Starcraft 2 Armory - Unofficial Starcraft 2 Fansite

There have been multiple threads people have made concerning the user interface for Starcraft 2. Many people think that additions such as rally points to minerals or smart casting are strange and defeat the purpose of the game. Others say how it will make it unimaginabley easier. I'm actually pretty shocked to find that some users actually will have a problem with this.

So today I purpose an interesting question:

Will people more accustomed to Warcraft 3 fair better than people accustomed to Starcraft in the first months of Sc2?

PLEASE READ FIRST: I know several people will feel the inclination to not believe a word I say from this point out simply because they might feel insulted. To those people let me say; I don't believe Wc3 is a better game. I believe it has more similarities with Sc2 then Sc1 does. Let us be opened minded to good reasoning.

So let us begin:

-STARCRAFT-
1) The obvious facts are that there are no heroes or creeps or items or abundance of lumber or any multiple of complex things that Wc3 has. SC users are USED to this gameplay.
2) SC users also recognize the units. People who play Wc3 find the units...alien- in other ways then the obvious sense. They don't know the strategies behind them.

-WARCRAFT3-
1) There's no heroes? Or items?! And the majority of units only require the equivalent of gold??!! This is like a streamlined version of Wc3! There's now only units to micro, and resources are simpler to understand then ever!

2) The Queens are nothing alike, mutalisks can't change, marines have new abilities, zealots have charge, overlords can mutate, tons of old units removed, tons of new units added....
It's not even close to the same game.

3) So not only is the game singularly about units, but the interface is, wait, almost the exact same as Wc3? So not only is our focus solely to be on units and no hero, BUT ALSO the interface will be familiar and the pathing relatively the same as our original game?
Convenient.

--------------------------
To the people who play SC1 only, again, please don't take this the wrong way. I actually like SC1 more than Wc3... but the amount of posters saying how different this will be makes me realize who the real fish out of water are.

The interphase is extremly easy to get hang of, especially when they get easier. However, SC1 strategies are valuable things that are hard to learn, and will be useful in SC2.

In my opinion SC isn't WC3 which isn't SC2.

I would say SC players will have it easier then WC3 players. WC3, which I'm playing almost exclusively now, is so focused on different things that SC2 isn't. Creeping. Hero leveling. Items. These things change the flow of battle in WC3, and the people who play the game regularly are used to using them. I would say that now switching to simply units would put WC3 players at a disadvantage.

Terrain is much more important in SC then in WC3, and it will be important in SC2. For every unit that was removed, there's probably also a unit that has stayed, and old SC players will be used to that. Expanding is also much more important in SC then in WC3, and will continue to be important in SC2. WC3 supply is capped at 100, and so armies were significantly smaller. WC3 players won't be used to controlling so many units. And again, I can't stress enough, Heroes were game-changing in WC3. Not having them will definitely throw off WC3 players a bit.

I'd definitely give the advantage to players of the original SC. That's not saying that both WC3 and SC players won't have changes to get used to. And I do agree that the interface is a little more like WC3 now.

I remember watching some SC2 matches at an event (Blizzcon 09 maybe?) where pro players got to go head to head. Several were SC players while a few were WC3 players. If memory serves me correct the SC players generally beat the WC3 ones more. One particular match the SC pro went 3-0 against the WC3 player so ya.

SC2 takes all the redundant and sometimes arguably unnecessary parts of SC out, note rally minerals, MBS, 255 unit grouping, etc. They clearly want to add a slightly more emphasis on micro versus macro compared to original (though arguable the macro lost tends to be the hassle or chore of the game rather than actual demonstration of skill and strategy).

WC3 will definitely have a harder time since WC3 is more or less emphasized on micro and little on macro. On the other hand, SC is heavily macro and some micro. (Seen primarily by unit stats - low hp, mid damage, cheap units, massable armies). Arguably, the added micro in SC2 will likely be more utilized by WC3 veterans who are likely used to using whatever micro they're willing such as withdraw that 1 unit that's low on hp (they'd likely have a better time with protoss as such). I'd think WC3 players will have the hardest time with Zerg since it's unlike anything in WC3, in which all races had production buildings, whereas zerg has a single production building and then tier buildings. Not to mention the different macro mechanic zerg is compared to terran and protoss, economy-military balance at first and the concept of expanding beyond 2 bases that's fairly common in WC3.

