Starcraft II

Comic2-SS.jpg


Brings back memories...

Got this from the newest FilePlanet Fileblog

http://www.fileplanet.com/fileblog/archives/2010/08/entry_3775.shtml
 
never played sc1.. but sc2 is incredible..

the guest pass sold me.
 
So now that the game has been out a while, how are the custom maps? If I get the game, most likely I'll play single player and custom map, so is it worth getting?
 
Thuban said:
So now that the game has been out a while, how are the custom maps? If I get the game, most likely I'll play single player and custom map, so is it worth getting?
Click to expand...

The potential is there, but there are two main problems with custom maps right now:

1) The bnet system (ranked by popularity, poor hosting system, bnet dictates what maps you can / can't play)
2) The editor itself. I've been working on a map actually. I used the SC1 and WC3 editors pretty extensively. The SC2 editor is much much more complicated than its predecessors. Good maps are on the way, but it requires a lot more work. The editor is more powerful - however it takes a long time to do the simplest things.
 
Yea they for sure need to add a better browser for custom maps with more filtering/category options for sure. I'm not even sure how you would be able to find newer maps (which would be less popular), as they would be buried far down the list, which takes relatively forever to get to the bottom, and would most likely be forever unpopular if no one finds them?

It does have its pros for the developer though in the sense I believe the map gets updated for all users to the newest version you release.

The editor and game engine is more robust and powerful, so the potential is for sure there, you can just do a lot more.
 
MattyC said:
While I agree that the B.net content system is junk at this point, you don't have to use it. You can still go out to map sites and download maps just like you did for StarCraft 1.
Click to expand...

Go download a map and host it for multiplayer real quick. One that isn't published on bnet.
 
limitedaccess said:
I'm not even sure how you would be able to find newer maps (which would be less popular), as they would be buried far down the list, which takes relatively forever to get to the bottom, and would most likely be forever unpopular if no one finds them?.
Click to expand...

When you "host" a game you can search all the available maps for what you're looking for, that'd be your best bet for a new map like that.
 
]|[ Mar']['in ]|[;1036105677 said:
When you "host" a game you can search all the available maps for what you're looking for, that'd be your best bet for a new map like that.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I recalled seeing a search somewhere, but then there wasn't one when trying to join a game, so that answered that. But your game might have trouble finding players :p
 
I'm having a lot of fun 1v1. I abosolutely hate TvT, it all depends on who can macro harder.
 
Carv said:
I'm having a lot of fun 1v1. I abosolutely hate TvT, it all depends on who can macro harder.
Click to expand...

I partially disagree. With the build I've been using recently I find TvT to be quite entertaining since I destroy people who turtle, FE or go tank/viking. The build (talked about it in an earlier post) even took out a Thor heavy build last night. Dude thought he had me until he realized he had no Ravens against my stimmed 5 rax MMM army and half a dozen cloaked banshees.

It's all a matter of what you do and what you want to do. If you go tank/viking same as the other guy then you get bored. So design a different build, something that counters tank/viking. I like some of the banshee with viking support harass I've seen in some replays. You draw out the marines and marauders so you run to their mineral line with 4 medivacs of MM. Stim and take out the CC or the mineral line. Marines and Marauders get pulled back to take you out and in turn those banshees take out all the tanks.
 
Do you consider yourself a defensive or offensive player? Or, another way of saying it, do you consider yourself an adaptive or proactive player? Do you dictate the way the match will play out or do you adapt your style to what you see your opponent doing?

I find myself playing the defensive/adaptive role more often than playing the offensive/proactive role. It seems to suit my play style better. It does rely heavily on scouting your opponent and being able to react quickly to what he is doing, but I find it so much easier to see what he is building, position my units to best trap his army (I love flanking Terrans so much especially when sieged up with tanks :)) destroy his main force and expand or double expand. The last two 1v1s I played the opponents quit without me ever touching their mains or natural expos.

What style do you guys prefer?

Edit: I should add that if I see my opponent expanding more aggressively than me I will typically attack his expos and play a more proactive game at that point.
 
Last edited:
umcpgrad said:
depends on the race
Click to expand...

That leads up to another question. Do you guys stick to one race or do you play multiple races? Outside of a few 4v4 games I haven't played any other race but Protoss. I tried Zerg in the beta and just couldn't manage them. Way to much base micro with spawn larva and creep spreading. I never tried Terran.
 
petertew said:
Do you consider yourself a defensive or offensive player? Or, another way of saying it, do you consider yourself an adaptive or proactive player? Do you dictate the way the match will play out or do you adapt your style to what you see your opponent doing?

I find myself playing the defensive/adaptive role more often than playing the offensive/proactive role. It seems to suit my play style better. It does rely heavily on scouting your opponent and being able to react quickly to what he is doing, but I find it so much easier to see what he is building, position my units to best trap his army (I love flanking Terrans so much especially when sieged up with tanks :)) destroy his main force and expand or double expand. The last two 1v1s I played the opponents quit without me ever touching their mains or natural expos.

What style do you guys prefer?

