Mists of Pandaria $29.99, Starcraft 2 Heart of the Swarm $29.99 @ Newegg

Thanks, this is useful for an alt account since no release date delivery but if you can wait a day or two depending on your location, newegg's 3 day is more like 18-28 hours for me, ships almost all stuff from neighboring state and gets to me very quickly.

doesn't seem to stack Ina single order, so I hope It is multi use so I can order an extra mists and then a new order for hots.
 
Of note, amazons shipping options for CE and regular mists is botched. Doesn't look like anyone can confirm release date delivery anyway .... Same thing happened for diblo 3 , sigh.
So this is especially hot newegg deal imo
 
WOW, confirmed, reusable!!!! HOT HOT HOT, placed one seperate order for mists and heart of the swarm both got -10 off each! Considering blizzard games go on sale once or twice a year, this is great!
 
I assume Heart of the Swarm's release date is just placeholder?

Edit: Bah, not being Shoprunner eligible kills it for me... No sense saving $10 and spending $16 in shipping.
 
Last edited:
Uhhh yeah I don't think Heart of the Swarm is going to be released this year, Dustin Browder (lead designer) said they're looking to be in beta at least 3-5 months.
 
AceCR42 said:
Uhhh yeah I don't think Heart of the Swarm is going to be released this year, Dustin Browder (lead designer) said they're looking to be in beta at least 3-5 months.
Click to expand...

That's good though, I mean hell they spent this long on the damn game as it is. Plus the new/remake X-Com is coming out next month so I'd like to free up my calendar :D
 
In the email blast from Newegg today it says that MOP is not included in this however it let me buy it at the discount.

Edit: used code again on a second copy
 
Last edited:
Can't believe they still haven't released the 2nd campaign. It's been over 2 years so far.

Blizzard sure like to drag stuff out now-a-days.
 
westrock2000 said:
Can't believe they still haven't released the 2nd campaign. It's been over 2 years so far.

Blizzard sure like to drag stuff out now-a-days.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it has more to do with their multiplayer. By doing it this way, they're increasing the length of the cycles for gaming leagues without disrupting the pro play as much.

They kept WOL long enough to get over two full years of pro play, and by releasing HOTS now it will shake things up and keep it interesting. It's an excuse to see new developments and new strategies. This is in stark contrast to 10 years of Brood Wars with no significant changes to units, only changes to balance.

In other words, this is intentional and geared towards pro play. The decision isn't based upon single-player/campaign players. It's pretty obvious all of the stuff for the campaign probably doesn't take them that long, especially not designing the maps or the overarching story per say. The only assets that would take time to build really is cut-scenes and then the "adventure game" click and observe scenes in-between levels.

I fully expect the final campaign to take just as long if not longer to release (intentionally.)
 
Last edited:
Are these digital copies or do they send you a box?

It's getting a bit close to the release date of MoP to be waiting for a box to arrive in the mail, IMO.
 
Since this is from Newegg, they are selling retail boxed copies of the games. Newegg does not sell digital download keys as far as I know; the closest might be a postcard for OEM copies but even those would need to be shipped.
 
Neither game is worth $39.95 but that's just my opinion. HOTS just add's a few units to each race and you get a new campaign, not even close to being worth $40 in my honest opinion. Blizz screwed up SC@ in my opinion, the game is very stale and boring with it only rewarding players that play standard.

They should rename it to real time mechanics game as theres no strategy involved anymore on ladder sadly due to a major lack of units, upgrades, and different buildings.

This is also coming from the people that put out D3 so yea.....never again blizz never again.
 
Sovern said:
Neither game is worth $39.95 but that's just my opinion. HOTS just add's a few units to each race and you get a new campaign, not even close to being worth $40 in my honest opinion. Blizz screwed up SC@ in my opinion, the game is very stale and boring with it only rewarding players that play standard.

They should rename it to real time mechanics game as theres no strategy involved anymore on ladder sadly due to a major lack of units, upgrades, and different buildings.

This is also coming from the people that put out D3 so yea.....never again blizz never again.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this highly. I don't play a lot of SC2, but I do WATCH a lot of SC2. Team Liquid's TSL that just happened recently was very intense and interesting. And recently Day 9 has been commenting several times a week for the past week and change about the new aspects and changes as a result of HotS (he spent a daily on several of the different units for an entirely daily. Like focusing on the Swarm Hosts for one daily and another on the Tempest, etc.) There is actually a lot to that, because it's about figuring out how these units fit into armies. In SC, you can't just rush build something then expect it to just "work." The more I watch Day9, the more I learn that the timings are everything, and so is knowing what your opponents are up to.

There are more changes in HotS certainly there were changes from SC Classic to Broodwars. So if it's just about "how many changes there are" this is certainly a more worthy upgrade than Broodwars was.

