User talk:Shard/Unfair

Archive 1

The music

is epic, yes. Terran especially. I'm assuming it'll take 3-4 minutes past launch for a mod that replaces all the new stuff with all the old stuff to come out, whereupon Blizzard can take their sweet time balancing the new game. Personally, I'm looking forward to unblocking Reavers. It's like a great big rape machine that builds little tiny balls of rape and shoots them at stuff, raping them horribly. –Jette 00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Big Gay Hunters

...Interesting change there, IE: a lot less "YOU REQUIRE MORE VESPENE" spam leading to more Turtling. But I look at it this way: What did Broodwars do for SC1? ...it mostly added new units that were a little more Imba towards Defense (Lurkers, Dark Archons, Corsairs which were bad enough in the air but were even bigger frikkin bullshit when your Offensive push was mostly Goons or other ground based artillery if the opponent knew how to Micro). ...Maybe the next planned expansion or chapter will swing the other way and include more abilities that break right through Chobo/N00b turtles? I know if I was a designer, it would be a lot more "fun" to start off defensive and then play the old powercreep card towards offense instead of the direction Broodwars went in... --ilr 00:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what GW did! :'D is for Raine, etc. 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

YOU REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS
YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS
SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS
UNABLE TO COMPLY, BUILDING IN PROGR -- oh, wrong game. –Jette 01:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

C&C much. InfestedHydralisk 01:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

You should add the part when Marauders are on Stims. And seriously, Zerg really has early anti-air issues. InfestedHydralisk 01:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with turtles isn't the turtling itself, it's the fact that they don't need to spend more money on defense. They tech up to their capital ships instead, which are currently impossible to counter en masse. Brood War had spells to counter large masses of units and capital ships (lockdown, mind control, good psy storm, plague, etc). SC2 has none of those. ~Shard 00:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeker Missle, Psi Storm, and Zerg has...err...self-mass. InfestedHydralisk 15:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeker missile is only 100 damage. You need 3 to kill a void ray and 5 to kill a battlecruiser. It's only use is on ground mobs, like hydralisks. ~Shard 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that Terran also has Ghosts for EMP, which isn't hard to get. And noone makes Battlecruisers. InfestedHydralisk 17:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but ghosts can't kill a void ray. They can only do 100 shield damage. If the ray is already charged up, it will melt anything it sees in less than a second. ~Shard 20:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

100 is quite alot of extra damage. A bunch of Marines with Vikings should be able to handle it. If you let them mass up Void Rays then you're doing something wrong. InfestedHydralisk 21:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

void rays v. zerg

What math did you use? Not only are Spore Crawlers available as soon as you build an evolution chamber, but my math showed you can make hydralisks about 20 seconds faster than a void ray assuming spawning pool/gateway are built at the same time. – Emmett 01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look at it again. I didn't count spore crawlers because nobody builds those, and you need 2 of them to kill 1 void. ~Shard 00:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares if your puns were intended

[1] --Riddle 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody cares about Maddox's opinion.  :> –Jette 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

GW2

What, no skilled play? K, I'm not gonna buy GW2 for sure now. InfestedHydralisk 23:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Every element will get it's own 5 skills + a few elites, not too far from how it is now, is it? Except there won't be any gimmicks and everyone run balanced. I thought you wanted this? "Every MMO I've played has a loot system..." And you've played Diablo II. I dunno what you're getting at. -Cursed Angel 23:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Diablo 2 was an MMO. I only see up to 8 people at a time in that game. Are the rest ninjas? ~Shard 04:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I was with you 100% until "So yeah in our last game skill mattered, but it won't be like that in GW2. GW2 will have no learning curve and a low mastery threshold, because we want it to be like The Sims." The difference between GW and The Sims is that The Sims is a good game.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 03:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what the skill curve is yet b/c they still haven't shown us anything solid about real combat. They say we can line up attacks or cones but that's not new, atleast half a dozen other MMO's already allowed that and it's pretty carebear as far as "skill" goes anyway. And combining static field with bullets doesn't even factor into real team building if all it does is add extra particle effects and a sliver of +damage. Nothing about how we aim or crit or attack vitals has been released yet and the people that kinda stuff really matters to, have Source games & Battlefield series which have much higher skill curves on those mechanics. A lot of what they're saying gives me pause too, as in they're trying to hard to go after WoW instead of talking about what it is that will actually make GW2's combat "competitive" when contrasted to a less cartoony game. --ilr 04:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny, they're all just online games to me. Point is it's not like, say all rangers, doesn't already use the same 5 skills on all non-gimmick bars. It may be boring though. -Cursed Angel 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the final quote. I think it is supposed to be "GW1 was based on skill, this was a good thing, we intend to do this again", as in skill over gear/grind. I don't think they are saying there will be no benefit to understanding the game and being good at it. But, who cares! I'm playing SC2! Misery 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Shard's point is this...its Izzy and the Anet crew making that game, the same crew that made this game. Same people, same motivations, same manners, same execution. You have a pretty girlfriend/hot boyfriend who lies and cheats on you is still a dbag in spite of a pretty package when you run into them a few months later after your split and get nostalgic or listen to their banter on how much they've changed. For the most part, people don't really change very much, yes there are occasions where they do, but in all honesty, they really don't.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Jeff Strain is saying two different things in that statement, one for pve, and one for structured pvp. He plainly says players will have equal gear + skills in structured pvp, which is fine. What bothers me is the other part. He is implying that playing longer in pve shouldn't give you an advantage, yet it seems like they're going to make a Diablo-ey item mod system, where farming > being strategic.

Also, yes, I originally misread it. I'll fix it appropriately. ~Shard 01:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

@Yasmin It would depend on their motives, if they were actually trying to make Guild Wars as good as they could but a mistake somewhere made it so they couldn't achieve that then they could have learned from that mistake and are now fixing it by starting over. If on the other hand they were laughing at us and wondering why we would spend good money on the drivel they were producing, well then we're frankly screwed, at least if we want Guild Wars 2 to be fun. --Orry 02:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe their intentions are misplaced, I feel they lack the skill and execution abilities to fulfill this endeavor.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 06:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

^ –Jette 07:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So basically deciding they didn't learn any from their mistakes before they try. In this case their mistake was making the game overly complex and trying to give every profession a specific feel to it, it may be easy to balance every skill numerically, but it is a lot harder to do that, have each profession have a specific feel and give all characters access to every skill at the same time, not impossible just increasingly harder to do with more skills, and it word be hard to say, "Well, that was a mistake let's get rid of these new mechanics and skills we added so it's easier to balance." So, in a subscription-free model they did the only thing they reasonably could do, started over, if they added more expansions people would rage about the lack of skills or they would be adding to the problem, regardless of how entertaining the result was. They've already admitted to the problem created by having secondary professions and have decided to do away with them instead of trying to balance them. So, given that they're willing to do that when it was one of the largest features of the original, one has to have hope that they've learned something, maybe.--Orry 16:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

They did learn from (at least some of) their mistakes. However, the problem is learning from mistakes ≠ not making mistakes. They've gone from "we'll try to balance over a thousand skills - that couldn't possibly be difficult!" to "We'll pick half their skills." What really irritates me is that it feels like we have ten skills instead of eight purely to be misleading and suggest we've more flexibility, which is clearly flying in the face of reality. It's a matter of principal; I dislike handing money to people in return for their efforts at insulting my intelligence. A F K When Needed 22:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

2 weapon sets, 1 healing, 1 elite, 3 racial/profession and a trait, that's 8, albeit 8 from specific classifications of skills(and the trait is passive) but it still leads to plenty of choices, and if everyone has similar weapon skills it will take actual player skill to win, presumably.--Orry 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

incorrect A F K When Needed 12:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and you're also incorrect since there's ten skills, not eight, per bar.

...that is if the designers of the game know what they designed this time 'round. A F K When Needed 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

10 skills per bar, but 8 choices. --Orry 22:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first 5 skills depend on what weapons you wield. Then you got to have atleast 1 selfhealing skill and an elite. The other 3 is free of choice. InfestedHydralisk 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent)Yes, but you get two weapon sets to switch while in battle, so count it as two skill choices. --Orry 17:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I get to pick 3 skills on my bar!!1! Sweet God, yes! This game will be so diverse! </sarcasm>

Only more reasons I'm not getting this. However, the main reason remains the same. Botters are already preparing for GW2 and will more than likely have .dll injected bots up-and-running w/o the first week of gameplay. Or, at least, that's what Harboe plans on doing (and I have no doubts he can do it). Leave GW2 for the bots, imo. Karate Jesus 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot Wars (2.0)? --Frosty 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Phinney: Okay, guys, GW has devolved into Build Wars. How can we prevent this from happening in GW2?
Izzy: Let's remove builds!
Phinney: Brilliant! Implement this at once.
Quality game design at work, folks. –Jette 17:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I'm sure that's not how it went down, but it was funny nonetheless. ~Shard 01:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) In all fairness, the quests in DII were largely forgettable. This is due to A) The simple design of most of the quests (go here, kill this) and B) the Quest Log explaining everything to you if the quest was more complex than described in point A. --Riddle 03:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh... seriously? I still remember going into the barracks for Charsi's hammer, finding the golden eagle for the dude on the docks in the third act, hunting down pieces of the horadric cube, killing the rogue angel in hell, finding the frozen babe in hoth some cave and defrosting her... D2 had some of the most memorable quests ever :< (i also remember the names of each act boss off the top of my head, a feat i don't manage for most games). -Auron 15:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Diablo 2 is one of the most fun and memorable games for me. I love loading it up every so often out of the blue. I love the swamp area in Act 3! Oh, man that was so much fun. Then the Harem! Stunning!! Bloodraven was such an awesome boss! Oh and Griswold! I could go on and on! Its GW that is forgettable...I didn't do any quests that weren't part of the main plot (what they called a plot) or for a special area like DOA/UW/FOW. The only GW quest I can think of off the top of my head is the "Tattered Bear" because I have that bear on each of the girls because its awesome and people go "wtf" when I randomly open trade with the bear. I actually read the quest after a while and saw it was a dead kid's teddy I stole. That made me laugh (yes I know that's cruel).--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

