It was the context in which you used it. Don't try to sugar coat it now.
There was nothing wrong with the context. Eggplanting is a losing noob tactic. It is so, you won't win with any normal player with it, including me. I'm not sugar coating anything, I am mereley saying you are a noob. If you think that is offensive - your choice.
If you're not a noob, then what the hell are you? I'm so sick of high and mighty gamers throwing the word noob around. Honestly, it's so pretentious. And the way people sound when they call others noob, well I'd rather be a noob than one of those jerks.
I noob in my book is someone who doesn't know what they are doing. I know how to play starcraft and just because I don't play it on B.Net doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing. And yes Siaynoq I hate the people that throw the word noob around just to be a jerk. The reason equinox offended me was based on the way she used the word and the way I view the word. It was a misunderstanding due to how she acted as if she were so much better than me.
I noob in my book is someone who doesn't know what they are doing.
No, it's just an inexperienced player. Or, rather, any given player inexperienced compared to any given player. E.g., everyone is a noob except Bisu.
Quote from "Tehstickleman" »
I know how to play starcraft and just because I don't play it on B.Net doesn't mean I don't know what I'm doing.
If you use eggplanting against PC, that's one thing. If you claim that eggplanting is going to work against an average human, you really have no idea what you are doing. In fact, in relation to online SC, you are a noob both by my definition and your definition. Just as I am a total noob in Diablo II because I never played it online.
Quote from "Tehstickleman" »
The reason equinox offended me was based on the way she used the word and the way I view the word.
Well, it was a comment, not a call, you weren't even supposed to reply to it.
Zerg were created by the terran due to the lossage of the protoss by the time zerg was created the terran were at war with the protoss , the zerg was founded by either samir durran or jim raynor i forgot but i remember it went like this
Well yeah I can use both zerg and protoss well. I never really liked terran. I can use them if I have to but I don't like to. For me a protoss strategy is to make so many cannons that nothing can destroy me and then make 2 fleets of carriers and mow down the competition.
That is basicly my technique as well
burry myself so deep in cannons i can hold out for quite some time why i usually have an expansion base creating setting up more and more cannons while mining......usually the strat goes that they see my mining colony thinking its my real base due to massive amounts of cannons....thus leaving me free at home to build a few waves of carriers and upgrades to bring in the storm
1. you say i make bad comparisons, your comparing SC2 graphics to WC3, thats a terrible comparison
SC1, not SC2... lol I hate the way SC2 looks right now.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
World in conflict,
Wasn't able to find a proper, top-down screenshot of the game actually being played. Give me one.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
possibly Tiberian wars
Didn't play it, looks like AoE III to me, if not worse. Same low-poly and tiny units stuff...
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
weve seen the zerg already and all of these designs are fairly early, they could if they wished change the engine
The game will be adopted for low computers. Therefore, it will be low-poly. Low-poly looks ugly and boxy and undetailed... As far as I have seen.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
it would wouldnt it, WC3 is so aged
But you said 2D was old. And WC3 is 3D. According to you, any 3D is good, right? So what's your problem with WC3? As long as it's 3D, it's better than 2D, isn't it what you said? Don't back away here. Don't go to Tiberian Wars and w/e, WC3 is the way to go, WC3 is a good example of why I don't like low-poly 3D.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
but UT 3 is a good example of well made 3D graphics, as well as Crysis is also but still, they are not RTS however.
Exactly... RTS are low-poly, RPG are low-poly mostly, FPS are usually high poly so they look fine.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
thats an opinion, i feel your trying to dig this in as a fact,
Ok, you say I am trying to dig it in as a fact, and then you say:
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
how can you possibly say this when we can see so many improvements in 3D, can you possibly say C&C tiberian Dawn is better graphically than Tiberium wars, hell how can you say SC is better than SC 2 graphically,
Who´s digging who´se opinion where?
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
2D lower quality than 3D
I think most 2D games look better than WC3, and WC3 is 3D. I also think that Doomsday Heretic looks better than many old 3D FPS (aka quake 2), and that is 2.5D...
Technology, sir, does not define how a game looks. Technology only provides possibilities for the designers to exploit... everything else is design and creativity.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
performence is not neccerily the fault of the game
It kinda is. Because WC3 demands more than AoE II and looks like crap. That's my problem.