Second, I wouldn't rate a games worth on add-ins, I would rate the games worth on how much you play it and how much you enjoy playing it. There are few communities as big and tiered as SC. Even casuals can devote time to play a few games everyday and rack up literally hundreds of hours, have interesting matches (as the pairing system pairs them vs people in their level) and get better. How many games can you say really have 100s of hours worth of play? Sure I'm talking about the competitive online portion of the game, but you can't deny that's a big part of it. What is playing chess against a computer? (obviously referring to strategy etc.) It's always more interesting vs a person.

HotS is basically guaranteed to put out that many hours of game play at least, if you like RTSs and StarCraft in particular. I can't help but say this seems like a huge amount of cynicism.
 
Impulse said:
Haters gonna hate, this isn't the thread for it tho.
Click to expand...

Typical meme post, its just an opinion and I'm entitled to it. Personally I wish that there were more highly played RTS games out there that actually rewarded strategy and innovative thinking. SC2 is just a carpel tunnel fest at the highest level.

There should be RTS games out there where the tech trees for units extend out to where you can get up to 10 different upgrades for the same unit and have many different units, different buildings (both defensively/offensively) and have naval a long with standard bio/air.

Hell, SC2 with maps that had a water section interlinked between both suides of the map a long with naval units would drastically add to the strategy part of the game.

Right now pro SC2 is just about who has better micro and can play standard better, period. Half those guys have carpel tunnel due to SC2 beig that way.

Imagine being able to launch long distance nukes from a cruiser ship or even launch AOE bombs from ships in SC2 that would deny access to certain parts of the map and force navy to navy battle or navy to air/land battles. The game would be much more strategic than the handful of units that are used in the game right now.
 
Sovern said:
Typical meme post, its just an opinion and I'm entitled to it. Personally I wish that there were more highly played RTS games out there that actually rewarded strategy and innovative thinking. SC2 is just a carpel tunnel fest at the highest level.

There should be RTS games out there where the tech trees for units extend out to where you can get up to 10 different upgrades for the same unit and have many different units, different buildings (both defensively/offensively) and have naval a long with standard bio/air.

Hell, SC2 with maps that had a water section interlinked between both suides of the map a long with naval units would drastically add to the strategy part of the game.

Right now pro SC2 is just about who has better micro and can play standard better, period. Half those guys have carpel tunnel due to SC2 beig that way.

Imagine being able to launch long distance nukes from a cruiser ship or even launch AOE bombs from ships in SC2 that would deny access to certain parts of the map and force navy to navy battle or navy to air/land battles. The game would be much more strategic than the handful of units that are used in the game right now.
Click to expand...

Actually, adding in massive amount of naval, would probably add zero to the game, and would probably just add more to the units not used count.

Here is why: There is a balance between power/complexity of units and efficiency. It's most obvious to point that out back in the days of SC Classic with all of the "ZOMG ZERG RUSH" jokes. Are there units like the carrier that have 9 upgrades to defense and then even more upgrades to interceptors? Yes, but their power is outweighed by simple speed.

Invariably in any competitive strategy game, players will find out how to build the least amount of buildings and the best unit composition they can to win in the shortest time possible. Adding a bunch of buildings, a bunch of units, and a bunch of upgrades ultimately just adds a bunch of time, which ultimately is too slow.

Your other suggestion defeats the purpose of true strategy. SC2 has been designed with no delay tactics, just pure play. The things you mention (like long distance nuking) would simply give rise to cheese play, not really people playing well. It sounds more like you're in it for the visual spectacle, like you want units to exist simply because you want them, and not that they would really add to game play. It also seems like you want to extend games simply to extend them. Competitive play for the most part is already in the 15-25 minute mark for most games. How much longer do you really want them to go? If you like just launching nukes willy-nilly and being able to just launch things at opponents, seriously try playing Red Alert. It actually has those features in it. And it is the most unbalanced, cheesy game on the planet. But it sounds a lot like you describe. You get to build a bunch of different units (some of them seem unnecessary, but hey!) It has a navy. You can nuke people from across the map, without any challenge, or possibility of failure (like the ghost has with being detected and killed) you can spam air units that just simply bomb the crap out of things (those soviet jets were silly overpowered... just get like 10 airstrips.)

But let me reiterate, believe me when I say that none of that stuff makes that game better from a competitive/strategy point of view. It just adds to cheese. I had a friend that did the same thing every game... built like 10 airstrips, then sent all the jets to bomb the opponents construction yard. Believe it or not, it was like a 90%+ win ratio. I built 20 rocket marines and bunch of SAMs and they couldn't kill them fast enough. Even if I did stop him one time, he would simply build so many jets, that literally all my air defenses couldn't take them down in a single pass. Basically, you had to start building mobile construction yards early, and have several to even stand a chance of seeing the mid game.

Warcraft 2 I think showed that navies in games that aren't really based around navies have no real purpose. The only time people would build a navy in WC2 is essentially if the map forced them to. (IE a big ocean between the two players.) That isn't really inventive or fun. It's really just a ploy, and after each players plays those maps a few times, they just never play them again. That is unless you're talking about players that just like to play Sim City, and not really build an army until like 20 minutes into the game...