Scouting I'd say is arguably more important in SC2 than in WC3 though intell is always important. WC3 will have to learn the ways of SC harassing as they can't simply come in with windwalk and kill workers then TP out. Lack of creeping means they'd either sit in their base building up their army or learn to constantly scout around the map expanding, lookin for expanding, observing their enemies. Also means there's likely less opportunities to ambush enemies creeping, maybe if they're destroying a rock for an expo but yea, creeping was a very good vulnerability with which the ambush an enemy, take his item drop, trap him in what are usually corners and dead-ends creeps are always in.

Quote by Acayex

WC3 will definitely have a harder time since WC3 is more or less emphasized on micro and little on macro.

Please just shut up.

There's a difference between taking out parts of a game and changing the user interface.
It's like this:
If Wc3 was basketball, Sc2 will be basketball without sidelines.
If SC was basketball, Sc2 will be basketball with a dodgeball. You can throw it farther, but it's a new thing to learn.

And to who said that SC pros beat Wc3 pros in the Blizzcon games, did you SEE who they played? The Wc3 'pros' were not even close to the best in the game and one of them was fifteen years old.

Copes, please think before you post. "For every unit that was removed, there's a probably also a unit that has stayed". Not even close. And if you read my whole post, most of those units that HAVE stayed have been drastically changed. You can't use previous strategies when 7/8ths of the units are DIFFERENT.
Everyone is just saying the same things over and over... Look past 'defending the game' and come up with something original.

I don't think it matters. The game is not going to be difficult for anyone to pick up and play. I guess SC players would have an easier time simply because they are used to most of the units and have a general understanding of how things work.

Quote by THoR

If Wc3 was basketball, Sc2 will be basketball without sidelines.
If SC was basketball, Sc2 will be basketball with a dodgeball. You can throw it farther, but it's a new thing to learn.

................ Wat?

Truth be told you can't really make generalizations about who will find the game easier. Everyone is different. Some people who play WC3 may find SC2 easier because it has a similar UI while others who play SC will find it easier since there are a lot of returning units and abilities.

You mention WC3 players will have an easier time because they won't have to worry about heroes? What about the fact they will now have to control armies three or four times larger than they are use to? Maybe even larger.

I also think you are SERIOUSLY down playing how important it is to be familiar with the units. Sure not all the units in SC2 are the exact same as they were in SC, but a lot are. Lots have just had very minor changes like the Hydralisk. Someone who has played SC:BW will be well aware of how the Hydralisk can be used, it's strengths and weaknesses, etc. They will know it's a great unit to mass and is very versatile. Sure they might not know the best combo to pair Hydras up with or the best strat since other units and abilities have changed a lot, but they will still be better off than a WC3 player. They will have WAY more knowledge about the unit.

Even completely new units like the Hellion will be more familiar to SC players than WC3 players. Lets see, it's fast and comes around the same time as the Vulture. It also cost the same. Hmm, could it possibly be used for hit and runs and to kite enemies like the Vulture was? Maybe! A WC3 player with no prior knowledge will know nothing about the Vulture and how it operated nor the role the Hellion is filling.

You have tons of units and spells that are returning from SC, as well as a plethora of units and abilities that use the same base concept but have been altered slightly. To me it seems like this kind of knowledge and experience from playing the original is going to make a much bigger difference than MBS or any other UI change WC3 has in common with SC2.