When a game demands a lot but compensates its demands, it's one thing, tho I'm not even so sure about that, I wish they would fucking forget about graphics and work on the damn GAME. And 2D can save you so much time... But that is offtopic.
In any case, I do not remember a 3D RTS or RPG that had the same detail and quality as a 2D game. In fact, 3D games of this sort also suffer from the camera issue. Even if the character is detailed and all, the camera, in its standard, playable position, is so far away from him, that he becomes hard to distinguish due to all the vertexes colliding on top of him. Take Titan Quest, for instance. Close up, looks cool. Take the camera to the top, doesn't look like much anything... Which is why I am asking for a top-down World of Conflict screen. I don't play games when the camera is like, on the ground. I play games with bird's eye view, I need to see the map...
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
it depends on the developers as well, not just the performence on size of maps as well as the games mechanics, Age of empires 3 is more tactical than strategic for example so it would not have massive armies or maps.
It kinda does depend on developers, but, you see, it begins to depend in this area: how well do developers programm graphics. Do I really want to bother with that? Map size is more important to me than graphics. But, no, users want 3D and crap. So the devs end up with small maps because they can't optimize the 3D properly...
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
Tiberian dawn, world in conflict, Black and white 2
Any game I know, possibly, besides those three? I didn't play them. You know, AoEIII looked like 2D on screenshots. But in game, it wasn't all that impressive. At all.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
massive armies are not everything
Massive armies are a game property. A property of AoE series, of SC, of WC. But, AoE 3 - big armies are gone, WC3 - armies just became tiny. In other words, 3D LIMITS developers to one of two things: low-poly units, or little units. I don't see how that is good.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
but all sorts of graphical effects are more viable in 3D that 2D could never display.
2D can display absolutely everything. Did you know that almost all fire used in 3D games, inclduing FPS games, is actually 2D? Because 3D fire is sooooo expensive no one uses it?
2D is raw picture. Picture is what you draw. And you can draw everything. Therefore, 2D is unlimited. The only thing 2D can't show is camera. But, when I play an RTS, I keep everything in one camera position: bird's eye top down. It pretty much becomes a low-quality 2D game. In fact, when I have some buildings who block the view, making me turn the camera, that really pisses me off.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
the only advantages is that as you say, costs less for us gamers
If that is the only advantage you noticed you really didn't read my post.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
doesnt matter to me, ive already got a gaming rig
Your rig has nothing to do with this. YOu can have the best rig ever but your computer will still die from high-poly, FPS level, graphics applied to an RTS game. It's not a question of the computer you can buy, it's a question of what hardware can support, and how well coders can optimize it. That's the question.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
3D games are superior graphically
Any static shot of a 3D game can be overriden by a 2D picture. For me, that is everything, because I don't whirl the camera when I play.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
simply because you dont want to spend some cash to upgrade your machine
My machiene is pretty good, actually. But WC3 still looks like crap on it. Machiene has nothign to do with game's looks. Game's looks are defined by designers, you know. So don't bring in that "you can't pay" crap. I can pay, but game developers cannot give me a beautiful game if they use 3D.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
and seem to want to live in the past..thats your prefrence it doesnt mean however that you should try and label someone as a guy who doesnt care about design.
You attacked me personally first. I was just attacking the idea of low-poly 3D.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
now you seem to think somehow someone in this entire forum and site could possibly be in kindergarden...right..
I don't rmemeber anyone comparing 2D vs 3D to Black&White vs Color, because that is a kindergarden comparison.
Quote from "diabloofterror" »
a source of hype? please name some new 3D games with a 2D game whos graphics beat it
Impossible, 2D games are not made since 2000 or so.
But, AoE II, or SC, or Nox or Diablo, I believe, have better graphics than WC3. And they were made in similar time areas.