You also mention standard play. What exactly do you think that is? Just in the (what I consider) short time I've been watching (in comparison for how long competitive SC2 play has been going on) there is a lot of variation in what a player can do in the early game that will shape the mid to late game.

Example with Zerg:

Is the Zerg going to go 6 Pool? (Rush)
Is the Zerg Player going to go 14 Pool 15 Hatchery?
Will he reverse and do 14 Hatch 15 Pool or go for slightly faster building with 14 hatch 13 pool.
Is the Zerg player going to go for fast tech and early double gas?

Each of these scenarios is viable and will end up with different forms of harassment and play in the mid to late game. The buildings built after that determine a lot.

Is he going to get a roach warren, a baneling nest, or both? Getting both has financial consequences, can you afford to do that, or will you be over-run? Do you want to get early upgrades, or wait and have more units?

Then the Mid-gate strategies include:

Is the Zerg player going to get a Spire and delay the Hive and Hive Tech
Is the Zerg player going for the Hive to get fast(er) Infestors?
What is the Zerg players mid level army going to look like? Ling/Infestor, Mass Ling, Mass Roach, Ling/Roach, Roach/Muta, etc.

This of course leads to a late game which can include a number of different tech options for late game play, which for brevity, I'll skip.


Note that all of these decisions have to be made quickly and on the fly. All of them are based upon the skill of the player and the knowledge of what the opponent is doing. There is no game that requires that much skill in doing those things. Also, I would argue that excellent macro will defeat "crazy good" micro every time, and if you get a chance to watch players as they play (not a commentary, as they can just jump around to whatever they want to look at) there is a penalty for crazy good micro, and that is that you use a bunch of APM doing it. While the opponent "in essence" has more time to be focusing elsewhere. Better economy, better upgrades, and/or more units will always defeat some guy that has a super awesome Blink Stalker/Sentry micro.

You may feel like the game is full of wasted APM, that fine, then I guess SC2 as a whole isn't for you, and I don't believe any amount of game changing would actually get you to like it then. But as a side note, a game like this is on a knifes edge in-so-far-as balance. Adding even a single unit means that it must be checked against ALL other units for balance. SC2 is pretty unparalleled in that regard. Literally NO OTHER RTS is as finely tuned. There are 3 races with 3 entirely different armies/buildings and play styles. No other RTS has come even close to that. Not to mention like I was saying, each race has tons of varying play styles, and the best players in SC2 are the ones who evolve their play. The game changes all the time, and it is RARE to see the same winner come out of TSL (as an example) two years in a row. That isn't from carpal tunnel, it's from the changing nature of the strategies, and sometimes doing things that players consider to be unorthodox or risky.

There may be a better form of perfect to be had, and I definitely think that SC2 has gotten closer to it from BW, but no other RTS is even on the map.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
Actually, adding in massive amount of naval, would probably add zero to the game, and would probably just add more to the units not used count.

Here is why: There is a balance between power/complexity of units and efficiency. It's most obvious to point that out back in the days of SC Classic with all of the "ZOMG ZERG RUSH" jokes. Are there units like the carrier that have 9 upgrades to defense and then even more upgrades to interceptors? Yes, but their power is outweighed by simple speed.

Invariably in any competitive strategy game, players will find out how to build the least amount of buildings and the best unit composition they can to win in the shortest time possible. Adding a bunch of buildings, a bunch of units, and a bunch of upgrades ultimately just adds a bunch of time, which ultimately is too slow.

Your other suggestion defeats the purpose of true strategy. SC2 has been designed with no delay tactics, just pure play. The things you mention (like long distance nuking) would simply give rise to cheese play, not really people playing well. It sounds more like you're in it for the visual spectacle, like you want units to exist simply because you want them, and not that they would really add to game play. It also seems like you want to extend games simply to extend them. Competitive play for the most part is already in the 15-25 minute mark for most games. How much longer do you really want them to go? If you like just launching nukes willy-nilly and being able to just launch things at opponents, seriously try playing Red Alert. It actually has those features in it. And it is the most unbalanced, cheesy game on the planet. But it sounds a lot like you describe. You get to build a bunch of different units (some of them seem unnecessary, but hey!) It has a navy. You can nuke people from across the map, without any challenge, or possibility of failure (like the ghost has with being detected and killed) you can spam air units that just simply bomb the crap out of things (those soviet jets were silly overpowered... just get like 10 airstrips.)

But let me reiterate, believe me when I say that none of that stuff makes that game better from a competitive/strategy point of view. It just adds to cheese. I had a friend that did the same thing every game... built like 10 airstrips, then sent all the jets to bomb the opponents construction yard. Believe it or not, it was like a 90%+ win ratio. I built 20 rocket marines and bunch of SAMs and they couldn't kill them fast enough. Even if I did stop him one time, he would simply build so many jets, that literally all my air defenses couldn't take them down in a single pass. Basically, you had to start building mobile construction yards early, and have several to even stand a chance of seeing the mid game.

