/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5727267
>having the same limit of small units to big ones is weird also
the 12 unit hard limit is generally defended by BW fans because making exceptions for unit sizes would likely make Zerg overpowered as fuck. With the limit, 200/200 Zerg armies are still managable, but you have to also position them properly on the battlefield before you start carpeting them down on an enemy position, otherwise they will arrive in a trickle and you will take losses.
>mutalisks exploit is really dumb
It isn't easy to master at all and is very likely to make you look dumb if you showboat too much, plus there are more arcane features of the engine like being able to attack AND move at the same time with Vultures or even workers.
Personally, I LOVE Mutalisks and I consider them a ton of fun to play with precisely because of the glitch, and it looks and feels great whether you're abusing weaknesses in Terran formations or dogfighting in ZvZ.

I think you do have valid complaints and I concede that many of my responses boil down to that all of this arcane shit is what makes BW the game it is, so I can't defend it on any grounds other than "all of these elements work well together". But this is why I think people should branch out and enjoy different games in the genre, because no RTS does it all; I am big on BW, but appreciate the way AoE2 works with its map generator or how Relic games handle terrain features.

>>5346376
they also have low attack speed and are expensive, also Reaver shots often whiff
they're among the best units vs Zerg but even with Reavers/HTs Zerg is still favored in that matchup

>>5282027
Show me a Starcraft match where you actually avoid all damage through positioning. No, you don't, you just fucking pick your engagements smartly and settle for avoidable losses whenever possible.

Same in BG. The entire point of "not getting hit" is simply to not get hit at level 1, where getting hit is actually very likely lethal even on Core Rules. Later on you're perfectly allowed to take some damage, but you still have like hundreds of ways of reducing and minimizing it, making Ironman rules possible.

No one argued for a playthrough where you never, ever, absolutely get hit. We argued for a playthrough where the main character doesn't die. We argued for a playthrough where you'll rather sacrifice some kobolds from a wand before you wade into melee. We argued for a playthrough where you use HP cushions in form of your companions and your own fortitude.

Your entire argument can be summed up in this post:
>>5282019
>just don't be in situations where you can get killed in one shot
>This is impossible
It is very possible, and you're wrong. We shut down every single example you provided with means on how to counter them, and your only means of defense has been deflection.

>>5208274
At the risk of repeating myself, you go on, brother.

Starcraft has the most lasting appeal for me.

>>5124739
>by rewarding tedious micro instead of macro
anyone who has any sort of experience with this game will tell you that your best way to start getting good is to actually get the macro mechanics down because up to a high amateur level / foreigner pro level, you win games by simply having more shit than your opponent, and that principle holds true even for Korean games. Even Flash doesn't overmicro his marines, you just put spread them around in a good spot, hit Stimpack and you focus on macro. Jerking around with a Vulture is a nice skill to have, but it doesn't do jack shit if you're racking up a huge bank that isn't being spent - you're hurting your own economy as much as you do theirs.

Too often I coached players who were enamored with their DT micro and were like "senpai did you see the 15 probe kills on that DT" and I had to remind them that they had 1900 minerals, half the army of the enemy, and if the enemy wasn't a massive nooblord himself he could have just walked in to the DT user's base and just fucking killed him.

You will win 99% of your games through smart engagements (flanking, catching enemy off-guard, drops/recalls; Artosis screams at Protoss on his streams because of how much of a strategic advantage is the Protoss T3 tech in TvP) and outproducing your opponents. Dancing around with a Vulture is only an advantage if you can actually build up your base in the meantime.
>Starcraft ruined RTS
Yeah everyone packed up and just stopped making them. Supcom, DoW, CoH were never made, and C&C died because they couldn't stay competitive with SC and not because of Kane's ascension being filmed in a white room.

Your entire useless diatribe is better chalked up to WC3 and it would still be wrong anyway.

>>4866606
>The balance doesn't change.
On the contrary.
This kills the Protoss.
PvZ is the most notoriously difficult matchup in the game where the Zerg generally keeps initiative and maintains it throughout the game, has a much better, more mobile lategame. There are very few moments where the Protoss can take the initiative and when they do happen, Protoss *has* to strike or he dies, fully upgraded Zerglings are instant GG and they can be EVERYWHERE. The best Protoss are all about picking the best possible battle at the best possible moment, and when they dawdle too long, webm related happens. They're the only race that relies on a handful of elite units and not big balls of shit - and that advantage is diminished when the elite units are as easy to control as everything else.
I guarantee you that the winrates of Zerg over Protoss in your proposed setup would make everyone simply quit Protoss. It's already a shit matchup, it doesn't have to be worse.
You are *vastly* underestimating what any changes to mechanics could do to this game.
Seriously, imagine that webm but Larva gets to control all his Hydras at once.