Those 2D games, in my opinion, also beat recent Company of Heroes, Age of Empires III (pretty recent), Perimeter, Total Commander, Rome Total War, Disciples III, Etherlords 1-2, Evil Islands.
burry myself so deep in cannons i can hold out for quite some time why i usually have an expansion base creating setting up more and more cannons while mining......usually the strat goes that they see my mining colony thinking its my real base due to massive amounts of cannons....thus leaving me free at home to build a few waves of carriers and upgrades to bring in the storm
that basic stragety dont work vs any my stragetys even if u have 999 cannons cuz for example : i can get sh*t loads of nukes on u, Zerg : i can get str8 up guardians and pwn those canons and lastly protoss : U can easily use revears and his dt and leave lil space for the scrabs ( make sure u dont have the DTS to close b4 they die and they suspect u) AND for another zerg i can dark swarm and get ultras or zergs and terran can use bc yamato gun too.. there are many things that can kill full base of cannons
well this is all in speculation on who i am playing and wat race they are.....thats what the best thing about starcraft is..there is no one sure fire strat. Every strat can be beating by a diff strat but allows for other weakness's
say u wernt suspecting my huge cannon fake base...and u were zerg trying to swarm me with lisks and mutas....u would stand no chance. or if u tried to zealot rush me with protoss..u would be obliterated.....thats wats awesome about starcraft....none the less i wouldnt run this strat every time i played u because then u woule use all ur above mentioned counter strats to fight a heavily defended cannon base..in 1 on 1 i would rarely use my strat its more for a longer battle like a 3 on 3 where u have a huge chance of geting tripple teamed by ground forces early on...if u can withstand the first few waves of it it gives me plenty of time to bring out the carriers and arbitrators
Silver, if you want me to explain why this tactic doesn't work:
the hiding-behind-cannons tactic, which is usually called camping, assumes that you only use two, at most, three bases. So, that's two bases you have minerals and gas from. If the map is a normal map, there are many other places to expand to. In other words, your opponent will be able to expand all over the map because you are shut in your base. So he will have 5+ expansions or so. First of all, in the most idiotic case, he will camp as well and overload you with his resources. In the normal case, he will just make guards and whatever helps vs cannons. In fact, he'll probably just kill your carriers or whatever, until you are totally drained of your resources, and then make guards and stuff and slowly destroy your base.
Speaking of "you don't suspect", there is this thing called recon. Camping is very easy to spot. It's cannons like everywhere around the base. So your opponent sends over some lings, or overlords, wraiths, observers, gets killed by a ton of cannons and says "woot, camper, gg".
Besides, playing vs camper is not that different compared to playing vs normal. You just make more drones than army and expand like wildfire.
There is no counter vs camping because camping is not worthy to be considered a start or tactic. It is just something newbs do that make the game long and boring and stupid for the other player.
Camping is a 100% losing strat on a certified map in a 1v1 with normal online players.
2v2, it may be different because the lack of expansion spots comes in. But usually the other 2 players just take the corner expansions and stuff.
But if you have tons and tons of cannons all throughout your base while getting a massive ammount of minerals and gas it's hard to deal very many crushing blows. Also, I expand while I build one base. I make sure my core areas are protected then build off of that. I'm not above making a sacrifice.
Also, what's all this talk about graphics? The graphics doesn't make the game. If the graphics is all you care about then you are a very shallow person.(And no I didn't mean that toward anyone I just mean anyone who will read this.)
lol i can think of 100 different stragetys to destroy a fake cannon base and 25 hybrid stragetys sadly i can explain one and its not hydra lings, its actually 5 different units, if i were to go to ur cannon base and u have sh*t loads of carriers i can get devours and if u got cannons to bac kthem up ill get guards and if u kil those guards ill build more and get ultralisk along with a dark swarm // plague to weaken the life of ur cannons then consume 2 zlings (thats why u have 6 zlings ) for dark swarm then 2 more then ds then 2 more and ds and u know it continues ^^ i dont need builders for my resources, i can get them ez lol and if we played fastestp ossible map
But if you have tons and tons of cannons all throughout your base while getting a massive ammount of minerals and gas it's hard to deal very many crushing blows. Also, I expand while I build one base. I make sure my core areas are protected then build off of that. I'm not above making a sacrifice.
If you have tons and tons of cannons you got no money. You got no money you can't expand, you are blocked off. I mean, 12 hydras will dest any cannon rushing, and more will be made if you decide to actually make army, but if you are building all those cannons, you can't make army.
Quote from "Tehstickleman" »
Also, what's all this talk about graphics? The graphics doesn't make the game.