Warcraft 2 I think showed that navies in games that aren't really based around navies have no real purpose. The only time people would build a navy in WC2 is essentially if the map forced them to. (IE a big ocean between the two players.) That isn't really inventive or fun. It's really just a ploy, and after each players plays those maps a few times, they just never play them again. That is unless you're talking about players that just like to play Sim City, and not really build an army until like 20 minutes into the game...

You also mention standard play. What exactly do you think that is? Just in the (what I consider) short time I've been watching (in comparison for how long competitive SC2 play has been going on) there is a lot of variation in what a player can do in the early game that will shape the mid to late game.

Example with Zerg:

Is the Zerg going to go 6 Pool? (Rush)
Is the Zerg Player going to go 14 Pool 15 Hatchery?
Will he reverse and do 14 Hatch 15 Pool or go for slightly faster building with 14 hatch 13 pool.
Is the Zerg player going to go for fast tech and early double gas?

Each of these scenarios is viable and will end up with different forms of harassment and play in the mid to late game. The buildings built after that determine a lot.

Is he going to get a roach warren, a baneling nest, or both? Getting both has financial consequences, can you afford to do that, or will you be over-run? Do you want to get early upgrades, or wait and have more units?

Then the Mid-gate strategies include:

Is the Zerg player going to get a Spire and delay the Hive and Hive Tech
Is the Zerg player going for the Hive to get fast(er) Infestors?
What is the Zerg players mid level army going to look like? Ling/Infestor, Mass Ling, Mass Roach, Ling/Roach, Roach/Muta, etc.

This of course leads to a late game which can include a number of different tech options for late game play, which for brevity, I'll skip.


Note that all of these decisions have to be made quickly and on the fly. All of them are based upon the skill of the player and the knowledge of what the opponent is doing. There is no game that requires that much skill in doing those things. Also, I would argue that excellent macro will defeat "crazy good" micro every time, and if you get a chance to watch players as they play (not a commentary, as they can just jump around to whatever they want to look at) there is a penalty for crazy good micro, and that is that you use a bunch of APM doing it. While the opponent "in essence" has more time to be focusing elsewhere. Better economy, better upgrades, and/or more units will always defeat some guy that has a super awesome Blink Stalker/Sentry micro.

You may feel like the game is full of wasted APM, that fine, then I guess SC2 as a whole isn't for you, and I don't believe any amount of game changing would actually get you to like it then. But as a side note, a game like this is on a knifes edge in-so-far-as balance. Adding even a single unit means that it must be checked against ALL other units for balance. SC2 is pretty unparalleled in that regard. Literally NO OTHER RTS is as finely tuned. There are 3 races with 3 entirely different armies/buildings and play styles. No other RTS has come even close to that. Not to mention like I was saying, each race has tons of varying play styles, and the best players in SC2 are the ones who evolve their play. The game changes all the time, and it is RARE to see the same winner come out of TSL (as an example) two years in a row. That isn't from carpal tunnel, it's from the changing nature of the strategies, and sometimes doing things that players consider to be unorthodox or risky.

There may be a better form of perfect to be had, and I definitely think that SC2 has gotten closer to it from BW, but no other RTS is even on the map.
Click to expand...

You're not understanding my post, I'm a master league player I know how SC2 is played out. Naval play would not introduce cheese if it was done correctly (terrans navy building requires a factory, warship aoe missiles require a tech research on the navy building and have a small cool down, nukes require individual research, etc.) right now SC2 is boring because its more of s sport than anything, there is no strategy at the top level, if there is any strategy it's a very low level strategy.

Also, you cant deny that SC2 is still imbalanced even with Blizzard trying their hardest to make the game balance, I don't agree with their asymmetrical balance design as what point is there making BC's as terran if a basic corrupter hard counters it and can be morphed to Brood Lords? Also, whats so special about asymmetrical balance?

I guess that I play games for the fun of it more than anything and a game that had more units, more upgrades, more buildings, and a navy tech path that was possible with water on the map would be more fun for me as it would be more strategic vs anything.

Right now the game plays more like a sport that requires a very, very minimal amount of strategy similar to something like American Football and to me it like I said its a real time mechanics game not a real time strategy, more mechanics are involved vs strategy.

I'm sure that there are other games out there with more units and are catered to strategy but I don't have the time to look for them.
 
Sovern said:
You're not understanding my post, I'm a master league player I know how SC2 is played out. Naval play would not introduce cheese if it was done correctly (terrans navy building requires a factory, warship aoe missiles require a tech research on the navy building and have a small cool down, nukes require individual research, etc.) right now SC2 is boring because its more of s sport than anything, there is no strategy at the top level, if there is any strategy it's a very low level strategy.
Click to expand...

