The real Total Annihilation Vs Starcraft!

[Noddingdog]

5: Them's the breaks--one advantage to playing Terrans is potential increased building speed with multiple SCVs. Zerg buildings regenerate, and Protoss buildings have shields.
15: Actually, I rather like Starcraft's music. I find the bizarre hillbilly techno of the Terrans surprisingly addictive.
20: True, but they're all a bit different.
24: Realism wasn't a goal for the Starcraft design, so you're correct.
27: Sorry, but my 350 didn't much like the largest maps, and the 200 didn't like anything much more than the smallest.
35: Never noticed it much in SC, though I was admittedly teasing--I've never played TA across the net. None, and I mean zero, of my friends liked playing it.
36: Then it's not really a fair comparison, is it?
38: Eh, maybe.
39: Psi-storm lasts a very brief amount of time, so true. Nukes, on the other hand, can be stopped by killing the Ghost within (I think) 15 seconds of a nuke launch. Maybe longer, maybe shorter.

5: Ah ha. But still you can only speed up building with one side.
15: Fair enough, but what about TA's score that changes according to what stage of the game you are at?
20: Yeah, but still each side only has 1 unit to play with. In TA, you get 9.
24: Ah, that's why!
27: Maybe you had loads of applications in the background? It could be any number of things. Besides, who needs to worry about that now, with the up to 3.2ghz worth of processor available?
35: How long had you been playing SC before this though?
36: At least TA's original AI provided a small challenge. OK, so it's not very hard, but at least it tries
39: But first you have to find the thing

 

[ifriit]

5: Ah ha. But still you can only speed up building with one side.
15: Fair enough, but what about TA's score that changes according to what stage of the game you are at?
20: Yeah, but still each side only has 1 unit to play with. In TA, you get 9.
24: Ah, that's why!
27: Maybe you had loads of applications in the background? It could be any number of things. Besides, who needs to worry about that now, with the up to 3.2ghz worth of processor available?
35: How long had you been playing SC before this though?
36: At least TA's original AI provided a small challenge. OK, so it's not very hard, but at least it tries
39: But first you have to find the thing

5: Well, yeah, but that was a purposeful design decision. It's like complaining "none of the units in Total Annihilation has Psi-Storm."
15: In all honesty, I didn't notice. Turned it off pretty quickly. I prefer my own music.
20: Yeah, but those 9 are the same on both sides. I mean, really, Protoss could have 3.
27: Nah, not really. But you're right, the latest and greatest don't have to worry about it, but nonetheless I haven't even fired it up for at least two years.
35: Quite a bit--I bought it the day it came out, was addicted for months, etc., etc. Wasn't terribly hardcore though--never played ladder games.
36: Hahah, yeah. Starcraft's initial AI was terrible too, I remember that. 3 AI on 1 human wasn't even a challenge. The later patches fixed that, though...
39: Of course. Can't stop nukes in TA either if you don't have the units to do it.

 

[RazorX]

1) Is NOT!
2) I'd have to disagree here. Three sides in SC are very hard to balance, TA's two sides are simple and extremely well balanced - for every unit there is an equal. No leaning towards one side.
3) (sulks)

1)Fine all a matter of opinion!
2)Give me any unit and I'll tell ya what can beat them and whatit can beat!
3)

 

[Firestorm]

starcraft rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Megachihuahua]

2)Give me any unit and I'll tell ya what can beat them and whatit can beat!
3)

2)In TA, units don't have counters, just big guns!30 peewees could beat a krogoth if the player was lucky and skilled enough. But a vulture won't be seen beating a mutalisk!
3)Only because you can't change your vote!
Note:SC can't use any cd, I tried it, and only one scv at a building at a time.

 

[ifriit]

Note:SC can't use any cd, I tried it, and only one scv at a building at a time.

Okay, step by step instructions on how to play any CD in Starcraft.
1) Turn off SC's music.
2) Alt-tab to the desktop.
3) Start the CD player.
4) Alt-tab back to SC.

...and how to have multiple SCVs work on a building.
1) Select an SCV.
2) Build something.
3) Select one or more other SCVs.
4) Right-click on the building in progress.

If it doesn't work for you, perhaps your mouse is broken or something. It works for me.