Athmosphere is very important to me in a game. Athmosphere is a combination of music, sound, graphics, design, etc. So, yea, it is kind of important. Like, you do distinguish WoW as cartoony, don't you?
P.S.: and, yea, swarm eliminates all damage dealt by cannons, carriers, goons.
lol ur wrong , if u played fastest possible map ud realize u never run outta money till u get like 9999999999999999 minerals it has over 60 stacked mins wth 50k each so if u mine alot and build sh*t loads of cannons everywhere its possible but i doubt u can get it in someones base besides camping.. but like i said if u played fa stest possible green ud know ÿc/Green ^^
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can You Guess What Im Spelling?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
If you use eggplanting against PC, that's one thing. If you claim that eggplanting is going to work against an average human, you really have no idea what you are doing. In fact, in relation to online SC, you are a noob both by my definition and your definition. Just as I am a total noob in Diablo II because I never played it online.
Well, it was a comment, not a call, you weren't even supposed to reply to it.
Anyway, the word noob didn't really catch on until online gaming became so popular.
Now it's just a part of the asshole gamer's litany, "STFU noob!"
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
That is basicly my technique as well
burry myself so deep in cannons i can hold out for quite some time why i usually have an expansion base creating setting up more and more cannons while mining......usually the strat goes that they see my mining colony thinking its my real base due to massive amounts of cannons....thus leaving me free at home to build a few waves of carriers and upgrades to bring in the storm
Wasn't able to find a proper, top-down screenshot of the game actually being played. Give me one.
Didn't play it, looks like AoE III to me, if not worse. Same low-poly and tiny units stuff...
The game will be adopted for low computers. Therefore, it will be low-poly. Low-poly looks ugly and boxy and undetailed... As far as I have seen.
But you said 2D was old. And WC3 is 3D. According to you, any 3D is good, right? So what's your problem with WC3? As long as it's 3D, it's better than 2D, isn't it what you said? Don't back away here. Don't go to Tiberian Wars and w/e, WC3 is the way to go, WC3 is a good example of why I don't like low-poly 3D.
Exactly... RTS are low-poly, RPG are low-poly mostly, FPS are usually high poly so they look fine.
Ok, you say I am trying to dig it in as a fact, and then you say:
Who´s digging who´se opinion where?
I think most 2D games look better than WC3, and WC3 is 3D. I also think that Doomsday Heretic looks better than many old 3D FPS (aka quake 2), and that is 2.5D...
Technology, sir, does not define how a game looks. Technology only provides possibilities for the designers to exploit... everything else is design and creativity.
It kinda is. Because WC3 demands more than AoE II and looks like crap. That's my problem.
When a game demands a lot but compensates its demands, it's one thing, tho I'm not even so sure about that, I wish they would fucking forget about graphics and work on the damn GAME. And 2D can save you so much time... But that is offtopic.
In any case, I do not remember a 3D RTS or RPG that had the same detail and quality as a 2D game. In fact, 3D games of this sort also suffer from the camera issue. Even if the character is detailed and all, the camera, in its standard, playable position, is so far away from him, that he becomes hard to distinguish due to all the vertexes colliding on top of him. Take Titan Quest, for instance. Close up, looks cool. Take the camera to the top, doesn't look like much anything... Which is why I am asking for a top-down World of Conflict screen. I don't play games when the camera is like, on the ground. I play games with bird's eye view, I need to see the map...
It kinda does depend on developers, but, you see, it begins to depend in this area: how well do developers programm graphics. Do I really want to bother with that? Map size is more important to me than graphics. But, no, users want 3D and crap. So the devs end up with small maps because they can't optimize the 3D properly...
Any game I know, possibly, besides those three? I didn't play them. You know, AoEIII looked like 2D on screenshots. But in game, it wasn't all that impressive. At all.
Massive armies are a game property. A property of AoE series, of SC, of WC. But, AoE 3 - big armies are gone, WC3 - armies just became tiny. In other words, 3D LIMITS developers to one of two things: low-poly units, or little units. I don't see how that is good.
2D can display absolutely everything. Did you know that almost all fire used in 3D games, inclduing FPS games, is actually 2D? Because 3D fire is sooooo expensive no one uses it?