Why this focus on the controls? SC is more about expanding and massing than WC3, expanding/massing is not as viable in WC3 compared to SC.
Therefore WC3 players will have to adjust more. Advantage:SC

MBS is almost irrelevant in WC3 because you never make a lot of the same production facilities. SC2 MBS also works differently from WC3's. Advantage: no one

Both SC and WC3 have a 12-unit selection cap, SC2 has a 255-unit selection cap. Advantage: no one

Both WC3 and SC players rally to minerals, the SC players have to perform the extra step of sending the workers to mine. In SC2 workers automine, as strange as it may sound this is actually an advantage for the SC players as they are now free from sending their workers manually while they are already used to making workers constantly(in WC3 you can stop making workers much earlier than in SC). SC2 will have macro mechanics that have to be performed periodically like workers had to be sent to mine in SC, WC3 has no such mechanic. Advantage: SC

Both SC and WC3 have micro, SC micro is more about positioning past early game while every unit matters in WC3. WC3 units having a higher hp to dps ratio than SC units which makes it easier to keep units alive but also makes saving every unit much more important. In WC3, losing units is much less acceptable than in SC, especially against computer 'guided' creeps, Creeping is mostly about AI abuse. Losing units to other players feeds their hero(es), trading armies is much more viable in SC because of this even if you lose that battle. SC2 units' hp to dps ratio is for the most part closer to that of SC than that of WC3. Unit responsiveness is also closer to SC than WC3. Advantage: SC

Higher level strategy is also closer to SC than WC3, if you understand (not just mimic) (the concepts of) SC strategy you can apply this to similar situations in SC2, this would be true even if not a single unit would return from SC because the same concepts should still apply.
The lack of creeps/heroes means WC3 players will have more adjusting to do. Advantage: SC

SC2 pathing is better than the pathing in both SC and WC3, both games have their own pathing stupidity to get used to. Advantage: no one.

WC3 players can use less of their acquired skills in SC2 than SC players because there are no creeps, items and heroes. SC quirks are tied to specific units and stacking is supposedly coming back. Advantage: SC

SC has more build variety(more viable builds) than WC3(WC3 variety is not in the builds), if SC2 is actually a proper sequel to SC(which it seems to be), it will have a lot of viable builds as well. Advantage: SC

The most important thing to consider however is that players with the correct mentality to improve will get further than those that don't have this mentality. Even someone who has never touched an RTS but has this mentality from something else can become a topplayer. Advantage: anyone with this mentality. Being able to think also helps.

Personally I will probably find SC2 easier due to my time playing BOTH.
I hated the hero concept in WC3 (Oh look, my DK died, there goes my whole god damn army's functionality) and the rather small army size, where as in SC I hated the fact I couldn't multi-group buildings and the terrible pathing.

The average player who has played both will probably be better off then the person who only played SC or the player who only plated WC3, consider both games have been out for several years now I doubt there is more then a few outside of the first.

Quote by THoR

Quote by Acayex

WC3 will definitely have a harder time since WC3 is more or less emphasized on micro and little on macro.

Please just shut up.

No:

Lemme rephrase, WC3 is designed to have a higher emphasis on micro mainly getting the most of the your units thus the reason why they have such high HP compared to dps, you don't have abilities or units that can completely 1 or 2 shot units like reavers or lurkers, thus units are more expensive, food count is lower so your army becomes less expendable. You notice in games when you lose even half of your army your at a complete disadvantage, even within the comforts of your base/moonwells, its more or less likely you'll lose.

On starcraft, units are alot more expendable thus not as high of an emphasis on micro, units are significantly cheaper, your main gold/minerals comes at a much faster rate compared to wc3, thus its significantly easier to replace units. Thus the bigger role macro has. It's not to say if your lose half your army you lost nothing, but the impact of it isn't as detrimental as in WC3 I'd argue. Well placed sim-city and your remaining units could fend off enemies easier than in WC3 since units are so much more easier to kill. (Couple of psionic storms for defense could easily wipe out an enemy attack). I mean you notice alot more actions spent on unit control in WC3 matches compared to SC matches where you see players spend a fair focus on micro but alot in expanding multiple times, upgrading, building more production buildings, and training units whereas WC3, 2-3 production buildings is the optimum, you definitely wouldn't expand as much as players do in SC. (thus I'd say a wc3 player would have the hardest time adjusting to the playstyle of Zerg, full of weak but massable units and a economy based on extensive expanding and map control)

Arguably, with MBS, unit training will be just like WC3 interface, same with automine but I personally feel a SC player will definitely feel more comfortable playing SC than a WC3 player

Please don't tell someone to just shut up if that's all your going to say. I find it extremely rude and immature if you just flat out write "shut up" without good reason.