Okay, you know what, really the burden of proof is on you here. You claim the entire game is low level strategy, you haven't explained why. I explained in an entire post why it's high level play, you're just making blanket statements and not really refuting my position. You seem to be more basing things on an 'opinion' and not on any form of facts. Until you say something contrary to that (IE show me why in detail SC has only "low level strategy" then really we're at in impasse.) It is impossible to correct what you cannot define, or have a discussion about a problem you cannot define.

I mentioned a bunch of problems about having a Navy, 1.) like they don't have a point unless the player is FORCED to build them, 2.) They aren't really fun in RTS's (as WC2 showed us, which is why they didn't show up in WC3,) 3.) They aren't tactically sound as by their water-bound limitation, they inherently CANNOT establish map control, attack a base, or attack any other unit that doesn't happen to either go over their heads, or decides to hang out by water. As such, any player worth their salt that isn't on a map that isn't forced to build a navy, simply won't. Show me how a navy could viably be played in an SC game in terms that the game uses. How does it improve balance, how are the units useful to the composition, how would they improve the strategy in such a way that is even capable of winning, why would the players build them for any other reason than "just for fun" (any unit that is just for fun I should mention is essentially a garbage unit. If it isn't tactically viable, then there is no point in it being in the game.) (I should also note that a Navy wouldn't really fit into SC anyway, as heck... most of the game is in space, like on orbiting platforms, or moons, or other forms of airless/lifeless rocks. Also some maps are on "difficult to inhabit planets" like Char... which doesn't have anything other than lava....)

I (once again) mentioned a bunch of things that are strategy oriented in the game, you haven't said why any of those things aren't strategic. You've said they aren't "strategic enough." What is that, define that, what makes something more strategic or less?

Using my dictionary, it defines Strategy 3 ways, I'm just going to straight block quote this:

Dictionary said:
strategy |ˈstratəjē|
noun ( pl. strategies )
a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim: time to develop a coherent economic strategy | shifts in marketing strategy.
• the art of planning and directing overall military operations and movements in a war or battle. Often contrasted with tactics (see tactic).
• a plan for such military operations and movements: nonprovocative defense strategies.
Click to expand...

StarCraft 2 BY DEFINITION, meets all of those requirements. How can the units and tactics then be MORE or LESS strategic? This game is about planning and directing units, unit types, and ultimately War. The game is about economy. Spell it out, seriously, be specific!


You claim SC is a sport? Sure it is. Any form of competitive play is a sport. But then show me any game where you put two people against each other in which one person wins and one person loses that isn't a sport. Defining SC as a sport or not doesn't change this situation one bit, nor define or characterize what you claim to be the problem in any sort of objectify-able or meaningful way. Once again, Chess is defined as a sport. It even is considered one by the International Olympics Committee. What does calling SC a sport have to do with anything?

Sovern said:
Also, you cant deny that SC2 is still imbalanced even with Blizzard trying their hardest to make the game balance, I don't agree with their asymmetrical balance design as what point is there making BC's as terran if a basic corrupter hard counters it and can be morphed to Brood Lords? Also, whats so special about asymmetrical balance?
Click to expand...

Every game that has multiple ways to play it, IE: different races, characters and things of that nature are going to have issues with balance. Yes, you are 100% right on this, there are slight imbalances in the game. However like I mention, that is true in any game that is asymmetrical. Here are some examples:

Any fighting game (Street Fighter Series, Mortal Kombat Series, Tekken Series, etc.)
Other Strategy games like Civilization that has bonuses to specific countries WC3 etc.
Action Games and RPG's that focus on character building like Diablo 3, Torchlight, World of Warcraft, etc.

By their very nature, yes it's difficult to have any of those perfectly balanced, people will always complain in WoW as an example that certain classes over power others or have an edge etc. Over time a lot of that can be smoothed over at least in high level play. I wouldn't say that the differences are overall the big is SC2 however. SC2 has tons of high level play and players, it is developed for a long time with a lot of Beta time, it is HIGHLY analyzed by MANY commentators and experts in the game, and it's so finely tuned that most unfair balances can be COMPLETELY altered by simply making a building cost 50 more minerals, or by making something slightly longer to build. Overall what I'm saying is, is it perfect? No. But it's pretty darn close (WAY closer than ANY other title by a WIDE margin), and it's getting better all the time. The proof? In high level competitive play, all three races are played. If it was really so imbalanced that one race could just win all the time, any competitive player would just play that race.

On hard counters: hard counters in SC are rarely hard. They ONLY work when you KNOW what your opponent is doing, and can out play them. Day9 has commented on this AGAIN AND AGAIN. Building Corruptors if the opponent has NO air units is a waste of money. You CANNOT force a unit to be good, and you CANNOT force a player to build air units as part of their strategy. If you get rushed by air, trying to build anti-air after the fact will not save you. Therefore, the viability of ANY unit in the game is based upon your opponent and what they build. Once again, this is STRATEGY, that golden word. By it's very nature the word "counter" implies that. The units were designed to counter one another or have different units better against other units. This once again is strategy as your unit composition matters. I've driven this point through again and again. Mass ling, as an example, will not save you against a bunch of Blink Stalkers and Colossi. You're a Master Player right? Create an objection then that makes sense.