2D is raw picture. Picture is what you draw. And you can draw everything. Therefore, 2D is unlimited. The only thing 2D can't show is camera. But, when I play an RTS, I keep everything in one camera position: bird's eye top down. It pretty much becomes a low-quality 2D game. In fact, when I have some buildings who block the view, making me turn the camera, that really pisses me off.
If that is the only advantage you noticed you really didn't read my post.
Your rig has nothing to do with this. YOu can have the best rig ever but your computer will still die from high-poly, FPS level, graphics applied to an RTS game. It's not a question of the computer you can buy, it's a question of what hardware can support, and how well coders can optimize it. That's the question.
Any static shot of a 3D game can be overriden by a 2D picture. For me, that is everything, because I don't whirl the camera when I play.
My machiene is pretty good, actually. But WC3 still looks like crap on it. Machiene has nothign to do with game's looks. Game's looks are defined by designers, you know. So don't bring in that "you can't pay" crap. I can pay, but game developers cannot give me a beautiful game if they use 3D.
You attacked me personally first. I was just attacking the idea of low-poly 3D.
I don't rmemeber anyone comparing 2D vs 3D to Black&White vs Color, because that is a kindergarden comparison.
Impossible, 2D games are not made since 2000 or so.
But, AoE II, or SC, or Nox or Diablo, I believe, have better graphics than WC3. And they were made in similar time areas.
Those 2D games, in my opinion, also beat recent Company of Heroes, Age of Empires III (pretty recent), Perimeter, Total Commander, Rome Total War, Disciples III, Etherlords 1-2, Evil Islands.
that basic stragety dont work vs any my stragetys even if u have 999 cannons cuz for example : i can get sh*t loads of nukes on u, Zerg : i can get str8 up guardians and pwn those canons and lastly protoss : U can easily use revears and his dt and leave lil space for the scrabs ( make sure u dont have the DTS to close b4 they die and they suspect u) AND for another zerg i can dark swarm and get ultras or zergs and terran can use bc yamato gun too.. there are many things that can kill full base of cannons
say u wernt suspecting my huge cannon fake base...and u were zerg trying to swarm me with lisks and mutas....u would stand no chance. or if u tried to zealot rush me with protoss..u would be obliterated.....thats wats awesome about starcraft....none the less i wouldnt run this strat every time i played u because then u woule use all ur above mentioned counter strats to fight a heavily defended cannon base..in 1 on 1 i would rarely use my strat its more for a longer battle like a 3 on 3 where u have a huge chance of geting tripple teamed by ground forces early on...if u can withstand the first few waves of it it gives me plenty of time to bring out the carriers and arbitrators
the hiding-behind-cannons tactic, which is usually called camping, assumes that you only use two, at most, three bases. So, that's two bases you have minerals and gas from. If the map is a normal map, there are many other places to expand to. In other words, your opponent will be able to expand all over the map because you are shut in your base. So he will have 5+ expansions or so. First of all, in the most idiotic case, he will camp as well and overload you with his resources. In the normal case, he will just make guards and whatever helps vs cannons. In fact, he'll probably just kill your carriers or whatever, until you are totally drained of your resources, and then make guards and stuff and slowly destroy your base.
Speaking of "you don't suspect", there is this thing called recon. Camping is very easy to spot. It's cannons like everywhere around the base. So your opponent sends over some lings, or overlords, wraiths, observers, gets killed by a ton of cannons and says "woot, camper, gg".
Besides, playing vs camper is not that different compared to playing vs normal. You just make more drones than army and expand like wildfire.
There is no counter vs camping because camping is not worthy to be considered a start or tactic. It is just something newbs do that make the game long and boring and stupid for the other player.
Camping is a 100% losing strat on a certified map in a 1v1 with normal online players.
2v2, it may be different because the lack of expansion spots comes in. But usually the other 2 players just take the corner expansions and stuff.
3v3 is not even.
Also, what's all this talk about graphics? The graphics doesn't make the game. If the graphics is all you care about then you are a very shallow person.(And no I didn't mean that toward anyone I just mean anyone who will read this.)
Athmosphere is very important to me in a game. Athmosphere is a combination of music, sound, graphics, design, etc. So, yea, it is kind of important. Like, you do distinguish WoW as cartoony, don't you?
P.S.: and, yea, swarm eliminates all damage dealt by cannons, carriers, goons.