D2 was great. :3 D3 will probably suck. Anybody know if you can run D2 in 1920x1080? –Jette 18:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Who would have thought D2 could have a believable story without having a story. 99% of the game is "kill shit" but you still knew what was going on. ~Shard 02:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the only reason I had a clue as to what was going on was because the cinematics were awesome in every aspect. I still enjoy watching them every once in a while. --Riddle 02:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Blizzard

Looks fine to me, I mean I suppose you did play the 'If you don't do this you won't get paid' card which people tend not to like but that doesn't really justify it. Maybe someone was having a bad day at blizzard. Tidas 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fuck if I know but it looks like they're taking a bit of an Infinity Ward turn here. You should really look close for other warning signs b/c this is the kinda crap that started around 2001 when they announced WoW and first got started on this "the only way to buck our soulless masters is to become soulless masters ourselves" binge of anti-innovation & money whoring. ...console compatibility might be next. --ilr 10:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You just can't keep from getting banned anywhere and everywhere Shard. Your reputation precedes you.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add this...its still in beta Shard, you know this, you say it often enough yourself. Obviously all the features, bells and whistles won't be available in beta stages.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 18:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It ain't just him... the BattleNet mods are dicks and always have been. ...Closet-Hidin' over-compensatin' Californian Republican Drudge Dicks. I dunno what it is about Irvine but I guess it's just a focal point for Maximum Douchebaggery anytime the scent of authority is in the smug/smog they call air. I had over 15 accounts B& by them and that was back when the WarRoom was around and forums were still new-territory. ...Now, they cleary have more of a Macintosh communist-corporation approach were they obviously are silencing all dissent the instant it pops up and offers alternatives (anyone remember "Bnet-D"?) in clear view of their most shut-in fanboys. It really is a triumph of form and function that they can bring these 2 opposing elements of dysfunctional conservatives and neo-commie tactics together under one roof. I'm surprised rupert murdock hasn't snatched them up by now... --ilr 19:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a typical blizzard thing, revolt if you like but if we don't like what you have to say then you can say hello to the banhammer. One question tho, you got banned on the forums or in-game? And for how long? Qaletaqa Hania 19:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Forum ban until beta ends, according to him on the IRC. --Riddle 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Unlike some company I know, Blizzard does not give in-game bans for things you do on their websites. ~Shard 02:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Battlenet 2 is still in the Beta. They are still working on it and you won't get to see everything yet. You are just able to test Starcraft 2 with Battlenet 2. I don't know why you got banned but if you were pretty offensive in it then that is probably the reason why. InfestedHydralisk 21:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, but there are interviews of Bnet and Blizzard devs/execs saying they have no plans for chat rooms. That's highly disturbing. They're not hiding these features - they have no intent at all to add them. ~Shard 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you abolutely sure this topic is the reason you got banned? Morphy 09:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to doubt it... They have Fortune-500 investments to protect now days and Their new Modus Operandi dictates a multinational response policy just like those of any other major corporation that is no longer beholden to U.S. ideals of fairness & speech. Tho' I still think it coulda slipped by if he hadn't mentioned 3rd-party Modification. --ilr 22:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and Vivendi s a French company, so there isn't much that requires them to allow customers to have free speech, well other than the Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen), but it's not like that's a very important legal document or anything.... --Orry 01:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You know that whole "free speech" thing? It actually says "Congress shall not pass a law that prohibits the freedom of speech." Independent parties are allowed to prohibit it all they want. Still a dick move on Blizzard's part. I'd like to think it was just someone having a bad day and a power trip, but this really doesn't bode well for SC2 or D3. –Jette 01:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, really, American law works like that? Canada's constitution prohibits anyone from infringing the freedoms of others, except in a way that would prevent someone from prohibiting freedom, as reasonable in a democratic country. --Orry 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that I only mentioned Speech as an Ideal ..not as some kind of law on the internet. Some companies respect it (within parameters) as a way of securing more trust with their customers, while others just get big enough to squash dissent and drown out any critics for the good of the-bottom-line. --ilr 08:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

lol@theinternetbeingamericaorcanadaorbritainorfranceorrussiaoranyothercountry. Basically, the laws we have are a result of internet-speech causing IRL actions like murders or suicides. Nothing about silencing a virtual (and not physical) voice. --Riddle 01:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Internet isn't a country, but Blizzard's parent company is based in France and France has laws which the company has to follow. --142.68.133.131 12:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You all will be surprised to find out that outside of GW and GW related forums/wikis/so on and so forth, Shard is quite tame.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 19:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

...tame like a cartoon bear? (your words, not mine) --ilr 19:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like a special cartoon bear.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

He's not THAT bad on wikis and crap, at least on irc you can bounce questions off him. And Auron, too, but don't let the secret get out that Auron actually has a heart. The trolls would revel in that. -- Tha Reckoning 23:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should try catching flies with honey for once, instead of vinegar. 145.94.74.23 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Vinegar is more healthy. Morphy 09:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That saying is actually incorrect. I tried it once, I knew there were a lot of flies near my house during summer when I was kid, and I put out a tablespoon of honey and a tablespoon of vinegar out back and watched the flies. Over the course of 2 hours I observed 11 flies go for the vinegar, but only 2 were attracted to the honey. –Jette 10:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

^ quoted for win. Morphy 11:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

...that's b/c most Biological "masses" will have very strong odors of Ammonia and some molecules that make up Vinegar which are picked up by the fly's scent receptors to alert them to all possible biodegration. Typically all "meats" and other things which were "cured" with Honey or Sugars, were done so specifically to keep away the Bacterias that would begin that breaking-down process that would attract flies. What the saying SHOULD have said, is that you attract more ANTS with honey than vinegar. ...and I think at this point we can definitely rule out any possibility that Blizzard-Activision is a Socialist structured organism like an ant-hill... they are definitely working the Parasitic Opportunistic power structure a lot harder these days. --ilr 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Glorious message, prophet. On a related subject, StarCraft is a meh RTS in the end anyway and C&C is a much cooler series. It's a shame they never finished up the storyline after Kane's Wrath. –Jette 02:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame they never made C&C as good as Brood War. Imagine worldwide C&C tournaments with screaming asian girls who sleep with the winners. Might give me an incentive to get back into RA2. ~Shard 03:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I could give a damn about the gameplay, I just enjoy seeing Joe Kucan acting so hard he probably has to pick the scenery out of his teeth for days. –Jette 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

C&C was good, but nowhere near as good as SC imo. C&C 3 is ok and RA3 and C&C4 are just trash, seriously. :/ InfestedHydralisk 15:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

RA3 had Tim Curry, so I didn't totally hate it, but it should've been better. And it stayed true to the RA series in terms of gameplay: a wacky, absurd plot with wacky, absurd units and powers that almost don't make sense but are lots of fun to use. The execution was poor, but the spirit was there. As for C&C 4... well, I prefer to think that it never happened. For RA4, I hope for ever more silly units, such as: a submersible aircraft carrier for the Allies, a mutant bear the size of a house for the Russians, a Tesla Slinky that hops around the battlefield and can fire electricity while standing still, a fighter airplane that can land and transform into a machine gun nest at will, paratroopers that are actually just big bombs wearing conscript uniforms, a special land factory that doubles as a big walker and can eject newly produced produce units while crushing enemy tanks and a Chrono Tank whose shells teleport their targets short distances. Oh, and more radiation. I miss people melting into little green blobs. –Jette 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Curry FTW, he even made Sacrifice good despite Eric Flannum's obvious efforts to keep anyone from actually beating it without gimmicks (Kekeke, firewalk rush) --ilr 19:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

MMORPGS, and their over-simplicity

I blame RuneScape.

In other news, I remember reading something in EGM about an MMOFPS for Xbox and PC. IIRC, there was cross-platform play (PC players playing with console players...and no, it was not Shadowrun.)

I found the concept interesting, but I never did hear anything more of that game. --Riddle 05:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I blame the gaming industry as it is now. Seriously, it has NEVER been this bad.

I would say (and I know you will agree with me) that the SNES-era was the golden age of gaming. The game industry was not as large as it was now, and many games were made by small companies mainly consisting of people who were excited about making a game. They wanted to make good games, so they made good games. Super Metroid, Shining Force, and Secret of Mana were awe-inspiring, and in return, they inspired other companies to follow their footsteps, and so the era was prolonged with games as Illusion of Gaia, Actraiser, and Chrono Trigger, to leave a gaming experience to last forever.