Yeah, okay, Corruptors morph into Brood Lords. How is that relevant to a discussion about strategy, or even about the game? Brood Lords are an extreme late game unit that aren't really viable for close to 20 minutes. You're making it sound like get Corruptors and then all of a sudden the enemy will have to deal with a Zerg's late game, very powerful, flying siege unit. That isn't the case, and it never was. If anything it adds to balance and makes it more difficult for Zerg. Zerg in essence has to build a unit, then morph the unit in order to get a Brood Lord, this adds time and cost, and it creates that precious balance between it and other high end flying units (like say a BC or Carrier.)

Why asymmetrical play? Because symmetrical play is boring. You've complained about "standard play", okay, lets take out the element of different races. Do the amount of strategies at that point increase or decrease. There is NO WAY you can say that the amount of strategies will increase in this scenario. In fact they will be cut by 2/3rds as you will NEVER have to plan to play against anything else other than essentially a mirror match. You claim to be at Masters level, this is 100% obvious and calls that statement into question.

Sovern said:
I guess that I play games for the fun of it more than anything and a game that had more units, more upgrades, more buildings, and a navy tech path that was possible with water on the map would be more fun for me as it would be more strategic vs anything.
Click to expand...

Again, more buildings and etc. DOES NOT make a game more strategic. You claim to have spend the 100's of hours it would have taken to get to the Master level. You burned hours of your life away (Day9 says as an example to get to the level of competitive play, it requires an absolute minimum of 3 hours per day) and for some reason you continued to play it, despite it apparently not being fun. That aside, here is (ANOTHER EXAMPLE) of a basic game that people consider to be at the pinnacle of strategy but has few units:

Chess.

In Chess there are only 6 types of units. They are arranged the same way every game, they have their capabilities, that's it. It's hard to argue that this isn't a strategy game, or not at the height of strategy. You can't say people who win at Chess do so through random chance.

I can apply that same sort of info onto SC. Are there tons of types of units? Maybe not, but there doesn't need to be. Blizzard built the game in a way that each unit has a purpose. You can now write a huge amount that explains IN DETAIL what more units would actually do to make the game more strategic, how you can argue that these new units SHOULD be in the game because of some PURPOSE, and not because more units is more fun or makes things better. In my last post, I mentioned that players WILL find out the fastest build orders, the quickest paths, that lead to victory. I gave an example with Red Alert, and what more units actually do to game play, especially overlapping units that have better counterparts (nothing.) Seriously, say any clear statement on this.

Additionally, creating units in a game like SC2 is intrinsically difficult. Getting back to that complaint of your "game balance" adding more units means more things to balance vs everything else. As a "would be" game designer, how do you face that problem, and explain the purpose of having just "more units" that don't add to game play. Seriously, name more units, what they would do, how they would affect game play. And by "how they affect game play," I mean be specific. What unit needs some other hard counter? What is lacking that the new unit would solve (like map control, harassment, early low level unit, anti-air, ability to see invisible units, new caster type that serves a specific purpose, etc.)

As it stands there are so many types of units in the game that do so many different things. When you hear a commentator comment on the units and how they fit, and why a pro player is building them, you can't say that units are not diverse, because they are. What would your proposed increased diversity add to competitive play?

Sovern said:
Right now the game plays more like a sport that requires a very, very minimal amount of strategy similar to something like American Football and to me it like I said its a real time mechanics game not a real time strategy, more mechanics are involved vs strategy.
Click to expand...

Again, you mention strategy. This is a game of war, controlling war units, using army composition, to defeat an enemy. Like Chess, by definition, this is strategy. How can it be "more strategy." Playing the game correctly and countering an opponent effectively means you win, failing to do so means you lose. What you choose to do, or not do determines whether you win or not. Winning in SC2 is very rarely (at worst) chance. And even the few games that "are chance" don't matter, as in high level play it's best out of 3/5/7. It is statistically unlikely that an inferior player will win then because of chance. Therefore ability of play is paramount.

Are mechanics important in this game? Yes. Show me a RTS that isn't (name any one, that isn't, that's been ever built ever.) The truth is, the faster you are at playing the game the greater chance you have at winning.

Maybe you just hate RTSs. I would HIGHLY suggest you try playing turn based strategies instead then, because that is the ONLY play style that involves many of the same functionalities as RTSs (building buildings, units, etc) that removes the "mechanics" away from gameplay. As long as the game is in "real time" there is NO WAY to alter that fact. Faster players will win, period. There is no. way. around. that.

I'm not even going to touch the Football reference, first, I'm not a Sports guy, second, I'm sure someone else can have a fit about that.