Edit: I should add that if I see my opponent expanding more aggressively than me I will typically attack his expos and play a more proactive game at that point.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly aggressive but also very reactionary. However, a lot of what I do is also based on map and race. Certain maps just allow you to be more aggressive against different races.

I play Terran and only Terran. I gave Protoss a shot during Beta and it was OK. I've always hated Zerg so I won't touch them.
 
petertew said:
Do you consider yourself a defensive or offensive player? Or, another way of saying it, do you consider yourself an adaptive or proactive player? Do you dictate the way the match will play out or do you adapt your style to what you see your opponent doing?

I find myself playing the defensive/adaptive role more often than playing the offensive/proactive role. It seems to suit my play style better. It does rely heavily on scouting your opponent and being able to react quickly to what he is doing, but I find it so much easier to see what he is building, position my units to best trap his army (I love flanking Terrans so much especially when sieged up with tanks :)) destroy his main force and expand or double expand. The last two 1v1s I played the opponents quit without me ever touching their mains or natural expos.

What style do you guys prefer?

Edit: I should add that if I see my opponent expanding more aggressively than me I will typically attack his expos and play a more proactive game at that point.
Click to expand...

More of a pressure player. Usually try to be the first one to attack/harass and punish fast expansions. Absolutely love playing turtles, I get this fluffy funny feeling when I get the entire map to myself.

As Zerg and Protoss, I'm usually completely offensive and often value a mobile force over static defense. Only really build base defenses if an attack were to fail or if scouting reveals trouble. As Terran, I'm a pretty weak defensive player. I do the usual cliche ramp block and all that, then roll out with a late MM blob. Haven't found a groove with them, but trying to find my niche with a Raven/Banshee build.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
More of a pressure player. Usually try to be the first one to attack/harass and punish fast expansions. Absolutely love playing turtles, I get this fluffy funny feeling when I get the entire map to myself.

As Zerg and Protoss, I'm usually completely offensive and often value a mobile force over static defense. Only really build base defenses if an attack were to fail or if scouting reveals trouble. As Terran, I'm a pretty weak defensive player. I do the usual cliche ramp block and all that, then roll out with a late MM blob. Haven't found a groove with them, but trying to find my niche with a Raven/Banshee build.
Click to expand...

I like turtlers as well. I think there is a diff between playing defensively/adaptively and turtling though. A turtler, IMO, masses a defense heavy army and holes up and never moves until he has this giant death army. Playing defensively/adaptively is more like judo; I try to use what a player is doing against himself. Going big, slow mech army? Cool, I make a very mobile army and spread your forces thin by attacking you away from your army, forcing you to retreat/defend your base so I can expand.

I guess the turtle mentality just feels like, "I'm staying in my base till I'm good and ready to come out." and defensive/adaptive style mentality feels more like, "I'm going to watch what you do and exploit your weaknesses."
 
petertew said:
That leads up to another question. Do you guys stick to one race or do you play multiple races? Outside of a few 4v4 games I haven't played any other race but Protoss. I tried Zerg in the beta and just couldn't manage them. Way to much base micro with spawn larva and creep spreading. I never tried Terran.
Click to expand...

in high level ranked games I go toss
and in custom and just killin for fun I go random
 
petertew said:
I like turtlers as well. I think there is a diff between playing defensively/adaptively and turtling though. A turtler, IMO, masses a defense heavy army and holes up and never moves until he has this giant death army. Playing defensively/adaptively is more like judo; I try to use what a player is doing against himself. Going big, slow mech army? Cool, I make a very mobile army and spread your forces thin by attacking you away from your army, forcing you to retreat/defend your base so I can expand.

I guess the turtle mentality just feels like, "I'm staying in my base till I'm good and ready to come out." and defensive/adaptive style mentality feels more like, "I'm going to watch what you do and exploit your weaknesses."
Click to expand...

turtle-in
is for the noobs
aggressive push are for gold and up
 
petertew said:
I like turtlers as well. I think there is a diff between playing defensively/adaptively and turtling though. A turtler, IMO, masses a defense heavy army and holes up and never moves until he has this giant death army. Playing defensively/adaptively is more like judo; I try to use what a player is doing against himself. Going big, slow mech army? Cool, I make a very mobile army and spread your forces thin by attacking you away from your army, forcing you to retreat/defend your base so I can expand.

I guess the turtle mentality just feels like, "I'm staying in my base till I'm good and ready to come out." and defensive/adaptive style mentality feels more like, "I'm going to watch what you do and exploit your weaknesses."
Click to expand...

I'd agree with those definitions!
 
limitedaccess said:
Well they commented on balance and upcoming patch changes

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/692221#blog
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why siege tanks did full damage to everything. In SC1 they did 1/2 to small units and 3/4 to medium.

35+15 would make them less effective against hydralisk. They still 1 shot a zergling, but they will no longer 1 shot 4 or 5 zergling at a time ... Most importantly I think zealots are now a very good option against siege tanks like they were in SC1. Also, tanks no longer 1 shot reapers and marines.