Now, things are different. The industry is no longer defined by people who care about games. It is about making money. Nobody wants to make a masterpiece like Secret of Mana 2 was. For the development costs you make, you are getting little in return. Compare that to, say, Assassin's Creed Online, where you take an overhyped game, add some bland game mechanics, generic flavor, and imbalanced classes to it, and there, you have your million-copies-selling game, and the kids will not notice it because they only pay attention to the graphics anyway!

Now why am I a retro gamer again? Yea, that is why. Koda Kumi 09:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You have to wonder, though, at what point did the industry get bad? There must have been a precedent in order for shitty games to be successful. Probably the starter of this trend were the Madden games, crapping out sequels every year that were barely any different than the year before.

However, I argue that RuneScape started the shitty MMO trend. I mean, bad graphics coupled with bland gameplay, and it's been chugging along for 10+ years—and with a Members subscription option for almost as long, IIRC. How the hell does that happen?

I think that's where a lot of the bad MMO's try to build their base ("Our gameplay is a little less bland—but we have pretty graphics!"). A lot of the RuneScape mechanics are simplified to the point that they are all the same "point & click, wait for action to be done, okay action done." Where a lot of these MMOs fail, though, is their ability to provide content.

Those other MMOs can't compete with JaGEx's ability to push out content, partly due to the fact that everything in RuneScape is so simple. JaGEx releases content roughly every two weeks, and the minimum released is a quest. That's just for RuneScape. If the devs have projects that don't fit the scope of RuneScape, they stick it on their spin-off site FunOrb. That site is regularly updated also, though I can't remember how often they update it.

tl;dr JaGEx keeps putting out low-grade sugar for the ants, other companies try the same but aren't as successful. --Riddle 18:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

money corrupts everything. if you want something to stay pure and without pretense, you don't get money involved. Previously Unsigned 22:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Shard, I'm a faggot either way. =p --Unending ♥ fear 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

@OP, I believe that game is DUST 514 and links in with EVE Online. They recently started updated EVE Online with the basic stuff to integrate with the new game. Shadow Runner 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I could be wrong. I think there was another one as well. Shadow Runner 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DUST 514 seems too recent. But whatever, I don't worry about it anymore. --Riddle 22:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that no one else sees the Occam's Razor here. ...Girls.
Shard specifically points out that TOR is pussy repellent and I think for the most part he's totally right (unless you're into manatees). Girls and mainstream in general don't care about gameplay quite as much, and they were the largest untapped market for the decade before this one. The male ego has always been the proprietary division that validates itself along carefully compartmentalized but violent competition. ...which is usually best served by hardcore gaming for those easily bored by more traditional venues like sports or fancy car ownership. So it's all about demographics which is just a bullshit marketing terms for stereotyping dorks. And the typical breakdown of any american highschool still has an increasing amount of dorks outnumbering jocks & preps while it doesn't break any differently along sexes either. IE: they are the majority, and the female sex is the majority on top of that. And this is showing up more consistently in games that provide a means of obtaining superficial aesthetics through social gameplay. For instance almost half the members I regularly play with in my guild are female and more than half of the TF2 players I play against on a certain server are female too. (this is probably helped by the fact that there is moderated Voice chat in both these areas making them more social) ...both these games have strongly trended more towards straighter skill curves and collectible personal aesthetics while the remaining playerbase gravitates towards social groups that are basically just whatever remained after many of the hardcore male gamers fell away and bought a steady stream of new games instead for their violence-fueled validation. (MW2, moar GTA, etc, etc.) ...then there's facebook gaming and sims-type games and other things that focus on social and casual aspects above hardcore gameplay. As a result, many MMO investors can be satisfied and milked out their investments simply by the notion that the source material already has mainstream personal aesthetics to be grinded for in a highly graphic chatroom by its prospective playerbase. And as long as it "looks pretty"... Girls will play it too. ...that's not my belief o/c, that just the industry's conclusion b/c the industry loves focusing on demographics, aka: stereotyping; and in this case, a very sexist version.
>>>> In other words, it's all about Growth-industry speculation. These games aren't getting funding b/c they actually have content appealing to Girls too, they're gettng funding and being announced merely by the vicarious transitive property that they focus on the social and aesthetic elements that male dorks should *want* to focus on just to be occasionally adjacent to female dorks. --ilr 23:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As was already mentioned, money is the reason the game industry is sucking. We've been seeing a large surge in video game shittiness for at least the past 5 years, or at least ever since the current generation of platforms came out. Before video games became mainstream (this happened about the time PS2 came out, at least the way I see it), game companies had to make good games because their customer base was smaller - they needed to sell their game to say 10% of gamers to break even. Today, now that game companies make more money than film studios, they can code random buggy-ass game mechanics, slap their favorite intellectual property's logo on it and make quick cash. You know all those games made from movies nobody ever buys (especially the disney ones)? It turns out people actually buy them.

It's much easier to make games now that most studios just buy engine licenses from someone else, or use the same ones over and over again. All you really have to do is make models and textures and put a $50 price tag on the box and you're pretty much guaranteed to make a profit.

I'll wrap this all up with a little joke: Superman 64. ~Shard 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Mickey Mania: The Timeless Adventures of Mickey Mouse" and "The Magical Quest starring Mickey Mouse" were actually rather good. Granted, those were SNES platformer games, and I was only maybe...8 or 9 at the time. "DuckTales" for NES was also a totally kick-ass game, and still pretty fun today; I'd almost call it a classic except that it's pretty unknown. Also, although arguably a movie from a book is different than just a stand-alone movie such as Star Wars, there have been a number of really excellent games that come from certain movie, like Lord of the Rings for example. Yeah, there's a ton of crap ones too, but a few gems. I can think of at least three pretty good LotR games just off the top of my head.

One thing you didn't address (or indirectly anyway) is that MMOs have entered the "trendy" phase, in addition to gaming in general. Like Facebook, Twitter, and all those other trashy things that everyone seems to be fapping over these days, if you can't make <x> into an MMO then it doesn't deserve to be made into a video game anyway. And part of that is because at least for the forseeable future, there will always be more computers than consoles...until the PS4 comes with its own OS or something. Vili 点 04:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The only good movie game was Goldeneye for the N64, and that game was a beast. And not to mention THIS. InfestedHydralisk 13:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wii port gets no woots from me. Daniel Craig isn't the GoldenEye Bond, so that just seems like a dick move on his part (Re-interpreting the storyline to fit with the Daniel Craig Bond, wtf?). And Activision is publishing it.

I'll be sticking with GoldenEye: Source. Even if they've been making the game for five years. --Riddle 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a first-person shooter, why do you care what your face looks like? elix Omni 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

B/c nothing does faces (or sequels) like Source engine. <img>GENTLEMEN.GIF</img> --ilr 21:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Goldeneye was the best game in the last 20 years. --Frosty 10:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Remakes Rule: Good games aren't made nowadays, mainly because of the reasons Shard outlined before. Companies want to make money, not good games. Who want to make and play good games are the people. But as long as companies have the power and people don't, we will barely see any really good games. BTW It's not necessary to have hundreds or thousands of gamers on one server interacting with each other and doing their own things. Simple games like X-com Ufo Defense are still sold nowadays (it's older than Starcraft) and can deliver the same if not more fun than any of these new DX10-11 games. Also X-com is for some reason accepted as the best game of all times. I don't know why. It's not even a windows game. But hell it is damn good fun, and is currently getting a remake finished. Yup 10th of July. --Boro 19:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the other reasons games are stale now is because nobody is trying to be original. You've probably noticed a lack of new genres and a lack of new IPs. The newest genre out there is Spore. MMORPGs and FPSs seem to be the fad right now, still trailing on WoW and Source.

Speaking of remakes, I'm looking forward to the new Donkey Kong Country. If there's one thing Nintendo can do, it's make good platformers. I enjoyed NSMBWii a lot. ~Shard 21:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame it requires so much money to make a video game, otherwise I imagine there would be a lot of really good independently developed ones out there. On the other hand, maybe there are: very few professionally made video games are half as addictive as some of those flash games that probably took 2 hours to make. –Jette 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I like it that oldskool stylish games are coming back. InfestedHydralisk 23:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Spore isn't a new genre, it's just a combination of terribly executed older ones. Morphy 09:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The great innovation of Spore was that it allowed the player to fully customize their characters while being as user-friendly as possible. The idea is great, but as you say, the execution was terrible. Still, there is more more to do with this concept, like Portal's. However, chances are slim that such a thing will happen. Koda File:User Koda Kumi UT.jhttp://wiki.guildwars.com/skins/common/images/button sig.pngpeg Kumi 10:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What computer games need is more depth. Games so deep that normal decent folks look down at them and think "holy crap, that's deep." Games so deep you think if you read all the way through the source code, you'll wind up in China. You ever played Dwarf Fortress? It's absurdly detailed (except for the graphics). –Jette 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