Sovern said:
I'm sure that there are other games out there with more units and are catered to strategy but I don't have the time to look for them.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Once again you spent 100's of hours getting to GM level (so you claim) you don't have say... 1 hour to look into other worthwhile RTSs, or other games period?



I once again broke down everything you said, and responded specifically to it. If you want to continue having a discussion, you're going to need to be specific and not create blanket statements. I've sighted why again and again why SC2 is at the peak of RTS play, really the burden is on you to show why it's not.

This game is massively popular, popular enough to be the sport of an entire country, have tons of international play, commentators, and cash involved. That doesn't happen because the game is built like trash. That happens because there is depth, and it's not only interesting to play, but watch. There is no community like this, where even casuals like myself get excited about watching pro players because they know the level that it takes.


As far as other RTS's you can play? I would recommend Supreme Commander. It's slower which might help you like it more, but at the same time, like I say, it is in real time so therefore by it's very nature speed will still be a factor. However, there is a lot of time spent building stuff, so, if you want to SimCity it up in an RTS, then that style of play can at least kind of work in Supreme Commander. You still can get rushed, you can still die to things in the early game. There are also navies. If you just "have to" have all that stuff in order for you to consider a game "strategy" then I recommend that.
 
Last edited:
Me and you obviously don't see eye to eye on many things and I don't have the time to make long post's like you.

Basically, you're being biased to SC2 thinking that navy units wont be useful, if they had the capability's to deny areas, control areas of space, and do other things they would be very useful.

It's also in your opinion that symmetrical balance is boring, in my opinion I would like to play a game that is completely balanced if it was being marketed as a sport even if it came at the cost of it being more stale.

The fact is that SC2 is a very imbalanced game that lacks unit diversity, unit upgrade diversity, defensive/offensive building diversity, and is very straightforward, and demands stale standard play that rewards players with better mechanics vs strategy at the higher or really any level.
 
Sovern said:
The fact is that SC2 is a very imbalanced game that lacks unit diversity, unit upgrade diversity, defensive/offensive building diversity, and is very straightforward, and demands stale standard play that rewards players with better mechanics vs strategy at the higher or really any level.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that that is your opinion, and not, in fact, fact.
 
Sovern said:
Me and you obviously don't see eye to eye on many things and I don't have the time to make long post's like you.
Click to expand...

That's fine, you could address things in a shorter form. I elaborate for clarity, but brevity would be better.
I realize that I'm posting a lot to discuss this, but I am doing so because I find the topic interesting. SC like all games isn't perfect, but I think its as close to perfect as humanly possible, and I'm merely trying to state that if it is possible to build a better game, then these ideas should be out there.

Sovern said:
Basically, you're being biased to SC2 thinking that navy units wont be useful, if they had the capability's to deny areas, control areas of space, and do other things they would be very useful.
Click to expand...

Okay. How is that not being done already? Unit and unit placement already does this. Why should there be an entirely new form of unit that does the same thing? Once again, it doesn't really add fun or strategy, and the fact that it's locked into water inherently, by design, makes it less useful.

Once again, like I said, unless a player is forced to build a navy because of the map, they won't build a navy. Here is once again as concise as I can say it through a scenario

"You control all of the water by having a massive navy. I'm completely overpowered by this force that dominates all water ways."

I simply build a land army, march in and kill your base."

There is nothing forcing me to build a navy, unless the map is annoying and just splits the map in half. The splitting the map in half scenario isn't fun. It's just a manipulation of game play. Technically that exact same thing could exist already. How? Just put a chasm between the two players and then they'd basically have to win with air only or with drops, which if you think about it is technically the same thing as having a mass of water in the middle of the map.

Sovern said:
It's also in your opinion that symmetrical balance is boring, in my opinion I would like to play a game that is completely balanced if it was being marketed as a sport even if it came at the cost of it being more stale.
Click to expand...

Okay. Well that is an opinion, I can't refute an opinion that is true. But if I take that example to any other game, it gets boring really quick, and the asymmetry adds to the game, not takes away from it.

In my earlier examples, I brought up Fighting games. How boring would those games be if everyone only got to play as Ryu in Street Fighter and there was no diversity. That is a direct example of a game in high levels of competitive play that definitely benefits from the diversity of the characters in the game play.

This is also true in PVP for any RPG. If everyone is forced to be "a warrior" there is no divergent game play or anything to play off of.

SC2, then is very similar to this because the balance that the races give, allow for new styles of emergent game-play. It is a fact (not conjecture) that having those races forces different styles of play. Also as we are talking about competitive gaming that is observed by fans, it's also significantly more interesting to watch two races do different things rather than a mirror match all the time. Mirror match is okay when it's 1/3rd of what we see in replay, but a tournament that contains say 30 contestants all essentially building the same things over and over is significantly less interesting. If I had the statistical background to quantify "boredom" I would. As my examples of Street Fighter or a basic RPG, 100% perfect balance doesn't necessarily make the game interesting. There is a definite benefit to diversity.