The reaper thing may or may not change anything. 5 second nerf will slow down the initial reaper... but when the terran's got 7 barracks down... (think morrow vs. idra).

Both the reaper and zealot build time increases were something they played around with internally and accidentally implemented in beta for like a few days...

I think the bunker change doesn't mean shit. The build time on the bunker wasn't the issue. The fact that you can make a bunker and get 100% of the resources back is kind of broken. It was initially designed for pushing forward a fortified position by remaking bunkers + positioning tanks forward, not as a proxy base early game offensive.
 
This is bullshit. If they should nerf anything it should be vrays.
 
Troub said:
Can someone please post the full details, Cannot see it here and thanks in advance :)
Click to expand...

Hurr ya go.

Protoss

We have two key changes in mind for the zealot: the build time is being increased from 33 to 38 seconds, and the warpgate cooldown is being increased from 23 to 28 seconds. Zealot rushes are currently too powerful at various skill levels, particularly those that rely on rapidly assaulting an enemy base from nearby "proxy" gateways. We feel the window players have to scout for and fend off this rush is too small. We also want to address the problem of protoss being able to dump minerals a bit too quickly with the combination of warpgates and Chrono Boost.

Terran

There are several changes in the works for terrans. Reapers against zerg are stronger than expected. Due to the zealot build time increase, reapers would be a bit problematic in combination with proxy barracks, bunkers, and/or marauders against protoss. Therefore, we have decided to increase the build time of reapers as well from 40 to 45 seconds. Fast reaper + bunker, or fast marine + bunker rushes are problematic against zerg. Although this rush would never outright destroy the zerg player, we feel zerg suffers too much of a disadvantage from either having to cancel the fast expansion, or getting trapped inside the main base for too long, so we are also increasing the bunker build time from 30 to 35 seconds.

Siege tanks in large numbers are performing too well in all matchups. In the mid- to late-game, siege tanks are too dominant against all ground units. We want a small set of light and unarmored ground units to perform better against siege tanks. With this in mind, we're changing the Siege Mode damage of the siege tank from 50 to 35, +15 vs. armored; to correspond with this, damage upgrades will be changed from +5 to +3, +2 vs. armored. This change reduces the base damage of the siege tank against light and unarmored units, as well as the splash damage.

Battlecruisers currently lack good counters from the ground and still perform very well against a wide array of unit types. We're aware that it is not easy to get battlecruisers out for the cost, but at the same time, it is possible in both 1v1s and team games to create stalemate situations to bring them out. Overall, we feel that battlecruisers are too strong for their cost, and the terran-forced stalemate situations are causing less interesting gameplay. We will be lowering their damage against ground units from 10 to 8.

Zerg

Ultralisk damage is being decreased from 15, +25 vs. armored to 15, +20 vs. armored. This reduction is comparable to the changes being made to the battlecruiser and siege tank. Like the battlecruiser, ultralisks are simply too powerful for the cost, even though they are difficult to muster. Also, in combination with other units, ultralisks are difficult to counter from the ground. The ultralisk building attack (Ram) is being removed because the damage rate is too similar to its normal attack, which will be used against buildings instead. When ultralisks target tightly packed smaller buildings such as supply depots, the Ram attack is actually outputting considerably less overall damage than its normal attack, as Ram only hits a single target.
Click to expand...
 
Vrays die horribly to stim rines. If you can't scout him going rays in time for him to get like 3-4 then it's bad scouting that makes you lose.
 
BravO))) said:
This is bullshit. If they should nerf anything it should be vrays.
Click to expand...

Void rays aren't 'overpowered', I think they're just poorly designed overall (too black and white - either useless or dominating). I'd rather see a design overhaul than any buff / nerf.
 
Blizzard: "Hm zerg and protoss are too powerful against mass marauder, lets nerf them"

Edit: I will give them the benefit of the doubt though, from the 1.1 patch 1 armor zerglings will require 2 shots from a tank, so they might function alot better against a ball with tank backup. That doesn't change that mass marauder pretty much rolls over everything protoss has though
 
Last edited:
Funny enough if someone proxy gates me, I think... free win.

Really no reason to nerf the toss. Terran nerf = zerg buff.
 
I agree with all of the changes, except for the map changes based on the balance.

If you're going to increase the zealot build time, you have to get rid of the small maps. There's no way I'm playing steppes of war or the Xel'Naga caverns after this patch is released. It's going to be way too hard to stop proxy marauders and 6 pool rushes with such short distances. Removing the small maps I think would easily mitigate this inevitable problem. However, they are very positive changes, and I like what blizzard is thinking, I'm just not sure about the maps.\

I know someone is going to marauder bunker rush me as soon as this patch comes out, really not looking forward to that. Oh and Intel_Hydralisk, you're completely right about salvage, it's bull shit. It should 75% return, just like cancelling a building.
 
Last edited:
Also, the protoss nerf was completely justified. I think I lost 1 game out of about 10 against zerg when I went two gate zealot into expand, double gas and a cyber core to follow up with stalkers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top