A newbie question, sorry if this has already been discussed, or if this is the wrong section where to post that, but... I don't really know where you pick up all the information you are discussing here, but here is one of my main question regarding this game to come: I was really amazed of all these network features with Warcraft III: the new battle.net system they built when releasing the game was just impressive, and coupled with all the teamplay dedicated abilities in the game, made this game heavily community oriented. But what about SC2? Can you really play in teams? Of course, you can help somebody being rushed, you can take care of the scouting while another is expanding and the last one harassing or whatever, but... in Warcraft III, the game started the first seconds, with the heroes choice: "I go paladin" (so I will be able to heal your living units and heroes,+extra defense) "I go AM" (so you casters will be more effective) "plz unholy frnz" "I buy the orb in ur shop" "I build some moon wells in your base" etc Again, I apologise if this sounds totally newbish, but do you think the teamplay will be that advanced in Starcraft 2? Do you know how much units can really buff / look after / help in any way beyond detection your allies' units?
No, this is the right section... I never really thought Starcraft was geared towards team play. I don't think starcraft 2 will be any different. Warcraft and Starcraft, although both RTS's made by Blizzard, play so differently, you'd think that they aren't in the same genre of games. I've always viewd sc as a game meant to be played solo (as in no teams). The way the races are made to play so differently from one another with perfect counters and strategies for each seperate race, it seems a lot of this is lost with team play. SC was always more about having perfect macro and micro management while thinking up strategies to beat your opnonent in real time. Games can be decided in minutes.. in WC however, heroes play a large part in the game, and microing your hero to help/aid your team mate is key to winning games. The focus on gameplay is rarely ever macro in WC, compared to SC. So no, I personally dont think SC2 will be any different than the original in terms of team play, to make it so would mean a core change in the way the game is designed. I'm not sure if you are into the pro-gaming starcraft scene in Korea, but if you watch their team matches (2v2), it is always almost the same every time. Not very interesting to watch at all compared with the 1 on 1 matches.
1st lets add the mod if these is a proper thread to be post here.. 2nd heres my answer on that.... If ever they will be compared, it would only be possible that the mining category is the only thing that quite synergizes the two games coz apparently they are on a different category of RTS style and thats what makes either game special... Teamplay has always been great in both games and will further be developed as new trends are enhanced, its just that these two games also has their own different ways of executing the roles and tactics w/c are played.. The barrier that differentiates the two to be compared is definitely the Hero factor and Army production.. to further discuss these maybe you should rather play more broodwar(coz SC2 is still on the works) and then realize on your own each games uniqueness with their own disciplines... WC3FT Vs. SCBW In warcraft 3 frozen throne you have to get a specific hero or more to take down enemy coz they are generally the main factor that will decide the outcome of the game... no matter how better units you have, a gap of 3 levels between the enemy hero might cause you enough to lose the game.. wherein starcraft broodwar a player will never have to heavily rely on a single unit as the catalyst.. but rather the Player acting out as the hero himself to dictate the various strategies to pull out against that other player to win ^_^ Technically speaking SC isnt a game like "More units = enemy will lose game.." but rather the one of the Chess type mind games with a little twist of the your hands dexterity in engaging micro or macro unit control... I'd like to simplify the difference as WC = the war of the world & SC = war of the universe Makes me sing... "ive got the whole world in my hands... ive got the whole world in my hands!!" ^_^
let me congratulate you first the sc2forum admin as first reply is epic enuf to a new member (why doesnt that happen to me?) as for sc and wc warcraft: when it comes to multiplayer, warcraft tends to be support wise or strategy wise, and this means a big role for cooperation to take the win... its because of gameplay mechanics that made it that way. starcraft: it always seems that when i play starcraft, even if team vs team, will always focus more on my base and tech tree... sure, i may help if my ally is almost fkd up, but i focused more on attack and def of my own, rather than my ally... maybe because of starcrafts gameplay mechanics too, and maybe the "hero" factor of blizzard games was enough to make a game different from the other.