Sovern said:
The fact is that SC2 is a very imbalanced game that lacks unit diversity, unit upgrade diversity, defensive/offensive building diversity, and is very straightforward, and demands stale standard play that rewards players with better mechanics vs strategy at the higher or really any level.
Click to expand...

Ummm, SC2 is quite the opposite of a lot of the things you're saying. The fact that there are 3 races as an example is an increase in diversity compared to other RTSs both previous and current.

The game isn't all that unbalanced either. I mentioned that in a previous post. The balance is so close that a single 50 mineral increase or increased build time to a single building effects the game play enough to change outcomes significantly. Is it 100% perfect? Again, no, but it's REALLY close. It's not wildly out of whack. Blizzard has confirmed this again and again by demonstrating that the 3 races and their diversity is present virtually equally at all levels of play (this is checked via Battle.net statistics.) This is also true in tournaments. What does this illustrate? All races can win, and that balance is VERY close.

There is a huge amount of upgrades in the game. Both in +'s to attack and defense but also unit specific. Zerg have +3/+3 ground and +3/+3 air for a total of 15 just in damage/defense upgrades (there are an additional 3 for missile upgrades which are separate from melee upgrades, in case you're wondering about the math.) The amount of upgrades each unit for Zerg as an example are: Zerglings have 2, Roaches have 2, Infestors 2, Overlords 2, Ultras 1, Hydras 1, Banelings 1. Not to mention burrow which covers many land units.

From a pure perspective of quantity, show me a game that has more? SC doesn't exist in a vacuum, you say this game needs many things, is there some game that even satisfies any of that stuff? Has there ever been? If we discount the damage/armor upgrades from SC, and the damage/armor upgrades in any other RTS, what other game has more?


Is the game straightforward? Yes, I can agree with that. Is that bad for the game or gameplay? I would say no (you obviously disagree.)

On straightforwardness: Look Chess is straightforward, Counter-Strike is straightforward, all fighting games are straightforward (Street Fighter, Tekken, Diablo.) Like your earlier description of "sport" and "strategy" these terms do little to define what you think is wrong with the game. Would it be better if the game wasn't straight forward and was instead convoluted? Would the game be better if the game was needlessly harder to play? I'm having a hard time grasping what that even means. Most games are based off of concepts. If anything the fact that you can call the game "straightforward" is an asset. At least that ensures the game is accessible, even if you never reach the high echelons of play.


What is "standard play." I've asked for that definition. You don't need a long response. What is that, and why is it so detrimental? What RTS gets away from that?

Again, all RTSs by the definitions you're using reward mechanics over strategy. But what you're ignoring is the fact that each of the strategies in SC2 were heaps of hours in gameplay and refinement.

In this daily from Day9, Day9 comments on 6 games from a player named Morrow as he tests his builds out in the HotS beta: http://day9.tv/d/Day9/morrows-mech-with-no-warhounds/

In it he shows the evolution of play and play style, and the approach at getting better in the game. There is no way you can say that the approach and the decisions you make don't lead to a better win percentage. In all 6 games the goal was the same, but the build changed every time. The first 3-4 games Morrow get's bulldozed, by changing he gets better and finds success. I bring up this series because it's a clear illustration of strategy.

Just because strategy is developed beforehand doesn't mean it's not strategy. That's like saying a Boxer who studies his opponent before a fight doesn't use strategy in the ring because he thought of it before hand. In fact, that "type of strategy" can be said to use in actual wars with actual armies. If you know information before hand, and can learn it and implement it in practice, it doesn't make it any less strategic. In other words, knowing what to do in a given situation doesn't make a game less strategic, it just means that you're a better player, and you've learned how to counter your opponents.

But still you don't mention what your definition of strategy is, if there is any game that has what you're talking about (because an example would probably save you a lot of words, and you wouldn't even have to type a wordy response back, you'd say, "hey: look at this game") or what is "standard play" and why "that is inherently a bad thing."

Because every RTS and turn based strategy is based upon these same principles. In Civ as an example you're probably going to be doing similar things in all your cities, and your overall strategy (depending on what victory type you want) is probably going to be similar or the same depending on play style. C&C, Supreme Commander, and every other RTS is also dependent on build orders, resources, and unit dependencies. I know of no RTS/Turn Based game that doesn't do this.


Like I said earlier, it just seems like RTSs aren't for you, because all of them to my knowledge are this way.
 
Last edited:
Wow, just wow.

459.gif
 
Sovern said:
Typical meme post, its just an opinion and I'm entitled to it.
Click to expand...

You sure are, but this is the the Hot Deals section of the boards, not the gaming section or the personal soapbox section. Ergo, your post is wildly off topic.

Edit: Also, rofl @ the comment about lack of strategy in American Football... I'm not even a big NFL fan (I watch maybe one game every other week, I probably watch a hundred NBA games each season), but that's just ludicrous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top