[Shameless plug]I know a NWN mod with a deep story! Yasmin would love to tell you all about it. I just wish we were using an engine whose combat and effect mechanics I could change. ~Shard 21:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rumor has it that Source engine 2.0 will launch with Portal2 and it will include "blob" physics and many other direct item environment (particle pattern) interaction mechanics that could make it the perfect Modder's choice for deep RPG game building. It probably wouldn't have a trading/retail/crafting system right off the bat but that doesn't mean one wouldn't eventually be added. --ilr 22:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Source was an FPS engine, not a general game engine. You could probably make something similar to fallout (4?) with it, but not a third person adventure-RPG. I'm really waiting for a multiplayer version of Dragon Age with a toolset. You know, something like NWN2, but not bad. Being able to change passive feats and character leveling would also be nice, since you can't do that in NWN without forcing your players to download more files. This means monks in our module are as invincible as 3.5 monks.~Shard 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I spend more time playing older games than newer ones, and I'm a girl. My top ten is littered with older titles. Currently I'm deep in Zelda 2: Adventure of Link about to face Carcock in the Maze Island Dungeon. The whole reason I have a Wii is to play NES and SNES games.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 20:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fucking yellow texts floating through space

Well if that was on a starwars game, that's understandable. It's kinda Lucas Art's trademark. However, if other games use that, they've got serious issues. →[ »Halogod (talk)« ]← 04:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it ironic that Lucas Arts protects that part of its movies, when it stole 99% of the movies from other places? ~Shard 04:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Everybody steals from everybody. Hell, 90% of my books are lifted wholesale from other people's works. Anybody who claims to have created an "original work" in hundreds of years without any inspiration from others is a filthy liar. MMO looks like crap, though. I haven't liked anything to come out of the Star Wars universe since the original trilogy, except maybe some of the breakfast cereals, which had tasty little marshmallows inside. When I was a kid, I would pour out a whole box of the cereal into a big popcorn bowl and pick out all of the marshmallows, then throw away the sawdust cereal parts and have a bowl of marshmallows for breakfast. My parents always wondered how I barreled through boxes of Lucky Charms so quickly. If they ever did find out, they probably didn't care: the cereal is about as healthy as the marshmallows, which is to say about as good for you as eating the cardboard box. Actually, I think the cardboard box would be healthier, since at least that would have some protein. –Jette 09:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh your diet only has to be like 10-12% protein iirc, I get that from the flesh of small children I sacrifice in the hole I dug below my singlewide and laced with lye. Bring on the raine. -- Tha Reckoning 19:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You called? — Raine Valen 22:04, 24 Jul 2010 (UTC)

LAN

I can't support the use of ultra-DRM technology on single-player games, so I just downloaded the cracked campaign version. Ha-ha. But is it true they turned off LAN mode? I'd heard a rumor but didn't know if it was true or not. If not, maybe LAN mode + Hamachi could let you play with your friends without Blizzard's lag. –Jette 17:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No LAN mode. Pissed off almost as many people as were pissed off when they found out only the one race's campaign was included. -- FreedomBound 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. Only one race's campaign? The fuck? elix Omni 18:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you're joking or not (or if I'm not talking about the same game), but, yeah, the current release only includes the Terran campaign, the Protoss and Zerg single player campaigns are being released separately as standalone games (probably at the same price as the Terran). -- FreedomBound 18:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't play LAN mode, can't play Battle.net mode because of lag, voice acting sucked (even Raynor's, and he was the same actor as before), plot was meh compared to the original, MASSIVE DRM... ye, I'm kinda glad I didn't pay $60 for it. Damn communist developers. –Jette 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Friend decided to do something silly and build cannons in their base" Sounds more awesome than silly. --adrin 18:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised your thread did not get deleted by a mod yet. Koda Kumi 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Fuck SC2. elix Omni 18:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

SC2 is fine. It's Bnet that sucks. ~Shard 21:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a good thing that they're not attached at the hips or anything, otherwise one might strongly affect the other. — Raine Valen 21:22, 30 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Stuffed bears are quite brilliant you know. Teddy Bears and Pedo Bears everywhere are offended Shard. Being a Shard Bear, you should know this.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And just say Adrin...not "my friend". I dumped a guy for calling me "that girl" to his mom and not "my girl/girlfriend/Yasmin". Be loud and proud.--*Yasmin Parvaneh* 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Shard, I think that girl is mad. — Raine Valen 23:01, 30 Jul 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should her and my friend should hang out. ~Shard 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll consider buying Heart of the Swarm if the CE comes with an Ultralisk plush toy. –Jette 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd only buy a CE if the toy was made out of fucking gold, with how much the CEs cost. -Auron 01:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure a solid gold ultralisk would be as cuddly as one made of felt, though. –Jette 01:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be twice as awesome though. Imagine throwing it at people and knocking them out. -Auron 01:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't work, Ultralisks can't hit air. elix Omni 01:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that only matter if the guy was levitating? -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

._. Morphy 14:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

NO LAN FOR YOU

MWUHAHAHAHAHAH ALOUL ALOUL --Starcraft II 03:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is this, though: why do you have 1.2k minerals and 800 gas when you're 8.30 mins in and don't even have a fully saturated base? Shouldn't you be, like, macroing? Morphy 13:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If he's anything like me, it's that desire to shut up Aldaris no matter the cost. –Jette 14:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No Morphon. I was too busy looking for his command center. I didn't need to build anything but flying units. He had nothing left. ~Shard 04:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This was before you crushed him, I don't think he had lost any building whatsoever at that point. Your Vikings came out much, much later, around 19 mins in. Morphy 09:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't remember what I was doing at around 8:30. Just use my camera view in the replay if you really want to know. ~Shard 08:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The best argument ever!

"[...] so stop complaining and if you hate it that much dont play terran."
WITHOUT FAIL! — Raine Valen 20:15, 28 Aug 2010 (UTC)

At first I read this and was like "What the fuck? Is Shard crazy? Tanks obliterate T1 units. Then I realised I hadn't actually read the patch notes and you weren't talking about the first tank nerf from beta where they just shaved off damage, so I went and read them. I kind of feel you might be overreacting, the first tank damage nerf barely affected the game. A wall of tanks is still going to eat light units alive. Shield marines will still take 2 shots to kill (ignoring the effect on splash damage), it will only affect play against marines early game + the splash effect. The biggest effect will be on hellions and hydralisks, which will now take 3 hits instead of 2, but those are tier 2 units, one of which will still be superbad against tanks. Zerglings will be left with like 1 health IF they get armor upgrades, but splash should clean that up anyway. I don't think it is really going to have a huge effect on the game. I also don't know why you specified that it was a 30% damage reduction including splash, because the splash scales with the main damage, so a 30% reduction in damage is a 30% reduction in damage. I'll also just point out briefly that I am not being thorough, this nerf also affects damage vs all peons, zealots(this is probably the biggest effect, chargelots weren't terrible against tanks already), sentries, high and dark templar, archons(no one uses these, but they go from taking 8 shots to 11, quite a big change), reapers, ghosts, larvae, queens(4 shots vs. 6, but not really used as a combat unit), banelings(splash only) and infestors. I've marked the few that it actually matters for, most just go from taking one shot to taking two and are pretty bad vs. tanks anyway. I know a "100% increase in time to kill" seems huge, but when something goes from taking one shot to taking two it doesn't actually make a huge difference because usually there are a shitload of tanks around to kill all the stuff that takes 10 shots before it reaches them. To be honest, since people found the magic box technique for mutalisks mech has been losing popularity anyway, so it appears your entire objection to this is that it turns TvT from tank/viking wars into MMM ball wars. In that case all I have to say is "Oh no?"

I think the issue you may be touching on is that marines are actually very very good, perhaps too good. If you have never tried pure mass fully upgraded marines(which it sounds like you have), they melt everything.

This patch was mostly to address the 3/5 rax reaper openings that have been seeing use against Zerg since Morrow beat Idra in the finals of that Intel thing. I don't really know if it succeeded considering the issue seems to be Zerg players can't kill reapers with anything.

That being said, why is anyone calling that an ultralisk buff... Misery 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I believe that's exactly what he said: Him and Adrin have a 75% win ratio with MMM or whatever which is a very degenerative Meta to let remain in place too long as it allows unit-spamming turtles to keep turtling without tech'ing up or even micro'ing. --ilr 19:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but does that really have much to do with Siege Tanks getting a damage nerf? I assume they are rolling right over Zerg and Protoss too. Misery 08:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe part of the point was that Blizzard was nerfing/changing things that were not broken while ignoring real issues. (hey, that sounds familiar!) The other point was that siege tanks were meant to be stronger than tier one units as a reward for leveling up grinding farming "teching" (what a stupid word), but are now much less effective, granting a much smaller reward. The point of siege tanks is to roll the fuck over tier 1 units, which they can no longer do so well. MMM is overpowered not because the units themselves are particularly strong, but because 1) it requires nearly no investment (almost no tech required, only very slight vespene/mineral investments per unit), 2) it cannot be countered ("beatable" != counterable) and 3) it requires very little skill on the part of the player. The only real skill needed to run it is the obligatory resource management needed for any strategy, and a little point'n'click. You don't really even need to micro, the Medics handle that for you. MMM, marines in particular, offer a strong counter to nearly any unit in the game, airborne or terrestrial, all at tech tier 1.