 

[Megachihuahua]

Sorry, after I finished the tests I sold my disk.
A little taste of TA!

 

[Noddingdog]

5: Well, yeah, but that was a purposeful design decision. It's like complaining "none of the units in Total Annihilation has Psi-Storm."
15: In all honesty, I didn't notice. Turned it off pretty quickly. I prefer my own music.
20: Yeah, but those 9 are the same on both sides. I mean, really, Protoss could have 3.
27: Nah, not really. But you're right, the latest and greatest don't have to worry about it, but nonetheless I haven't even fired it up for at least two years.
35: Quite a bit--I bought it the day it came out, was addicted for months, etc., etc. Wasn't terribly hardcore though--never played ladder games.
36: Hahah, yeah. Starcraft's initial AI was terrible too, I remember that. 3 AI on 1 human wasn't even a challenge. The later patches fixed that, though...
39: Of course. Can't stop nukes in TA either if you don't have the units to do it.

5: But if gamers don't like it, then surely it should be an option?
15: Personal opinion I guess.
20: But TA's ones build different structures on 3 levels, and you have to have more advanced construction units to get the big guns.
27: What, TA? You don't know what you're missing
35: That's probably why you didn't like TA. The two games are very different in some respects and if you start playing one, you probably won't ever like the other!
36: Patches and 3rd-party AI's for TA fixed TA's problem.
39: It's a lot easier to stop 'em in TA than in SC, making a fairer game IMO.

 

[Megachihuahua]

36:It's nearly impossible if you play Terran against Protoss. They just send two zealots over and you're dead.

 

[ifriit]

5: But if gamers don't like it, then surely it should be an option?
15: Personal opinion I guess.
20: But TA's ones build different structures on 3 levels, and you have to have more advanced construction units to get the big guns.
27: What, TA? You don't know what you're missing
35: That's probably why you didn't like TA. The two games are very different in some respects and if you start playing one, you probably won't ever like the other!
36: Patches and 3rd-party AI's for TA fixed TA's problem.
39: It's a lot easier to stop 'em in TA than in SC, making a fairer game IMO.

5: I don't really see why. Developers only have so much in the way of programming resources availble to them, and more features = more code and more bugs.
15: Yep. Most of this stuff is.
20: I guess. It doesn't really impress me, though.
27: I played TA off and on for a few months, then got bored of it since no one liked it well enough to play multiplayer.
35: *shrug* I liked both, but thought SC had a better game design.
36: Same with SC--improved AI came out with the rev patch for Brood War.
39: Calling one mechanic more fair than the other seems silly; they're just different. It's not as though SC nukes are particularly unbalancing.

 

[ifriit]

36:It's nearly impossible if you play Terran against Protoss. They just send two zealots over and you're dead.

Two zealots? Please. I can have 4 marines and a bunker down before 2 zealots wander into my base. Probably 8 marines, depending on the map size.

 

[Megachihuahua]

Two zealots? Please. I can have 4 marines and a bunker down before 2 zealots wander into my base. Probably 8 marines, depending on the map size.

Wow, you really are as ingnorant as you sound! I'm not talking about Hunters, I mean a small map.

 

[ifriit]

Wow, you really are as ingnorant as you sound! I'm not talking about Hunters, I mean a small map.

2 zealots take 80 time units and 200 crystal to produce. 4 marines take 96 time units and 200 crystal. Yes, you can easily have 4 marines by the time 2 zealots make it to your base, even on a small map, and if you're reasonably good at resource gathering, you should be able to plunk down a bunker by that point as well.

 

[Croesus]

My turn.
You cannot assist build terran buildings. You can repair them.
If the sides are soo balanced, then why don't people play terran on BNet?
2 zealots can run past a bunker, and whack your SCV's. Therfore, you must place that bunker really close to your resources. Without the bunker, your marines are toast. Also, if you don't have a choke point, being terran is pointless, unless you love getting land assaulted. You cannot play terran and have defenses against land units on a more open map. Your unit limit gets in the way.

for point 20, the real answer is TA has 10 per side, or 20 total. so SC has 3 peasants, and TA has 20.