Thank you for these replies, the main point of my question was, as I think SC2 will have a battle.net system with I am pretty sure more features again than the one of WC3, I just wondered if there will be those little discussions just before the game, you know, when you are about to start an AT game with a new guy, and you don't know all the details about him (what he used to play, what heroes he like etc): _so, what race? _I go UD k? _mmh, you played fine with NE =/ ... _... and ur wells were pretty useful! ^^ _yah, but I play better with UD _ok then I play ORC, you go DK and I BM n we go harass and I tech to casters and you abo or frosties k? _k You know, these little sweeties just before the game, so interesting about how to play together, to mix as smart as possible the best from every race =) ... So, if I understood correctly, these discussions will be limited in SC2: _ok guyz, so zerg scouts with ovi + lings, I mass zealots and rush and human expand and tech to battleships, k? _k _k =/
I love figuring out a strategy at the start of all my WC3 games, that's how I know we don't both go same units and get screwed over. But I hope Starcraft II will have a similar sort of random Team Search/Picking. I love how I get random people rather then choosing based on Statistics and more.
Having played about 65% of SC and 99% of WC3 with close friends in real life, SC was the more enjoyable team play experience for me personally. However, I believe that for the average person, WC3 was probably the better team play experience. It's not that SC1 wasn't good when played in teams, it's just that it's less likely to happen that way right out of the box. It usually requires having played many games with the same people for there to even be any team work happening at all. Things like offensive Spider Mining can't even be dreamed of with teammates you are not familiar with. But after a while with people you know, it's not any worse than WC3 in my opinion, if not better. I always get Overlords over to Terran teammates early on without saying to keep them from getting cloak rushed, then move the Ovies out farther later on to spot for their Siege Tanks that are on D. In long games I Nydus my Zerg teammates in case they need quick help. These are things you probably can't expect from random people on the battle.net. In fact, some people get mad at you for putting Nydus Canals in their base. And a lot of people on battle.net will never help you out if you get rushed or attacked. A lot of them won't even have units to help with because they're building mad defense as if it was FFA. But just because most people on battle.net were morons in team games, it doesn't make SC1 a bad team game. There are lots of other things that are unique to team games. Terran can get a higher-than-normal ratio of Medics to heal their teammates, even though it's a bad idea if it was solo. Protoss and Terran can also build remote Cannons and Turrets at key locations for their teammates. There are also many tricks such as one Protoss player going strong early while the other one climbs the tech tree like mad, then one Protoss player can instantly have all the upgrades of the other by using Mind Control. Although this isn't limited to just team games, it is more practically feasible. While there are many things that you can do for your teammates, there are also things you can do against your own team often by accident. Often times players of lower skill or a lack of good understanding of SC will do things like killing their teammate's units with Siege Tanks or Lurkers, or clogging up an enemy's choke/ramp leaving most of your team's troops dancing around outside the enemy base. I think it's stuff like that that adds to the bad tastes of SC team games in people's mouths. But most of what's great team games in SC isn't really about what you can do with a specific unit, it's on a larger scale. WC3 is less dynamic and have less strategic freedom IMHO, it's always the same deal all the time. You start out with a hero, harass with hero(es) then creeping then so on and so forth. But in SC, it varies wildly. You can choose not to harass and go completely nuts on expansion, or tech up with absolutely no defense. In team games you can get even more extreme with your teammates covering your ass. For instance, you can tech super early and have your team mate block off your choke, or fortify a central path to both of your bases if you are close enough. You can kind of try to mix it up a bit in WC3, but no matter what you do, most of early-game is gonna be hero harassment, gradually supported by more and more combat units, with some creeping thrown in there. Oh wait, never mind, that's not early-game, that's the entire game. There is very little straying from the norm, and it's even worse because all the races are mirrored. The one thing that might give WC3 an edge in team play over SC1 I think is probably the various different spells of heroes working together. But that's only because the hero aspect of WC3 is a miniature RPG game, even with "classes" built-in for heroes to work together and support each other. It's why DotA is arguably more popular than the actual game itself, it maximize on the