runtlocks
the diff'rence
I always thought Protoss were the "strongest" - for example Zealots being able to beat out Marines and a handful of Zerglings.... said:
Their units were expensive as fuck, too
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Blizzard's New Game (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Evergreen
- Start date
Their units were expensive as fuck, too
...
^___^
yes they are considered to be the strongest. they are supposed to be the most advanced race of the three. but what i meant by strong in sc2, is that they dont seem as one dimension as sc1.runtlocks said:
there used to be "flaws" in the protoss structure..
eg: as shown in the video, in sc1 if you were to attack a protoss base, you aim for the pylons, then the cannons..now that they have a unit that can generate power + teleport units, it takes this strategy away.
secondly, protoss units are that mobile in sc1. except for zealots after a full upgrade. but it seems in sc2, with the new units they can tread any cliffs and zealots have a new ability to run in faster as such...also, they have one unit that can blink in and out of battles..so yeah, their mobilty seems to have advanced a lot.
runtlocks
the diff'rence
A couple of arbiters made are the best possible transport in SC
Serius
Beyond Godlike
Valid points, but screwing up old stategies and providing opertunities for new ones is part of the aim when you create an expansion or sequel. The mothership is probably expensive as all fuck, and might be vulnerable to the zergs new units [a more powerful kamakazie unit maybe?] which are traditionally alot cheaper. Terrans counter to protoss was that they could emp the shields away, that halves their strength and suddenly terran are not only winning the fight unit for unit, but they are doing it cheaper aswell.... said:
DeathB4Life
Bánned
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2006
- Messages
- 590
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2006
after watching the high def gameplay vid (not the youtube cam job that is barely visible), i noticed the mothership was still taking a fair bit of damage while the timeshield was up: exactly 5 damage per missle that hit, both before and during the shield was active.
it seems to just slow down the missles, rather than stop them mid air. the early missles enough time to hit the mothership, while the ones fired later get caught in the shield and drop once its over.
it seems to just slow down the missles, rather than stop them mid air. the early missles enough time to hit the mothership, while the ones fired later get caught in the shield and drop once its over.
Have you ever multiplayered it? Bloody amazing game, even 7 years on, its so getting some play time these holis between drunk and woman, I'll prolly have a few old friends play it as well, tell me if ur interested in joining.jumb said:
stephenchow
Member
Only if you and the other guy were both noobs and didnt attack until you had a large armybshoc said:
Dave2007
Member
Those were the best games...stephenchow said:
Like the "no rush"...for about 20 minutes.
It got to the point where you'd kill your own probes to just have the optimum number of carriers. Then they met in the middle, nothing would be sorted and you'd do it all again
Ahh being a noob...
I played a bit earlier this morning. It took me about half an hour to get into a tower D game. Downloading maps sucks balls and no one has ANY patience. Then theres lag.
Any aussies want some gaming???
MuffinMan
Juno 15/4/08 :)
does anyone know the system requirements for starcraft 2?
stephenchow
Member
Yeah, hate that when that happens although you'd also hate it if you were hosting a game and someone has to download a map. Indicates they havent played the map before eitherDave2007 said:Those were the best games...
Like the "no rush"...for about 20 minutes.
It got to the point where you'd kill your own probes to just have the optimum number of carriers. Then they met in the middle, nothing would be sorted and you'd do it all again
Ahh being a noob...
I played a bit earlier this morning. It took me about half an hour to get into a tower D game. Downloading maps sucks balls and no one has ANY patience. Then theres lag.
Any aussies want some gaming???
EDIT: and system requirements havent been released yet although i think the game's requirements wont be so demanding like other games
MuffinMan
Juno 15/4/08 :)
yeah thinking of getting the a8sc but I'm not sure if it'll run decently on that
numanuma!!1!
she dragosta din tay
an extremely funny commentary of probably the most drastic event on the korean economy since SC1 was released
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070521
http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070521
the requirements should be slightly above what was needed for warcraft 3, as it looks like its using the warcraft 3 engine (as far as i can tell anyway).
mmm must remember to play starcraft at uni sometime...
seeing as they have broadband and i dont...
mmm must remember to play starcraft at uni sometime...
seeing as they have broadband and i dont...
ogmzergrush
LOL
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,198
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2002
Re: graphics, I'd say it'll scale quite a lot, but it might be important not to underestimate the drain of the new stuff that's being added (physics, shinies, whatever).
Similarly, I happened upon:
"The graphics are improved, built off of the Warcraft 3 engine. Of course it’s entirely possible that this was just a press copy go give the public an idea of their vision for the game, similar to the original build of Starcraft that was done with the Warcraft 2 engine before they built a completely new game."
I wasn't aware that that's what happened with Starcraft, but if that's true it might explain why so much of it "looks" done so close to the announcement. It'd also explain why things like WoW looked so different back in the promo days to how they actually turned out.
Anyway, I think there's probably a good reason that they specifically say it's too early to give any definite answer on system requirements. Don't know why anyone would actually care about the requirements, given that we don't even know what kind of timeframe we're looking at on release yet?
Similarly, I happened upon:
"The graphics are improved, built off of the Warcraft 3 engine. Of course it’s entirely possible that this was just a press copy go give the public an idea of their vision for the game, similar to the original build of Starcraft that was done with the Warcraft 2 engine before they built a completely new game."
I wasn't aware that that's what happened with Starcraft, but if that's true it might explain why so much of it "looks" done so close to the announcement. It'd also explain why things like WoW looked so different back in the promo days to how they actually turned out.
Anyway, I think there's probably a good reason that they specifically say it's too early to give any definite answer on system requirements. Don't know why anyone would actually care about the requirements, given that we don't even know what kind of timeframe we're looking at on release yet?