throughout the whole goddamn game. Base building does not end when you have a sizable army, and if you think it does, you're
ed. Macro does not end when micro begins, and if you think it does, you're
double ed. Congratulations, you just took out that Zerg army - too bad he's got reinforcements and you don't, 'cause you let off the macro.
[quote name='Koggit'](or else your opponent will out level you and win), 2 minutes into the game your hero is out, and from then on you'll be in combat
while building your base/army[/QUOTE]
Again, as I said, all this occurs in Starcraft.
Constantly. Without extraneous shit like EXP and levels and all that. Why? Resources, stupid! You seem to be under the impression that you can just build a base, surround it with turrets, build an army, and throw it at the other guy's base and army.
This is probably the best way to lose a game of Starcraft.
It's about expansion. Sitting in your base until you have a Sufficiently Large Army is punished
severely. Do it, and you'll be behind in the arms race in a matter of minutes due to your opponent being able to expand - and thus capture more resources - at will.
So you move out, you expand, you harass the enemy, you counter their attacks, you macro, you micro, you're doing it all -
without the extra layer of bullshit.
[quote name='Koggit'](and you can't hard tech like SC... well, you can, but you'll lose if you do, which is good because hard teching is dumb and boring).[/QUOTE]
Just so we're clear - you're saying here that turtling inside your base and just teching up to really strong units is a legitimate and powerful strategy, right?
Because... no. No. You've gotta get this whole "phase" thing out of your mind. It isn't base then army then attack and no going back or mixing things up. If you try to do that, you're going to get your ass beat down. Maybe it's because you left all the expansions for your opponent so he can out-produce and out-tech you. Maybe it's because a sedentary opponent is a predictable one, and he was easily able to airdrop a bunch of Dark Templar (powerful and invisible swordsmen) right beside your worker population. There are a thousand reasons why this is a Bad Idea.
[quote name='Koggit'] Heroes add so much balance to pacing & non-solo game types -- in SC you're punished for fighting (losing units = weaker army
in WC you're punished for not fighting (not killing units = weak hero). That's the main difference in a sentence. In SC, if you're playing a FFA and fight 2 different players back to back, you're 100%
ed. In WC3, because of heroes, you're only maybe
ed... you'll lose more units than your opponents, but your hero will be higher. WC is basically Heroes vs Heroes with just armies to support. You can lose every one of your units and still have come out on top in a battle.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'll admit, FFAs are where SC gets pretty god damn lame.
Having said that, I don't see WC3 being much better. Yes, X will get experience from going out and fighting Y, but is that going to protect him from Z, who attacks while he's off killing Y? That's the fundamental problem of the FFA in an RTS and holy shit acronyms.
[quote name='Koggit'] Another WC advantage: battles are slower (that is, units dont die as fast) so there's much more micromanagement,[/QUOTE]
They're also boring as
. I don't want to Dragoon dance halfway across the map because those mother
ers over there have a jillion HP.
If you want to nerd up this conversation even more, think of the two games as lightsaber battles. WC3 is like a fight from the prequel trilogy - long, drawn out, masturbatory lightshows with a thousand meaningless swings. SC, then, is like the original trilogy - every swing is significant. Every swing is potentially lethal.
When a Dark Templar can kill a Marine in one shot, then he is a
threat, an enormous, Jesus
killitnow
threat, and this would all go away if suddenly it took two or three or four swings to drop a Marine. Where would the danger be? Of what use would things like
surprise be? What happens to the level of skill required to play when units are durable enough to survive your mistakes? That High Templar is fragile and slow because it's
supposed to be, god dammit, and if it took any longer to kill, then where would be the risk of moving it forward? Where would be the fear of the Guardian lurking just over the next cliff, ready to pick off your ace in the hole just as he's getting in position? These things are all
significant in Starcraft. They are not two guys swinging glorified flashlights at the air.
[quote name='Koggit']making even low-level battles a lot more interesting than attack-moving across a map (which is what 99% of low level players end up doing in Starcraft)...[/QUOTE]
Yes, alright, sure. Hit attack-move across the map. See how far that gets you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=as7Eu-HG1Tk
Who cares what "99% of low-level players do"? Might as well complain that hockey is boring 'cause your four-year-old nephew can't skate for
shit, man.