RPG/hero portion and minimizes the crappy RTS(rest of the game) that people hate, it's practically an MMO shrunk down and sped up. DotA put in more heroes and spells, which cashes in on the dynamic of different spells working together in combination. For me personally, it isn't enough of a plus to justify the rest of the game being crap. If I wanted RPG gameplay, I would play an RPG instead. I'm not sure what it is exactly that the original poster is trying to say or ask, but if it's about whether or not SC2 will have battle.net features like automatic matchmaking and such, the answer is "yes, and better." You can only expect WC3 to be better "feature wise," since it came out much later than the original SC1 did. And for the same reason, SC2 will be better than WC3 when simply looking at the features list. If you were asking if SC2 will be better than WC3 gameplay wise when it comes to team play, it will only depend on your own personal perception of WC3 and SC1, since SC2 is not much different than SC1 at its very core. So judging on what you've said so far, I would think that SC2 will still be worse than WC3 for you, just like SC1. For people out there like me, it will just be better automatically. Even if SC1 just had the mini-map pinging of WC3, it would be no contest IMO. I hope that answers your question. However, if you are still left with questions unanswered, you should try to be more specific. A made up conversation in script format doesn't really make it too clear what it is you're trying to say. I have no idea why you found that you couldn't communicate with your teammates in SC1 like you did in WC3, but personally I've never had that problem. @ SC2Forums, Whaassssaaaaaaaap~~~
Thank you for this reply. Yes my point was as there will be less let's call "passive teamplay abilities" in SC2 than in WC3 (the various auras for instance), I fear the game to be more duel oriented in team games than real team fights (a 3v3 in WC3 probably turns into a 1v1-1v1-1v1 in SC most of the time, with random players). But I disagree a bit with your point of view regarding morons: even them have basic teamplay skills in team games in WC3 (sharing auras, TPing together, selecting your heroes depending on your teammates choices etc, unless you play with beginners, which is different), which still makes in my opinion the game more teamplay oriented than SC. But I agree given your examples, than SC can reach a high level of teamplay as well if played properly.
I agree with you in that WC3 has more built-in mechanics that affect allies. However, most of the things you can put on the list that can only be in WC3 but not SC are things related to the hero/RPG aspect of the game. Which I have already expressed, at least for me personally, it is not enough of a trade off. Regarding "morons," that was aimed at SC1, although I'm sure you can still find plenty that pertaining WC3. I used the term "moron" not to refer to players of lesser skill or experience, but players who do not play according to the game mode. If you're playing a TEAM game, and you're playing as if it was FFA, you're a moron. It's just that simple. No one dumped you in a team game, you chose it yourself, then play the game according to that choice. None of those "you"s are pointed at you btw Jissé, just wanted to be perfectly clear on that. But coming back to the whole hero aspect of WC3 again, everyone with at least minimal experience on the game, knows to first build a hero and it comes with a TP. So you'll rarely find allies responding with "I don't have any damn units <insert rude and offensive remark>" when you are in need of help, since your allies are bound to have at least a hero. I've already gotten that feeling before that you'll probably still prefer WC3 team play over that of SC2. Your last post have strengthen that belief. However, I hope you'll still at least give SC2 a chance. Being a player that greatly prefers team games over 1v1 myself, I have found SC to be a great experience with the right people. I hope SC1 doesn't stop you from giving SC2 a test drive. In any case, GLHF.
The teamplay is not the only factor that I will consider when I will judge the game, this topic was just about one of the questions I have about this game to come: being as much a macro player than a micro player (playing as much the map than the units), I never managed to really express my strategy in Warcraft 3, where few heroes played by good players can decimate whole armies played by less skilled people. I do not critisize the concept, it's really brilliant, and somehow original (even if I think the different tech trees are on the whole finally pretty alike), this is just I am limited with this approach of the RTS... Regarding morons, yes I have my point of view about this, but they are based as much on the results than on the behaviors, but this is another topic, and probably not the most constructive one... Unless there is a huge bad feedback about the game when it will be released, or an unexpected monthly fee to play it online, I will buy and play it, no problem: I already bought many domain names and am really looking forward it to create this mapping/e-sports community I have in mind for a while.