Here is a complaint, sure SC has counters, but most are impratical. What can you use to counter carriers if you are terran? I've tried ghosts, and unless I got ghosts before they got carriers so I could charge up lockdown, they were worthless. ghost also are fairly useless against everything else besides carriers, reavers, and scouts, so if they got one carrier, then decided to do a massive land assault with Z's and dragoons, then my ghosts are worthless. Alternate strategy is to use Battleships and yamato cannon. You must have more B-ships than they have carriers to win.

Next, unit limiting. What if I like tactical battles. It would require more thinking and strategy. Limiting the amount of carriers battleships mutalisks and stuff would mean that less people would build a huge carrier fleet and go attacking without looking too much. People would be forced to use Zealots, dragoons and stuff in the late game. I find SC more fun when I don't build a mass of carriers, and instead do siege things.

Are we arguing facts, or discussing opinions?

 

[Megachihuahua]

Took you long enough to get here!

 

[ifriit]

My turn.
You cannot assist build terran buildings. You can repair them.

Okay, I've checked the site, and you're correct. This seems really weird--I could swear I'd done it. Maybe it was just multi-SCV repairing.

If the sides are soo balanced, then why don't people play terran on BNet?

People don't play Terran on BNet?

2 zealots can run past a bunker, and whack your SCV's. Therfore, you must place that bunker really close to your resources. Without the bunker, your marines are toast.

I know from personal experience that 4 marines can take out 2 zealots without a bunker. Focus firing on one then the other of the zealots puts them at a severe disadvantage--by the time the zealots have reached the marines, one zealot will be half dead or worse. The Terran will probably lose a marine, but the Protoss player will lose both zealots. This is why sending 2 zealots in is silly--you should expect at least one of your zealots to die or be near death before engaging a Terran player's forces.

Also, if you don't have a choke point, being terran is pointless, unless you love getting land assaulted. You cannot play terran and have defenses against land units on a more open map. Your unit limit gets in the way.

Know your advantages and disadvantages, then--you can set up your own choke points.

for point 20, the real answer is TA has 10 per side, or 20 total. so SC has 3 peasants, and TA has 20.

It's not as though there's a difference between core and arm units, just different graphics.

Here is a complaint, sure SC has counters, but most are impratical. What can you use to counter carriers if you are terran? I've tried ghosts, and unless I got ghosts before they got carriers so I could charge up lockdown, they were worthless. ghost also are fairly useless against everything else besides carriers, reavers, and scouts, so if they got one carrier, then decided to do a massive land assault with Z's and dragoons, then my ghosts are worthless. Alternate strategy is to use Battleships and yamato cannon. You must have more B-ships than they have carriers to win.

Lockdown works acceptably against carriers, but a science vessel with an EMP pulse with some form of solid anti-air backup--Goliaths perhaps, or even Battleships--is probably your best bet. Carriers depend a lot on their shields.

Next, unit limiting. What if I like tactical battles. It would require more thinking and strategy. Limiting the amount of carriers battleships mutalisks and stuff would mean that less people would build a huge carrier fleet and go attacking without looking too much. People would be forced to use Zealots, dragoons and stuff in the late game. I find SC more fun when I don't build a mass of carriers, and instead do siege things.

Well, this was a design decision--Blizzard aims their games at fairly low end systems; look at the graphics, for example, since SC had a grand total of 256 colors and TA was using full 16 bit color. The higher the unit cap is, the more units that can be on screen at a given time and the more CPU cycles are needed for AI. SC ran on bottom-rung systems where TA couldn't even start up.

Admittedly, this seems dumb now, and I think adjustable unit caps (a la Ensemble's games) are a better option, but that's how they chose to implement it.

Are we arguing facts, or discussing opinions?

A little of both, but mostly the latter.

 

[Noddingdog]

Okay, I've checked the site, and you're correct. This seems really weird--I could swear I'd done it. Maybe it was just multi-SCV repairing.

Oops

It's not as though there's a difference between core and arm units, just different graphics.

Isn't that a contradiction? Have you ever used the Core Contingency or some 3rd party units - or even the Zeus or Pyro?

Well, this was a design decision--Blizzard aims their games at fairly low end systems; look at the graphics, for example, since SC had a grand total of 256 colors and TA was using full 16 bit color. The higher the unit cap is, the more units that can be on screen at a given time and the more CPU cycles are needed for AI. SC ran on bottom-rung systems where TA couldn't even start up.