On a related topic, I've never been able to understand why Marines can hit flying units. Have you ever tried to hit a plane with a rifle? Even a really good anti-materiel rifle? It doesn't work. –Jette 14:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the point of siege tanks was ever to roll over T1 units. I think the only units that really fill that role are ultralisks and arguably battlecruisers. Funnily enough they both got nerfed too, but due to their high armor(and battlecruisers being immune to most of T1) I assume they will still rape T1. Misery 14:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's okay; I'm talking out of my ass about a game I don't play or even particularly enjoy. –Jette 14:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's okay; I haven't played since beta ^^ Misery 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Marine's have some balance issues and Marauders really need to be looked at. If you look up matches of Masq beating good players like Idra and Whitera with just simple Marine/Marauder groups you can see it barely takes any skill to effectively wipe out every other group. Siege Tanks just play a supportive role and will still one shot Zerglings and Stim-Packed Marines (without shields) but they won't be effective against Zealots anymore. InfestedHydralisk 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

mass marines

was already the case in 60% of the games before the patch. marines, marauders and medics (MMM-ball) = WIN! siege tanks where just icing especially against zerg while ghosts are anti-protoss (emp) Rhonin Soren 21:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Has someone created a starcraft 1 mod for the game yet? Given how powerful the editor is supposed to be I'm surprised people aren't just playing SC1 in high-res. Screw Blizzard anyway. –Jette 00:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have that mod on a back burner, because I figured someone else would have made one by now. The funny thing is, I bet every other map maker has the exact same mentality, so nobody is ever going to do it.

When I finish my mod (the one that adds older units), I'll get the other one done. ~Shard 01:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• RE: Unfair ... just for future refs, Interesting Article about the process --ilr 07:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Planeswalkers

This is a fair card for a fair price, amirite? elix Omni 05:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is a good example of why I only played sealed deck tournaments with no trading except for lands. Those were fun times. Then my store stopped hosting tournaments and most people in my area that played lost interest. Not that it would matter anymore with Emrakul having cast pre-nerf VoR on you... PS: I'd say Jace can go blow itself, but most games won't last long enough for him to use his game breaker ability. 66.61.119.166 06:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey man, just wanted to say, I feel your pain. Pokemon also went downhill after generation 3. Morphy 20:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. elix Omni 22:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I would still go to tournaments, but I don't like the idea that I have to buy a $100 card just to play a certain color. Jace, the Wallet Sculptor is an example of "use this or lose." They might as well disqualify you for not using planeswalkers, because it's impossible to beat someone else who has them.

On a side note, it is possible to use Jace's (or any other planeswalker's) ultimate ability the turn he comes into play, except it requires a lot of mana. You just need proliferate and/or clockspinning. It's fairly obvious they didn't test these sets at all. If they made proliferate four years ago, it would have been banned (or errata'd) the day of set release. ~Shard 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We're sure this isn't some sick joke on Wizards' part? That they're not all in their office building(s) with huge trollfaces? --Riddle 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon is boss. InfestedHydralisk 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Six-turn games have been relatively common for a long time, the difference is that they weren't always intentional. I still have an old memory jar deck lying around somewhere that won on turn one, turn two at the absolute latest. Magic has been on the decline for a while now, I'd say it started around 2003 or so, although that's a completely arbitrary number. Power creep has been more and more noticeable, and came to a peak with the introduction of Planeswalkers. I don't bother playing with most new sets* and neither should you. –Jette 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
*Actually, I don't play at all anymore. Everyone is either terrible or some sort of machoistic lunatic who only cares about winning and flips the fuck out when they don't.

I meant six turn games in Standard. Not Vintage. ~Shard 02:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It was standard the last time I played in a tournament... did I mention I can't stand most players? There's a reason I haven't been competitive since the 90s. –Jette 02:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Tempest block was good times...card games have been going the power creep route for a while now. Legend of the Five Rings was a nice balanced card game that as far as I knew never suffered from power creep. It just suffered from overly complicated rules syndrome. 66.61.119.166 03:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the real decline started when WotC decided every set should have 20 new keyword mechanics. elix Omni 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not so much that they make too many keywords, it's that they make too many useless keywords. Landfall comes to mind. Landfall doesn't mean anything; they just stamp it before a triggered ability that reads "whenever you play a land, do something." Why put the keyword there if it has no rules associated with it? Landfall means completely different things on different cards, which is the exact opposite of what keywords are supposed to do.

I enjoyed everything up to Time Spiral (except I thought the colorshifted and futureshifted things were silly). Lorwyn is when they started giving built-in-spells to every single creature they print. New players don't even know they're only winning because every card they play is actually two or three cards. ~Shard 03:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Spoiling the plot of a MK game is like....

Spoiling the plot of a porno. We all saw it coming. Karate Jesus 03:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

2nd Shao Kahn fight is fucking HARD. InfestedHydralisk 23:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked the story. I mean, you know, the presentation of it. I was not expecting Raiden to kill Liu Kang, and Cyber-sub's arcade ending is creepy. ~Shard 03:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I liked the presentation too. Story-wise I wasn't impressed, although that's not the purpose of a MK game.

I do, however, completely agree with you that the game is probably the best of the series. Karate Jesus 03:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BABALITY!

LoL

What do you think of the other DotA clones? I tried LoL during beta, but that's it, and I was pro-newb. Other than that, I've played Demigod a while back, and it seemed moderately balanced, depending on what you thought of the artifacts. --JonTheMon 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see an honest and accessible review of it finally (L-o-L). I've got friends who play it who are trying to get me to play it too and knowing it has mechanics issues really helps that decision. Mechanics are much bigger deal to me too than simple Stat imbalances. --ilr 20:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have friends to play with, it's not that bad (well, it still is, but having friends makes it a little more enjoyable). I've played most of the SC2 dota clones including SotIS and StarBattle, I've played Lands of Chaos, and probably some others I don't remember. StarBattle is the most balanced one I've played, but since it's a completely open battlefield, doesn't involve much mapwide positioning. SotIS isn't too bad, but it has these issues.

I can't really recommend any DotA to play because I don't particularly like them in general and since most of them try to replicate the original (which also has these broken mechanics) they all usually suck.

If you decide to pick up LoL, give me your SN and maybe my group can get you in sometime. ~Shard 03:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

LOCO was fun, I liked how they blended an mmo-style persistent economy with DoTA. elix Omni 03:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you think 1 2 3 4 were imbalanced? – Emmett 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've always wanted to try DotA since so many people say it's the shit. Is there a way to get into it or anything? Keep in mind I'm a chronic jerk with no scruples, so it can't be one of those social things like clans or forums or something. –Jette 01:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

[2] <- Signup link for LoL. 161.184.140.160 01:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We just spent a rant and a section discussing why league of legends is crap and normal DotA is better. Pay attention. –Jette 11:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you mean by "invincibility", those champions you mentioned have been brought down to a ignorable level. The argument for invisibility is flawed, this is like saying Sona is an unfair champion because she comes with so many free auras. Not that invisibility isn't flawed, the real issue is that it is extremely binary a mechanic - buy oracles and invisibility champions are useless, don't buy them and they wreck teams. Pika Fan 21:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pika, what's your ign? 161.184.140.160 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll laugh pretty hard if this is you. 161.184.140.160 22:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am currently banned on NA servers(for months now), all SEA IPs are. P.S. My ign is PosPosPos. Pika Fan 06:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a friend who was playing out of Singapore on the NA servers - what's a bypass? 161.184.140.160 19:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I want to play with 200-300 ping on an unstable server or 30 ping on a comparatively stable one? Hmm let's see...this is totally hard to decide. Either way, my account is perma banned as of this point and it is unlikely to change. Pika Fan 20:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be heartless, I don't buy that. Also, it didn't seem that unstable to me, and honestly I get an average of ~200 ping in North America at times, but I suppose you'd know better than I. 161.184.140.160 21:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

When I last played on the NA servers, there were unforeseen downtimes every week or so. To be honest, I wouldn't mind staying on the NA servers, there were friends I left behind whom I missed terribly. The playerbase is less frustrating than that of LoLSEA as well. Anyway, as you have noticed my Elo sucked on NA servers, some credit goes to the fact I only play support champions. Pika Fan 07:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Pika, that's not how invisibility works. Characters with stealth get it for free. They get in inherent advantage for free. The only way to come even (not counter, just come even) with them is to gimp your early game. These characters aren't even weak without stealth - they're as good as most other champions, so you're basically setting yourself back 400g every time you die (oracle's goes away when you die) just to make their enemy champions play like regular champions.

The connectino problems in LoL are also abysmal. They've already given me some free RP (currency for the store) because of the shitty connection quality I had during some games. If they fuck up a little more, I'll be able to buy a skin for one of my champs! ~Shard 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Eve without stealth is Udyr without his shield and speedboost. She is practically useless without the element of surprise. ::Twitch's defensive growth means that without stealth he drops faster than a second of focus fire. His early game is shit because every ranged carry can either outrange him or out damage him with pokes and various other escapes and utility.

Only Shaco and Akali's viability does not drop to 0 when you can see them with 100% uptime, but that's because they aren't centered on invisibility and have amazing gank/burst potential respectively.

Invisibility comes free, but you also have to consider the fact that most stealth champions rely on stealth to get anything done at all. Once you buy oracles, they fall below the standard of other champions by a huge margin. Even better if you get them on a support champion, since they don't need a single piece of gold to maintain 100% efficiency to begin with.