I don't much like team play in any RTS or any game at all for that matter. If you know the person its fun I suppose. I don't like having to worry about what the other guy is doing in competitive games.
Most Blizzard games are built for the teamplay: in Diablo II, if you play a solo barbarian or sorc, you will be pissed off the game after a while, pissed off having to chase every single little monsters allll over the game with your heavy melee dedicated warrior, or pissed off having to face big tanks who just charge you in a straight line and don't really mind your magic attacks with your caster, it will just be a matter of time, and in Warcraft III, it can be so funny and efficient to mix heroes skills, like DH + holy light, banish + frosties, lich/DK + skeletons, rockets + warstomp + range etc, and that's the main point of my topic: will we have the same feeling, to enjoy being in the community, playing with this guy or this other guy, to find somebody who can deal with our flaws and with whom we can bring something in the game, who can really tell "I played with him" and not just "it was some team games you know", not just endlessly playing the same games, whoever you play with and against, just focusing on your build order and your economy? But I understand, there are team players and there are solo players. I suck at solo in RTS where micromanagement is too important (like in Warcraft III), and really like team games where I can play the whole map, and with people at the end are like "Wow, that was a great game!", whatever who won...
yup the barriers of game preferences kinda varries individually... but with me? im more of a teamplayer, I liked playing in teams in RTS like DoTA (WC3), Frozenthrone, Broodwar, Battle realms lol, and Generals C&C... anyway those games are also very competative individually so its definitely a choice of preference on what will you specialize with.. Strategy is the root of all evel in RTS lol, its the one to make or break a pro.. oh btw, again we cant definitely define the same emotion or characteristics of playing heroes in WC3 between SC2 gameplay cause of the Hero barrier again but I assure you theres gonna be lots of combos that the community will try to figure out with different unit abilities but not just so specific like those with Heroes coz they more are likely complex and difficult to manage whereas in SC2 you'll probably just be using few skills of units en mass or mixing it up with your tech ups... anyway if you are a WC3 teamplayer im guessing that a probability of having that kind of feeling will be lest likely as it ussually takes little time in SC universe to take down your enemy units... Its kind of more real than with Warcraft.. for example #1: In Starcraft a tank will easily bombard infantry units to pieces with their massive damage.. unlike in Warcraft even if you have lots of archers firing arrows to a unit, it takes really long to kill a unit... (arrow shower shouldve killed a unit in a snap)... technically a wide array of combos cant be applied to an SC game as most of the skills are divided to almost each unit so the latter will make it look that you got to have every bits of pieces if you want to have the same experience of having complicated combinations.. Im not saying that SC is weaker with that specifics but those things you highlited in WC3 are probably gonna be more evident in a campaign mode... and btw there is now a multiplayer campaign mode so it can be done weee!!! Generally what im trying to conclude is that the feeling is there but in a new kind of flavor... well i really cant put it to words but the most definitive way to explain it is to play the game itself, so we'll see ^_^
I agree. I seriously thought SC2 would have the same HP/DPS ratio than WC3, ie fights requiring lots of hits etc, and seriously thought marines for instance would be like HP: 200, damage: 8, but I am glad somehow they kept the old, original concept: quick skirmishes have their own flavour too! =) ... Wow I didn't know, are you sure about that? That would rock! Would this mean that: _players would be able to play together against one or many AI-controlled opponents, with some story/triggers enhancements? _players would be able to be assigned different objectives within the same general mission? _the same players would be able to play through different maps (ie playing a whole evening on the same story, or able to save and then get back later to a long mission)? That's very interesting...
