![]() the unit selection limit should not stand in the way of the player. its unbalanced, as it affects some units and unit comps more than others. Now unit selection, however, is nothing more than handicapping a players ability to micro units. overall the pathing is like it is and its fine, not great not terrible. what would hurt the game is giving units such a smart pathing, that they wrap around units themselves like zerglings in sc2 do, or can get away from a unit block without a player taking action. it would not hurt the game to make units smarter in those edge cases. wc3 is not about unstucking three units that block each other in really ridiculous fashion. units getting really bloody confused and choosing horrible paths, getting stuck or not move at all is not a mechanic that makes wc3 a great game, tho. wc3 has very basic pathing or unit AI, which needs alot of player attention and correction, this is the “good” or “challenging” part of it. it doesnt stand in your way when it works, it gets really wonky when it doesnt. Pathing is the ability of units to find their way to the target, this is game code related. this is what actually has influence on the balance, ranged vs melee for example. Unit turn rate is comparable to unit movementspeed or wind up time - its sort of a unit stat. those things arent even remotely related. ![]() And you'd best realize this quickly if you're looking into playing the game.Īs for ScumEdit, it's a step back from the World Editor, just as World Editor is a step back from the Galaxy Editor.Its not. Now, I was playing (in SC1, both campaign and skirmish) with a speed of one point below the maximum, but this is certainly not what dictates the large difference.The shields concept was interesting, but it would have fit WarCraft III way more, because in StarCraft, especially SC2, it doesn't do much of a difference because people don't care about them units are supposed to just charge into battle and die, in opposition to WarCraft III where micro plays a determinant role - all the items you're provided at each race's specific shop, as well as the game's mechanics themselves, are centered around that. ![]() Meaning, you can actually better preserve your units.In StarCraft 1, both in the campaign and skirmishes, I could actually micro my Zealots, while in SC2, it's ridiculous to bother, because 50 resistance (shields, which don't have a damage discount / armor unless upgraded, from 60 on SC1) in a game where armies are always composed by 30 units or so is just a waste of time or even impossible in most cases. PurplePoot argues with me that it's my micro or macro or whatnot, but from my experience, StarCraft 1 is, micro-wise, a lot more like WarCraft III: first, it has a reduced number of units compared to StarCraft II, and second, the ooold pathing system makes units sometimes wander around in circles and take longer to lock on the pointed target. Brood War is a little more challenging due to the higher difficulty and the fact that resources for your enemies are unlimited from what I can tell.It has a few advantages compared to StarCraft II. The campaigns of the original game are very very easy though, and the strategy is almost always to starve your enemy out of resources whilst doing an effort to take out heavily towered bases, so they tend to get boring. StarCraft has the property of having those three unique races, it is still somewhat fun to play, I replayed the first Protoss campaign a month ago or so, and I feel like playing the one of Brood War. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |