RA2 was good and Anti-rush was kinda implimented in Yuris revenge mind control, Gardian GIs, battle bunkers etc but not very well.... On the SC, WC3 debate I prefer SC its the marines I like a good bit of armour...... Orcs just doesn't do it for me I like future
Holy cow, the level of rts newbness on this board amazes me. :(
Just to get a couple things straight:
1) Starcraft wasn't really a revolutionary game. Everything it did had been done before. What made it remarkable was that the implementation was near perfect.
2) War3 is not a rush game. :( Hearing that just makes me cry inside. If anything, it makes true rushing almost impossible, which limits the depth a bit (without rushing as an early game option, there are less decisions to be made). Burrows/Moon Pools/Ancients attacking/Militia/tier2 UD hall are all designed to limit rushing.
Argh. I know I'm just sounding like a #### here, but I can't help it. Just so many misconceptions being thrown around. :/
Watch it forum newbie <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--> .
WTF do you mean its not a rushing game holy cow you must live in a time warp or something ive never on mplayer seen a game go longer the 30 min and the units dont have quality they have like 1 abiulity a pop if that (- the mages) and you know what in ta the units were all diffrent ALL diffrnt sure not all of them had "magic" powers thats because they wernt in a fantasy game, the unit in ta hadn stuff like cloak and not the sucky sc cloak i mean gone cant se em cloak or radar and stuff like that. im gonna hae more 2 marro after i sleep till then!
Necro<insert non-birthday-related title here>Join Date: 2002-08-09Member: 1118Members
well i dunno...i love both <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
of course we can't say if ns pwns us cause 90% of us haven't played it yet <!--emo&:bob:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/bob.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':bob:'><!--endemo-->
Vincent needs to relax and have a smoothie and try to maintain sentence structure and spelling, just reading his post brings me down 5 reading grade levels. And on a side note every multiplayer game I have had has been at least 30 minutes. And that is usually after 3 or for major battles where both sides lose everything and have to rebuild and involves at least one base expansion. That is about how my average game goes, I don't think vincent knows how to defend a rush so all he does is rush. Thats what cuts his games short.
Necro<insert non-birthday-related title here>Join Date: 2002-08-09Member: 1118Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Vincent+Aug. 11 2002,02:01--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Vincent @ Aug. 11 2002,02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->WTF do you mean its not a rushing game holy cow you must live in a time warp or something ive never on mplayer seen a game go longer the 30 min and the units dont have quality they have like 1 abiulity a pop if that (- the mages) and you know what in ta the units were all diffrent ALL diffrnt sure not all of them had "magic" powers thats because they wernt in a fantasy game, the unit in ta hadn stuff like cloak and not the sucky sc cloak i mean gone cant se em cloak or radar and stuff like that. im gonna hae more 2 marro after i sleep till then!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> rushing is what makes 80% of rts's boring...when ppl DONT rush thats when its fun
Rushing is necessary for an rts to have depth. In any good, traditional rts you have two basic options:
1. Rush 2. Power or tech
In general, rushing will counter power/tech, and conservative builds (that is, you have enough early troops to deal with a rush, but you're not making any huge sacrifices in economy to get your guys out fast) will counter rushes.
An RTS without rushing is, uh... kind of pointless. There's no variety in the early game.
and, in any case, all rush prevention design (town bell in aok, free defense in war3, etc) really does is make games with newbies last longer. They'll still die with just as much certainty, just at the fifteen minute mark instead of the two minute mark.
Obviously, a balance needs to be set. You can't have 4pooling (or an equivalent) be the only viable strategy in the game, but you also don't want every game to be forced into three hour bore fests. In short, rushing should be what it is in great games like Starcraft: a useful tactic for dealing with people who get cocky and power too hard or tech too fast.
But however you feel about rushing, attacking someone after the game has been going for thirty minutes is NOT a rush. :P
I didn't want this to be a War3 flame war, but oh well. Vincent's opinion of War3, although valid, shows an inexperience and lack of skill with the game. Any war 3 player worth his salt will tell you that even 1-1 rushed games are rarely under 20 minutes. My avg. game length is probably 35-40.
i have really short sc/war3 games cuz i suck <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo--> . i dunno who said this, but u <b>CAN</b> rush in war3. a very n00b way is to take ur peasants, turn them to militias and rush <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->.neways, i dunno what i like better, sc or war3, but i think i'll like ns more cuz i'm better wit fps <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->.
ROCK ON!!! <!--emo&:asrifle:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/asrifle.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':asrifle:'><!--endemo-->
It seems I have <i>never</i> actually played Warcraft III, so, I would probably go with NS, but, I like Warcraft II alot, so I would go with Warcraft III, even though I have never played it, but, still a good game. <!--emo&:D--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':D'><!--endemo-->
Necro<insert non-birthday-related title here>Join Date: 2002-08-09Member: 1118Members
<!--QuoteBegin--Diogenes' Dog+Aug. 11 2002,14:00--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Diogenes' Dog @ Aug. 11 2002,14:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rushing is necessary for an rts to have depth. In any good, traditional rts you have two basic options:
1. Rush 2. Power or tech
In general, rushing will counter power/tech, and conservative builds (that is, you have enough early troops to deal with a rush, but you're not making any huge sacrifices in economy to get your guys out fast) will counter rushes.
An RTS without rushing is, uh... kind of pointless. There's no variety in the early game.
and, in any case, all rush prevention design (town bell in aok, free defense in war3, etc) really does is make games with newbies last longer. They'll still die with just as much certainty, just at the fifteen minute mark instead of the two minute mark.
Obviously, a balance needs to be set. You can't have 4pooling (or an equivalent) be the only viable strategy in the game, but you also don't want every game to be forced into three hour bore fests. In short, rushing should be what it is in great games like Starcraft: a useful tactic for dealing with people who get cocky and power too hard or tech too fast.
But however you feel about rushing, attacking someone after the game has been going for thirty minutes is NOT a rush. <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->
-dio<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> partly true...but i find it a lot more exciting when the teams DONT rush and build up.
Btw, rushing IS attacking in the first few minutes (under 5).
If the game has a suffieciently complex tech tree with enough unit variety, a 5 minute rush ins't required to add depth. In fact I think it takes away depth, because a tech tree is shaped like a tree so you will find more depth at the wider higher part of tree than the trunk. And it takes time to reach the top of the tree.
A really good game will have depth at all stages of play. The game you seem to want (one where early rushing just plain isn't viable) would only be fun after you had been already playing for ten minutes. Games should be fun from the getgo and STAY fun throughout. To accomplish that, you need to have interesting decisions at every point in the game.
altho obviously there's nothing wrong with different people having different preferences as far as what part they think is the FUNNEST. =]
Warcraft3 has creeping that takes the place of rushing. and by the way there is a reason it is a tech tree and not a tech bush, there are more decisions at the top.
The best War3 players all agree that its lack of rushing reduces depth. This isn't just my opinion - this is the opinion of EVERY good rts player I've ever encountered. This includes professional BW players, the top Human on East (halpmeh), the winner of the War3 beta tournament (Tillerman)... The list goes on and on. I literally can't think of a single top tier RTS player who *doesn't* think this way.
As for the tech tree issue, you have to understand that every decent rts will have a solid tech tree, and most good games will go long enough that you'll see late tech. The thing is, however, that part of what gives an rts depth is knowing when and how to tech. In a game where rushing isn't a threat, part of this decision making process is taken away. War3 isn't offering anything new when it comes to tech trees, it's just diluting options in the early game, giving the game less variety overall at high levels of play.
If you are good you can rush and win, I never said otherwise. I think that rushing removes from a games fun. For example how fun is it for both players when some guy in BW builds 6 zerglings in 3 minutes and rushes you and ends the game in less than 5 minutes. Now compare that games fun factor to a game that lasted over several major battles and took 30 minutes plus. It is clear which game both players enjoyed more.
We're not talking about fun, we're talking about depth. You can't just say "X is more fun". It's a matter of taste. I never claimed that there was anything wrong with preferring one style of play over another.
if i say NS will can i get it early......anyway. i think warcraft 3 is better. because it is a full on RTS and its fun, but i cant really tell since i havent played NS yet
well in BW if someones zerg be zerg or human since prottos get owzord (at the start) and if u love RA2 so much and hate rushing why do u love ra2? i mean at the start of a game get soem tansk the games over shure there are vast numbers of troops and huge armies are fun but taking a group of elves behind enemie lines making a diversion attack and attacking while there gone is good and yet with vast amounts of troops u just attack with no plan (not much of one) but in W3 its pretty easy to stop a rush just go for defence at the start i mean in starcraft do u start attacking right away and never seas up no. i actually dotn own warcraft but i played 3 games 9each about 4 hours) with a frend and yes i was rushed but i survived (by complet e luck)
Really, I think War3 will get RTS of the year only because some people will look at the lack of surface depth (oonly 7 marine weapons!? BS!") without looking deeper. Oh well. Both games are great.
ok 1st of all. My lack of sentence structure is due to the lack of my english skill not "anger".
2nd of all I am am just saying in my opinion it is just not worth $60 bucks All though I understand your objection to my opinion but ME as a player is a fan of games that last longer which includes rushing in "Warcraft 3" thats all it is the games don't last much longer than an half hour.
the only time a game has ever lasted longer then 1/2 hour is when i was playing with a friend who likes long games also. (My Friend typed this in for "Proper Sentence Structure")
P.S.(LongTooth I have crap skills and it got the point across) P.S.S.(Plus I am Very Offened Easily in many manners) P.S.S.S(I never said war3 wasn't a good game its just not my type of game it being short and all.) <!--emo&:asrifle:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/asrifle.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':asrifle:'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:pudgy:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/pudgy.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':pudgy:'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Holy cow, the level of rts newbness on this board amazes me. :(
Just to get a couple things straight:
1) Starcraft wasn't really a revolutionary game. Everything it did had been done before. What made it remarkable was that the implementation was near perfect.
2) War3 is not a rush game. :( Hearing that just makes me cry inside. If anything, it makes true rushing almost impossible, which limits the depth a bit (without rushing as an early game option, there are less decisions to be made). Burrows/Moon Pools/Ancients attacking/Militia/tier2 UD hall are all designed to limit rushing.
Argh. I know I'm just sounding like a #### here, but I can't help it. Just so many misconceptions being thrown around. :/
-dio
but ns + exp..ooooh /me drools <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->
of course we can't say if ns pwns us cause 90% of us haven't played it yet <!--emo&:bob:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/bob.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':bob:'><!--endemo-->
rushing is what makes 80% of rts's boring...when ppl DONT rush thats when its fun
1. Rush
2. Power or tech
In general, rushing will counter power/tech, and conservative builds (that is, you have enough early troops to deal with a rush, but you're not making any huge sacrifices in economy to get your guys out fast) will counter rushes.
An RTS without rushing is, uh... kind of pointless. There's no variety in the early game.
and, in any case, all rush prevention design (town bell in aok, free defense in war3, etc) really does is make games with newbies last longer. They'll still die with just as much certainty, just at the fifteen minute mark instead of the two minute mark.
Obviously, a balance needs to be set. You can't have 4pooling (or an equivalent) be the only viable strategy in the game, but you also don't want every game to be forced into three hour bore fests. In short, rushing should be what it is in great games like Starcraft: a useful tactic for dealing with people who get cocky and power too hard or tech too fast.
But however you feel about rushing, attacking someone after the game has been going for thirty minutes is NOT a rush. :P
-dio
ROCK ON!!! <!--emo&:asrifle:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/asrifle.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':asrifle:'><!--endemo-->
1. Rush
2. Power or tech
In general, rushing will counter power/tech, and conservative builds (that is, you have enough early troops to deal with a rush, but you're not making any huge sacrifices in economy to get your guys out fast) will counter rushes.
An RTS without rushing is, uh... kind of pointless. There's no variety in the early game.
and, in any case, all rush prevention design (town bell in aok, free defense in war3, etc) really does is make games with newbies last longer. They'll still die with just as much certainty, just at the fifteen minute mark instead of the two minute mark.
Obviously, a balance needs to be set. You can't have 4pooling (or an equivalent) be the only viable strategy in the game, but you also don't want every game to be forced into three hour bore fests. In short, rushing should be what it is in great games like Starcraft: a useful tactic for dealing with people who get cocky and power too hard or tech too fast.
But however you feel about rushing, attacking someone after the game has been going for thirty minutes is NOT a rush. <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->
-dio<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
partly true...but i find it a lot more exciting when the teams DONT rush and build up.
Btw, rushing IS attacking in the first few minutes (under 5).
altho obviously there's nothing wrong with different people having different preferences as far as what part they think is the FUNNEST. =]
-dio
As for the tech tree issue, you have to understand that every decent rts will have a solid tech tree, and most good games will go long enough that you'll see late tech. The thing is, however, that part of what gives an rts depth is knowing when and how to tech. In a game where rushing isn't a threat, part of this decision making process is taken away. War3 isn't offering anything new when it comes to tech trees, it's just diluting options in the early game, giving the game less variety overall at high levels of play.
-dio
We're not talking about fun, we're talking about depth. You can't just say "X is more fun". It's a matter of taste. I never claimed that there was anything wrong with preferring one style of play over another.
-dio
Yeah?
Really, I think War3 will get RTS of the year only because some people will look at the lack of surface depth (oonly 7 marine weapons!? BS!") without looking deeper. Oh well. Both games are great.
And I haven't even played NS!
It's like holy cow. I hear that Chess game is pretty deep, and it only has six units. And both races are identical! =]
-dio
2nd of all I am am just saying in my opinion it is just not worth $60 bucks All though I understand your objection to my opinion but ME as a player is a fan of games that last longer which includes rushing in "Warcraft 3" thats all it is the games don't last much longer than an half hour.
the only time a game has ever lasted longer then 1/2 hour is when i was playing with a friend who likes long games also. (My Friend typed this in for "Proper Sentence Structure")
P.S.(LongTooth I have crap skills and it got the point across)
P.S.S.(Plus I am Very Offened Easily in many manners)
P.S.S.S(I never said war3 wasn't a good game its just not my type of game it being short and all.)
<!--emo&:asrifle:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/asrifle.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':asrifle:'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:pudgy:--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/pudgy.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':pudgy:'><!--endemo-->