On the connections point, I currently play on Garena servers and they only have foreseen downtimes so far. Quite impressed with the uptime as of this point. Pika Fan 07:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What I gathered from my time beta testing Heroes of Newerth (lols) was that the general idea of lower level play was to buildwars the other team's heroes, does it work the same way if you're good at games like that? -- Tha Reckoning 10:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some, but really, that's pretty much true for all games, to a point. High level HoN play, I'd say, is pretty good as far as "skillful pvp" goes. NuVII 19:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, though, did you think the heroes I listed from DotA(/HoN) were imbalanced? – Emmett 18:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, on a tangent here, but apparently Riot outdone themselves with a champion that has stealth, range, hard cc, flash on a 2 second timer as well as capable of doing true damage as a % of the target's health. It's just amazing really. Pika Fan 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

SCII balance

I ruffled through some of the older versions, and here's my thoughts on SC balance.

To be honest, I think the balance of SCII is pretty much golden. Yeah, MMM is amazing, and so is 7 rax marine push (google TLO doing this), but in lower/mid tier games, marines will win you a lot of battles. But most cheese involving mass marine usually breaks apart with decent scouting, and since marines have a lot of low tech hard/soft counters, above plat level play favors marauders and mech more than mass marine. If you do proper scouting, every race has a decent counter: 'toss will most likely amass stalkers/sentries until robo goes up, and defensive cannoning handles marines nicely. Zerg has very easy time if going for early mass roach, 6 pool (yeah, yeah). Pool to expand has a harder time (probably the most common build) but spine crawlers transitioned to banelings is amazing vs. everything. most of the time, you'll see higher tier players just screw making marines after one point and go full mech vs. competent zerg, simply because broodlords/infestors/ultralisks are so damn powerful. More on that later.

Now, tanks. I'm a bit late to the party, but TvT play (keep in mind, this is strictly 1v1 based) almost always revolves around the player who has better tank micro. 90% of the games I played as TvT (granted, not that many of late, but still) revolve around the 1 rax 1 fact 1 starport build. it makes for an interesting game, most of the time, so I can't complain about banality. Even after the damage nerf, tanks are as strong as ever.

You didn't mention other races in much depth, so I'll get the ball rolling (yay for outdated balance discussions!). As a terran player, I have the most fun vs. other terran, have the easiest time vs 'toss, and despise TvZ. That's mostly cause tier 3 zerg is amazing compared to what terrans can put down (srsly, cattlebruisers). Mass ultra is nearly impossible to stop unless if your opponent screwed up his positioning, and mass ultra with mass queen just. Doesn't. Die. Right now, I'd place zerg as the most powerful race, since then have awesome econ power (early expand, anyone?), the best casters in the game (infestor is just wtf, so is mass queen) and uberstrong late tech (broodlords, ultras). Although now I realize this shit is written after the update you wrote about but whatever.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, you have a very non-diverse terran army. Helions, thors, cattlebruisers, even vikings to a degree are so specialist units that you almost never get any but one of them. It's kinda sad.

At any rate, brb getting american account. Probably at the end of the month. Wanks! NuVII 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Blizzard is doing pretty good on balance in my oppinion, there is nothing really game breaking. Especially if you consider that all 3 races are completely different. InfestedHydralisk 00:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mid-high diamond as of last month was as follows:

PvP = 4gate vs 4gate

PvT = 1 gate FE or 3 gate robo (to a lesser extent) vs 2 rax expand into mass marauder/ghost with blind vikings

PvZ = 3 gate expo into colossus void (unless you feel frisky, this is your best option) vs 14 hatch into roach corruptor (if you don't get the pylon down), if not 14 pool with the expand soon after.

I haven't played anything but protoss above plat level.

4 gate dominated in pvp because you can warp past ramps, and because of the sheer amount of terrain you have to cover with a 3 stalker opening. Zerg/terran really didn't have a whole lot of problem out of 4gates, they're fairly easily stopped by 1-2 bunkers/spines or any zerg unit you want to spend an inject on.

Since then I've encountered quite a few different builds from zergs, mostly a step forward in strategy. Multi-pronged attacks, baneling drops, huge aggression followed by periods of heavy droning. Protoss have just been switching over to builds they already had waiting that got smashed by 4gates, and terran still play the same because there's no reason to fix something that isn't broken. -- Tha Reckoning 02:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The voice acting was beyond awful. It wasn't as bad as Guild Wars' shameful excuse for human speech, but the original StarCraft had good voice acting. Not David Warner or Crispin Freeman good, but pretty fucking good. SCII's voices were just abysmal. You know how Clerks 2 came out and the actors were, like, ten fucking years older and looked like two old men, but it still worked? That's because they still had some sort of emotion and carried the roles in spite of the aging. Ten years passed between starcrafts, and instead of giving it their all, the actors sounded like their paychecks got cut in half in spite of the game's popularity. Raynor sounds like he's been sucking dicks for 4 consecutive years since the end of Brood War.
On a lighter note, the music was funny as hell. –Jette 02:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I always play it without sound out of habit, when I got it I was working nights and so I had to play without sound. It's also a habit carried over from GW, which is part of why I was terribad at that game. -- Tha Reckoning 02:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't play it at all, but if I did, I would play it without sound. I've never played GW with sound either, as I believe good music is better than being good at the game. This probably has something to do with why I got diverted so much, but whatever. –Jette 02:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I play games like WoW with sound off, since all I need to hear is vent or classic rock. RTS and other strategic PvP games pretty much require sound on, you get a ton of cues that way you'd usually miss.

On the topic of sc1/sc2 changes, I would have sworn that kerrigan was either black or close to it (hair looked like dreadlocks, portrait was pretty dark). When raynor holds up that pic of her in sc2 intro, I wouldn't have guessed who it was unless he actually said her name. -Auron 08:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dreadlocks form naturally if your hair stays disgustingly filthy long enough. I missed her voice actress, though; she really brought life to the character, while this new one sounds like a phone sex operator or something. The last mission was particularly bad. "I'm coming for you, Jim." –Jette 12:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Jette, yeah, I agree, the voice acting (on that note, the campaign) was god awful. The new raynor at least sounds like the old raynor, except he's more of a cocaine addict. Kerrigan looks and sounds best, I'd say, but the biggest "shock" was how emo Zeratul sounded. I mean, come on, the old Zeratul was one badass muthafucka who butchered Zerg and 'toss en masse just cause it was in his way. The old Zeratul killed Raszasgal is cold blood. The new is too... girly? He doesn't sound gruff at all. Music is okay, I guess, and I haven't had any complaints about unit sounds (THOR IZ HEER)

@ Reckoning: I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 'toss is probably the lamest race of the three. I think the necessity of Stalkers and the shittiness of zealots is a part of the reason why. As 'toss, you HAVE to get stalkers, period. You HAVE to get sentries, and sentries are so bad as casters, it's not even funny. The only reason you ever get tier 1 sentries is cause you have to have a few else you don't survive early pushes. Then you HAVE to get Colossi, cause mass marine and mass zergling will eat you if you don't. The only unit in the whole 'toss selection that counters marines reliably is Colossi. So there goes most of what you have. oh sure, we mix an observer in, maybe a templar or two, but on the whole, most TvP I play boils down to Colossi + Stalker balls. PvZ also boils down to stalker stalker stalker, maybe transitioning to tier 3 air if it drags on long enough. PvP is perhaps the worst matchup to play and watch, because both sides will be restricted to a very limited build if they want to survive. My gut tells me we'll see a return to reavers with the next expand, or an analogue thereof. TvT, TvZ, ZvZ are all very varied games, because both those sides have a large number of variable builds and unit picks. NuVII 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @ Jette: Yeah, I know what you mean about diversion. I still have this horrifying memory of infusing for Raine once and getting both WoH + Patient diverted within a short period of time by Auron Bladehand's group of whatever assassin hex heavy shittery was popular at the time. @ Nuke: The stalker is actually a pretty bad unit, hydralisks just blow and roaches only work for so long. I think sentries are probably some of the most powerful casters in the game, it just blows having to land that perfect forcefield or die. Missing a forcefield vs ling bling in the hands of a good zerg is one of the biggest "OH SHI-" moments in the history of mankind, it causes physical pain. I've lost half of mineral lines and GG'd out that way against top 1k NA (herf derf) zergs, it's miserable. Zealots just piss me off, don't even get me started. Did you know you can completely kite chargelots without stimming? -- Tha Reckoning 15:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

They do hit Marauders once whenever they charge now tho! Yeah, Protoss is pretty sad. I stopped playing after the KA nerf. I'll probably play Zerg in the off chance that I decide to play again. Morphy 15:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? Protoss is totally the OP race. If you let them sit and macro for 23 minutes, they get an unstoppable 200/200 deathball that you can't even beat by attacking with masses of unupgraded t1-2 units head on without micro. Nevermind the fact that the other races have plenty of accessible options for beating said protoss build, roach hydra corruptor and MMM don't work as well anymore, alert the media! -- Tha Reckoning 16:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Toss is just really, really boring to play. It reminds me of bullet chess. Morphy 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hydra's are actually really good units, they just suck off creep. About KA, the reason for the removal is that with Warp Gates you could just instantly warp in a HT if you need more storms, while their counterparts (Infestors and Ghosts) take like 50 seconds to create. And with HT you have enough energy for storm in about 30 seconds. InfestedHydralisk 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@reckoning, The stongest death ball in the game as of the latest update belongs to zerg, not 'toss. Mass Queen + Corruptor + broodlord, anyone? Then comes 'toss, and terran beats that with the power of EMP (owait you were being sarcastic doh). Hydra's are also pretty amazing, but only if you play them right. Indra does very pro stuff with hydras, if I'm not mistaken. Also, stalkers are pretty terrible, the only reason 'toss spam them is cause them have no other unit they can spam that is a marine analogue. Ofc, when blink comes into play, they get a second wind, but I'll take my marine ball any day. Sentries, again, only look and feel so good because you have to have Forcefields early game or you simply don't survive. Later on, tanks, 'festors, Colossi and ultras laugh @ forcefield blocks. They feel good because they are necessary for survival, not because they are good. In fact, I'd put sentries as about as strong as ravens, in terms of usefulness, but that's debatable.