I agree with you in the fact most of the old strategies won't be utilized as heavily in SC2, but they will be a valuable asset in building new strategies by basing them off the old and adjusting for the change. The change isn't such a large change that old strategies become useless. Some strategies can prove to be useful as well as some old techniques (like tank-medivac pickups)

You forgot about health bars being visible all the time now. Wait who was used to that? Advantage: WC3

Ive played dota so long ill probably deny my own units on accident a few times. I think SC skill will translate more but having played WC3 and knowing the new interface mechanics will be very helpful.

Edit: Reason some people dont like WC3 is because its a slippery slope. Meaning you lose 1 battle you have a very very large disadvantage. Starcraft, atleast late game, is much less of a slippery slope because of high damage to hp ratio. Another reason why i prefer starcraft.

Quote by TheGreenMachine

You forgot about health bars being visible all the time now. Wait who was used to that? Advantage: WC3

Ive played dota so long ill probably deny my own units on accident a few times. I think SC skill will translate more but having played WC3 and knowing the new interface mechanics will be very helpful.

Edit: Reason some people dont like WC3 is because its a slippery slope. Meaning you lose 1 battle you have a very very large disadvantage. Starcraft, atleast late game, is much less of a slippery slope because of high damage to hp ratio. Another reason why i prefer starcraft.

Visible HP is won't make that much of a difference in SC2 because of the large amount of units, you simply won't have the time to target weakened units in large fights, in small fights you should already know which units are in the red if you paid attention. Microing your own units back(selected units show hp in SC) is already hard/not worth it in large fights because units die so fast. A unit that gets focused dies before you can save it most of the time. But maybe I'm wrong, being able to see that your opponent's army is already pretty shot up can be very important information but that's something you have to get used to for very large groups that WC3 doesn't have. I'd say it doesn't give anyone much of an advantage even with that.

SC has slippery slope too, it's just that SC is so hard that even a small mistake from the opponent can be enough to be able to get back into the game. But it's also possible to lose a fight you should have easily won to something unexpected like being caught out of position, incredible micro feats and/or good spell usage. Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEMZgTEdG5Q and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3IbwjeCx6U

Quote by THoR

Copes, please think before you post. "For every unit that was removed, there's a probably also a unit that has stayed". Not even close. And if you read my whole post, most of those units that HAVE stayed have been drastically changed. You can't use previous strategies when 7/8ths of the units are DIFFERENT.
Everyone is just saying the same things over and over... Look past 'defending the game' and come up with something original.

No need to be so angry. No one is impressed with e-toughness. Telling Acayex to "Please just shut up" is also unnecessary. This is a discussion forum, don't be so quick to knock viewpoints.

So I was wrong. Terran have 13 units total at their disposal, and 5 are returning. Not quite half, but my main point was, knowing some units will obviously be an advantage. If Ghouls and Grunts made an appearance then maybe I'd say it'll be even between the two.

As for the rest of my post, I see no response to the lack of creeping and creep-jacking, the lack of heroes which are so important in WC3, the lack of items, the importance of terrain in SC2, the larger army size, or the larger importance on expanding. Before telling me to think, how about you respond to my argument. Some of these things you mention in your original post, but you fail to acknowledge how integral some of them (Heroes, creeps) are to WC3. Not having them alters some of the most key strategical movements in WC3 (think creepjacking). I have to disagree when you say the lack of heroes is an advantage to WC3 players. They're used to playing with a couple super-powered units. Not having those is like playing with an army of regular units, which they've most likely never, ever done.

As I said, no one is impressed with e-toughness. If you disagree, say so. I'm all for it. But no need to post with some sort of superiority complex. Instead, try arguing the given points.