Fortunately this doesn't apply today, making Starcraft rather outdated graphics-wise when compared to TA. TA beats Starcraft hands down in terms of graphics.

Admittedly, this seems dumb now, and I think adjustable unit caps (a la Ensemble's games) are a better option, but that's how they chose to implement it.

TA's designers would argue over whether or not to include a certain feature, then just give up and give players the option to use it or not. Better than not including it at all or forcing people to use it, like SC.

 

[ifriit]

Isn't that a contradiction? Have you ever used the Core Contingency or some 3rd party units - or even the Zeus or Pyro?

Okay, sorry, they had some. Not the builders, though.

Fortunately this doesn't apply today, making Starcraft rather outdated graphics-wise when compared to TA. TA beats Starcraft hands down in terms of graphics.

TA looks pretty darned primitive in comparison to the vast majority of today's games, too. Warcraft III is prettier, and Impossible Creatures has an even more expandable game engine than TA. Age of Mythology and Rise of Nations are pretty darned solid too.

You might slight Blizzard for looking primitive now, but they did an astounding job with such a limited palette; most everyone I knew thought that TA had nice terrain but was otherwise painfully ugly.

TA's designers would argue over whether or not to include a certain feature, then just give up and give players the option to use it or not. Better than not including it at all or forcing people to use it, like SC.

Better in what way?

 

[RazorX]

Note: only one scv at a building at a time.

This gets back to my point about the balanced sides because the Protoss can build multiple buildings at a time. Almost everything is balanced out.

 

[Croesus]

Each peasant in TA compared to the similar counterpart on the other team does have differences. They are subtle, but the differences are about 1%-5% differneces in build time, armor/hitpoint, movement speed, and turning speed. They also use different models, which means that certain ones can hide behind obstacles better. The small differences do make a significant difference if you watch closely. It has taken me hours of play to take advantage of them.

As for the 2 zealots: I haven't seen two zealots used for a rush. Most people use 4. This point is dead.

Originally by ifriit
Know your advantages and disadvantages, then--you can set up your own choke points.

My example is Meltdown, and three kingdoms. Terran is at a large disadvantage on these maps. Also the darktemplar rush can be overwhelming on these maps, because you have to keep your base tight, or have Zealots slashing your SCV's. Lose a few at the begining and your toast.

Originally by ifriit
People don't play Terran on BNet?

I will not say that no one plays terran on b-net, but by far the most played is the protoss, then the zerg. I have found that terran can only effectively rush other terran and zerg with a tank. Against the protoss, an early rush of fire bats seems best, but hard. Whatever. If you had played TA as much as I played SC, you could come up with good rebuttle.

As for the graphics, WCIII came out 5-6 years after TA. That is like comparing WCI to TA in terms of time, or other rts's that came out in 1991-1992. SC came out one year after SC. Most computers then could handle a larger color pallete if all you were doing was sprites. Saying that Blizzard did a good job with a small pallette, is like giving the Autoracing super world title to a guy who enters in a VW bug, because for what he chose, he raced real good.

Comparitively, TA is not terribly far behind WCIII. WCIII has no water line, as in when your units go in water, part of them are submerged. In fact WCIII does not have water terrain. They have blue terrain that only air units can cross. WCIII has a movable camera, and 3d terrain. Does this terrain affect your units? Do archers fire farther when on higher ground? Do hills or cliffs block shots? I haven't played WCIII that much, so I don't know the answers. If the answer is no, then does WCIII really have 3D terrain, or just 3D looking terrain?

As for balanced side, I disagree. Your point of a protoss being able to build an entire base with one peasant does not support the point of SC being balanced. Additionally, Protoss have the ability to mindcontrol. Therefore the protoss have the ability to have 600 units, and every unit in the game. Since most people play "The Faster Map Possible" or "Big Game Hunters", it is more possible to use Zerg and Terran units because of the abundance of resources.

Anyway, SC is a good game. It has some good things in it, and is now relatively not buggy. To me TA does a better job of simulating an epic war, while SC seems to be a battle. I got to go now. I'll post more later. or I might just look for what I have already posted about the SC TA debate.