Speaking of casters, though, infestors. Man, fuck that. Fuck that shit so bad. I was used to being shit scared to defilers, but that was tier 3. NuVII 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I know why Blizz nerfed HTs, I however disagree with their reasoning. Warpgate tech was created with instant reinforcement in mind. I would have been fine with either a nerf of roughly 10 energy on KA (to stop the most annoying problems), removal of KA and increased movement speed or HTs not being able to be warped in with KA at its former power. Right now, HTs have the disadvantages that are supposed to balance out the "reinforcement" concept but none of the advantages and as such, they are completely inferior to Colossi. Protoss already wasn't a very broad race before (in fact, the PvP 4gate/Colossuscraft problem has been plagueing the matchup before the game came out of beta) and HTs already were an uncommon unit, but that particular update basically removed the entire HT branch from the game. Morphy 20:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

People finally are catching onto the fact that FruitDealer knew what he was doing vs. Toss almost a year ago, i.e. using banelings in overlords to suppliments pushes against Collosus balls. I've literally seen a 160food collosus ball melt in 2 seconds to a 150food Roach-Ling comp with Bane drops. If you're attacking into Collosus-Void balls head-on, then you're really just letting them overlook their complete lack of mobility. Yes, the Queen-Broodlord ball has become a lot more popular due to the Spanishiwa build getting so much attention recently, but he doesn't have nearly as much clout or ability (imo) as his macroing counterparts.

Also, Nuke, Idra likes/popularized making early Hydras and Spines, creating a creep highway to the enemy base, then pushing with ~15 Hydras and Spines @ ~7:30-8 minutes. Good against any Protoss that isn't a Collosus. -- Oiseau | 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The general consensus among top players is that Protoss is the best race, power-wise. Skill-wise, it universally comes down to Terran. This just means you get the most oomph out of terran for how much you put in, but a perfect player playing protoss will beat other perfect players on other races.

Terran's piss-easy playstyle creeps as high up as diamond, where it is possible to win with nothing but marines against decent players (given you have at least some talent). This is the biggest problem in the metagame for sub-master leagues. Terran gets their best unit 3 minutes into the game and can produce them faster than any other unit in any other race without sacrificing tech. For a "hard counter," colossi are pretty garbage against terran infantry. For a protoss to beat bioball, you have to be twice as good as the terran, have higher tier units, have amazing positioning, and have a lot of energy on your sentries. Banelings are even more useless than colossi, since the number of banelings that will actually do damage is a small fraction of how many you have in total (and with godly micro by terran, can become zero).

The complaints about terran come down to the term "Game of skill" and how SC2 wants to be one. If a player with less skill (terran) can beat a player with more skill (zerg) every time, then something in SC2 is failing. Like I said, this only applies in leagues up to diamond (which is still like 95% of the players). It's kind of like how Ike is super broken in brawl against bad players, but nobody plays Ike in tournaments because if your opponent has a brain, Ike is trash.

IdrA made a good observation, which I believe someone else made when the game was new. He said something like "Look at where the top SC2 players from each race come from. Top protoss and zerg players are usually well known pros from Brood War or Warcraft 3, but a majority of top Terrans are new and nobody's ever heard of them before."

Sentries are the most powerful caster in the game. Forcefield is easily the best spell in the game, and if you bother to buy hallucination, you can scout for free or put damage sponges in front of your real army. Protoss does seem too dependent on them though.

Zerg's tier 3 sucks balls. Nobody runs queens + corruptors + brood lords in a serious game. If ZvX gets far enough against terran, they opt for Ultralisks. This is because 1: Vikings are too good in the air and 2: Corruptors are only built for corruption. Without corruption, Corruptors are worthless.

The AK nerf was unnecessary. Let's see, it costs 150/150 to cast one on the fly, but the minerals worth of marines it kills only comes to 500 if they don't have medivacs or stim, 0 minerals if they do. It would be nice if Archons had some splash in this game, so templar tech would at least be worth using in PvT.

Some people like the Infestor change (to Fungal), but I hate it. I valued the AoE stun more than the damage, and I'm sad to see half of the stun gone without any increase in anything else.

Need to finish studying for a final, will check back later. ~Shard 22:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a former semi-pro in Brawl. I made $800 in a year playing Ike and Lucas. :< -- Oiseau | 22:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

God, have I missed this!

@ oiseau, yeah, thanks for the reminder. I always keep forgeting the names of important people. Sadface. I think Spanishiwa style of play is going to become more and more prevalent as time goes on, but that's just me. It's certainly different from what we're used to from Brood War, but, again, we'll see how metagame develops.

@ Shard: First off, zerg tier 3 does *not* suck balls. You'll rarely see Carriers in a serious game (unless if you're Kiwikaki), or Motherships (bye bye archon toilet). Rarely any Cattlebruisers or Thors (yes, even against Muta harrass, thor is lame), but you almost always see broodlords, corruptors, and ultralisks in pretty much any matchup in any combination. Granted, the new ultra is amazing and most players go for that, but I don't think you can call Spanishiwa "nobody".

I disagree on the sentry. It is not at all that powerful a caster, it is a necessary caster. Can you imagine surviving as 'toss until 15 minutes without one? Sentries tear balls of any composition into pieces, but that's why almost no one makes any after the second expand. That's because sentries are hilariously inefficient gas sinks that are very effortlessly countered by not balling up, and terran loves to do that. When you're talking about the most powerful caster, you have to talk about the infestor. You will see a sentry in every 'toss game, and you will see an infestor every zerg game. The difference is that making more infestors is never a bad investment. Sentry kinda is. (Large parenthesis on FF: Yes, I'll concede that Forcefield is great. It just becomes obsolete very quickly against a competent opponent. Fungal growth never becomes obsolete, and thus is arguably superior.)

The 1st place in the Euro servers is a terran player (at least it is right now), so yeah, whatever, maybe US meta is different.

7 rax marines (assuming you're refering to this, yes?) is very powerful, but, again, very scoutable and counterable. It's lame, feet-scented cheese, but that doesn't mean pro's don't use/lose to cheese. It happens. Banelings are a hard counter, but only if you know how2micro better than or equal to the terran. But I do agree, countering mass marine with mass baneling isn't very practical. The best defence against early marine pressure is 4 spine crawlers with 4 queens. Can't punch through that with marines. On the note of balls, protoss balls will a click to win terran balls, period. That's because as great as tanks/MMM are, blink stalkers with Colossi are superior. I think you're over estimating the power of the marine in the lategame when a +3 Colossi becomes an executor very quickly. It is because of this reason why most of the top players are slowly drifting away from bio and into mech. On the opposite end of the spectrum, as a terran player, I stop marine production immediately when I see more than 3 Colossi on the field.

I agree, KA nerf was very unnecessary. You still see HT in competitive play, but not as often, and certainly not when "balling". They are mostly used to feedback and make archons. In fact, I reckon that's the principal use they now nowadays, to oneshot infestors. Oh, and while we're on archons, they do have splash damage, that's how archon toilet used to work.

As a terran player, I HATE the fungal change. Stupid shit eating mah marines... NuVII 23:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Nuke: After a certain point in a PvT, I stop making stalkers altogether. It's usually in the 3 base area. I opt for phoenix colossus zealot at that point, because +3 +3 zealots are beasts, phoenii are better for drops, and colossi are colossi. Stalkers just get worse as the game goes on because their upgrade scaling is meh. -- Tha Reckoning 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Shard, I disagree that a perfect player playing protoss will beat anything similar of the other two races. I think if perfect players played starcraft, none would play protoss, because you can just abuse the unsplittability of warpgate units, or abuse their reliance on FF. I think a perfect player would crash waves and waves of t1-2 ranged units into forcefield walls until the toss ran out of gas/time for forcefields, but maybe I'm missing something. -- Tha Reckoning 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Oiseau: Lucas is the shit. He's my main. Too bad about all those Snake players huh? ~Shard 05:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wolf is awesome! InfestedHydralisk 11:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Shard: I feel that they made him Super-Heavy to apologize for not putting him in the last game, as Sakurai ad wanted. 'Nade spam and DACUS only gets you so far if those're the only tricks you know (which a lot of Snakes believed), so at least it was manageable. I did have the pleasure of being utterly destroyed by Ally once though; it was humbling. Lucas' mobility is wonderful. He was always my go-to when facing someone patient enough to kite and wait out my Ike.

@Hydra: I started playing Wolf near the end of my run too. Never got as good as my two with him though. :3 -- Oiseau | 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Reckoning: My brief experience as protoss thaught me that you had to have some stalkers to defend against vikings, corruptors and broodlords, since phoenixes are meh against armored air, and vikings snipe Colossi so easy. NuVII 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

@Oiseau Wait, is Snake banned from tournaments? Should we also make a seperate section for Smash talk? InfestedHydralisk 20:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. NuVII 23:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @ Nuke: The colossus deathball (for me anyway) came in a few flavors. Against protoss, it's just as many colossi as you can make, and stalkers with the rest, getting as many ups as you can. Whoever gets a better spread wins, bonus lols for late game mommaship. For zerg, it was ~4 colossi and the rest in stalker/void, or just pure stalker if you like your blink micro. Against terran it's about 4 colossi again, and the rest in zealot/phoenix. I don't tend to favor phoenii as much vs zerg because corruptors eat them for breakfast, and blink stalkers are plenty enough to keep the mutas at bay. I don't really think there's a magic number for colossi, but I tend to stop at 4 just because I like absolute air dominance more, you'd be surprised how hard 20 phoenii or voids are to take down. I especially like voids in pvz because once they hit the field, zerg has nowhere to go, everything late game gets slammed by voids in numbers. I giggle at blords and ultras with my fleet of voids after I've crushed his ling bling or roach hydra (depending on how good he is). The cool thing about stopping at 4 is that it sometimes tricks people into overproducing vikings or corruptors, too. -- Tha Reckoning 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, Nuke, I have a NA account you can play around with if you want, instead of buying another copy of SC2. It's my girlfriend's account, I just troll around on there sometimes and smurf. She never plays anymore, so it's not a huge thing. -- Tha Reckoning 01:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As terran, though, I don't think you can ever go wrong with more vikings. Not only do they own air, but you can also recycle em to harrass, and even soak damage in battle if necessary. Agreed on 4 Colossi though.

Girlfriend. StarCraft. FML. NuVII 13:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

She played for a while in bronze, but she's not really the type that likes to work too hard for anything, I spoil her too much. She gets featured on lesser known streams sometimes where I tell her to bash all terran players everywhere for playing their race xD -- Tha Reckoning 17:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Smash Talk

Ok so, Snake is banned? I expected Meta Knight to be banned, or is he banned aswell? InfestedHydralisk 23:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Snake wasn't banned back when I played - and neither was MK to the chagrin of many. Now that was about 2-3 years ago, so things may have changed. I haven't kept up. -- Oiseau | 00:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither are banned according to the standard ruleset. Every character except MetaKnight gets disqualified if they grab a ledge 50 times in a single match. MetaKnight gets disqualified if he does 20 ledge grabs.

Most BBR players play S or A tier characters, so banning Snake and MK isn't an option for them, because then good players would win more often. A lot of people want to ban MK (including myself) because in the hands of a good player, he is literally unbeatable. People also want to ban Snake (I'd prefer modding it to weaken him) because below professional levels, a bad Snake player can beat a good non-Snake. ~Shard 22:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing MK is a bastard to kill for the same reason kirby used to be. The whole, jumping to stop knockbacks thing? --BriarThe Spider 22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I always hoped that MK would be banned, even though I knew it would never happen (look on SmashBoards at how much stronger the MK boards are than anyone else's). The one time I entered a tourney with Fiction, he (who was one of the best Warios in the world; even beat M2K's Meta so hard that he has to go D3 against him) got roundly beaten by a Meta spamming B-attacks, when Fiction was playing Squirtle, his secondary. One of the more disappointing memories of Brawl tournaments.

As for Snake, I think a lot could be done by reducing the power of his tilts to be honest. -- Oiseau | 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The thing about MK is he has an answer to everything, and all his attacks have the best priority (and speed) in the game, so even a mediocre MK can spam any attack he wants and, as long as he's facing the right direction, will always hit you through your attacks. ~Shard 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Laser priority actually. For some reason, that was intentional in his design. The lack of ending lag on his attacks is what most makes him broken though. Any other character making the wrong attack would be punished, but it's impossible to punish MK effectively, unless you're in just the right place yourself (even then, it's not enough most times). -- Oiseau | 16:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

LoL balance

This is more of a point about DoTA-esque balance in general, buuut...

When you talk about blinks and shadowsteps, two heroes in particular pop into mind: Magina the Antimage (magebane in HoN) and Akasha (Hag in HoN). These two heroes both have very reliable, built-in blinks. There are many others (puck comes to mind), but I'm going to use these for now. Also, both these heroes are buffed when ported to HoN, so I'm going to use HoN as my comparison point.

Magina is considered to be shitty tier carry for HoN, even though his blink is ungodly powerful (gives you +10 roughly magic armor upon usage for about 10s) and has a retarded short CD (6s at max level). Even then, most other agi carries see more play because in a game like DoTA, blinking heroes aren't that gamebreaking.

Another proof for this claim is kelen's dagger. For only 2k gold, you can purchase your very own blink skill. This turns some heroes (tiny comes to mind) into oneshotters of nearly every agi and INT hero in the game. Still, Tiny (pebbles in HoN) is considered a sub par pick also, because wards > him and when lategame comes around you can largely ignore his hard ass.

Now, temporary bans: Pudge, lucifer, axe, all of these heroes have long ass stuns or silences. Luci didn't get ported in to HoN (cause, you know, 20s worth of Doom is unfun) but axe and pudge and god knows who else is in the game. There is even one hero (a rough port of barathrum) who can stunlock a single hero for about 9 seconds. He is considered shittier tier, because locking someone down for that long isn't very impressive. Other heroes can do so much more, the dedicated single target lockers/nukes don't see that much competitive action. I dunno about LoL, but I'm sure it's a lesser form of Pvp :D

To be continued. NuVII 09:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In LoL, you and the other team are each allowed to ban 2 champions. The three that ALWAYS get banned are Amumu, Rammus, and Shen. Shen and rammus both have taunts (which are like stuns in that you lose control of your character, but you move towards them), and Amumu is the one I mentioned with a half-screen AOE stun. They are banned in every match because even the dumbest LoL players know that removing people from the game is broken as shit. The fourth that people usually ban changes a lot, aside from some strange choices team leaders sometimes make, most people ban Sion (who has a stun and a shield that does AoE damage), Evelyn (stealth), or Nocturne (teleport across the map for big damage). Champions without the things on this page never get banned, because nobody plays them. That kind of raises some flags huh? In an ideally balanced game, players pick stuff based on their playstyle, and there are some really interesting champs in LoL that never ever see play, just because they aren't broken enough to win. ~Shard 04:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To address those points, most of the time, bans of teams in lower levels of play will differ significantly with those of a higher level. Going back to HoN, for example, in an average game, you'll rarely ban Polywog priest or Jereziah, both of which are almost always (maybe not jere anymore after his nerf) autobanned in competitive play. There are many heroes like this, Vindicator, Polywog, Jere, Accursed (used to be, before nerfs), Tempest, all of these see regular bans or play by top players. Vindicator is a special mention, he is never banned and never played, but a tournament ready team with vindi almost always wins. This is because most players agree that playing Vindi screws too heavily with the game's fast paced dynamic, and most teams (even good ones) get their team strat screwed and play a game they aren't ready for. Jereziah and Polywog do similar things, Jere is a scaling supporter (and a God tier pick) and poly can stop or start pushes with one ultimate. Again, these heroes aren't considered OP because they break the game, but they do, in a sense.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are some heroes that break the game but aren't considered OP. The Dark lady is an agi carry hero with a melee silence buff (all her attacks silence and do ungodly damage for a period) a single target slow, and a charge/atk speed buff. Her ult? removes all allied vision from all heroes in a massive radius and lowers their natural vision to the equivalent of blind. She is considered a meh tier (why, yes, I am pulling tier names out of my arse). Keeper of the Forest can eye trees and potentially give clear vision around the map, but no one gets that skill ever, since you can chop down trees so easily. Scout can use his electric eye to ward runes, silence teams for up to 6 seconds, and has a very cheap scaling invis, but he is considered shittier than the shittier tier.

On lower levels of play, some very hard carries are banned for no reason other than how fast they get out of control for people who aren't very good at seizing a 4v5 play. Warbeast, a port of lychantrope, is almost always banned in average games, but he is considered a suppar pick for a high end game. Same goes for Scout (has invis, aoe silence, crit and disarm, AND a scaling nuke), blood hunter, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, What I'm going for is that what people may or may not ban may or may not have to do with how broken they are, but more to do with how they influence the game. Subtle difference. NuVII 18:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that, but that's not really relevant to my post. I said 100% of ranked matches end up with those champions being banned, because picking them nearly causes an autowin for your team. Also, LoL's matchmaking system for solo ranked is that it makes 5-man teams consisting of a high ranked player, a low ranked player, and three in the middle. The highest ranked player on a team picks the bans, so there isn't really any "low ranked" metagame for picking bans. ~Shard 20:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In terms of bans, I think you're forgetting about the "save" champion trading system. In some higher ELO premade and even solo que matches, people utilize that system to secure frequently picked (ie broken) champions before the other team can. That fact in itself adds a whole new degree of complexity to the banning phase. Of course, that favors the blue team, due to the fact that they get the very first Champion pick, so the strategy becomes a little more risky if you attempt it as purple. At any rate, it's not completely unheard of to see a Shen, Amumu, or Rammus in a ranked game.

Oh, and the 4th ban generally reflects the current free to play metagame, or newest (broken) champion release. Ryuu  *bite* 21:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

bah, maybe HoN has superior balance. Graphics, too. You should play that :D NuVII 17:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Superior balance, inferior price model. DotA is the same no matter where you go. ~Shard 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)