Either way, Artanis with his two castles comes out ahead in the war. Artanis can stall out Raynor’s siege for a very long time while gathering his forces at his other castle, eventually gathering a critical mass that will allow him surround and crush the invasion or attack Raynor’s base directly Raynor will have to either sacrifice his castle (which he can’t) or retreat with his forces intact. He can either split his forces and risk being unable to break either or he can overrun them one at a time naturally, Raynor will decide to dedicate all of his forces toward one target to avoid splitting his damage too much.Īssuming unlimited resources, the king with two castles will always win.
![chronoboost legacy of the void chronoboost legacy of the void](https://raidofgame.com/uploads/posts/2020-01/1578872883_screenshot-3-starcraft-2-legacy-of-the-void.jpg)
If Raynor wants to take over Artanis’s empire, he will want to invade both castles. King Raynor has only one castle, but King Artanis has two castles placed a reasonable distance apart. This was attempted many times in the game’s infancy, and there’s a reason why the tactic quickly died out. If you attempt this sort of strategy in StarCraft 2, one or both of your bases will likely be overrun very quickly unless your opponent doesn’t scout it.
![chronoboost legacy of the void chronoboost legacy of the void](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ZZj89nhLNL4XdCVEPqUwnj.jpg)
When the big doom push comes knocking at your natural expansion, you can stall out with defilers or templar while continuing to amass forces at the other corner of the map. This means that you can defend one base from your opponent’s attacks while slowly building up a force at the other base. Here’s an example: in Brood War, one of the key concepts, particularly for Zerg and Protoss players, is to expand to other corners of the map and create two “main bases” to work outwards from. From this issue arises a whole slew of other problems, from hard counters to uninteresting economic models to unit design issues. I don’t necessarily mean the emergence of large armies, but rather the phenomenon where players will always expand outward from their main while using a rather mobile army bouncing between bases to defend. Perhaps the largest difference is the emergence of the “deathball syndrome”. It’s not necessarily bad that the sequel got rid of high ground advantages that relied on RNG, but the effects on the gameplay were numerous and adverse. This sort of defense doesn’t exist in StarCraft 2. For instance, literally no number of marine/medic will ever break three lurkers on top of a ramp, and Protoss can camp out on one base with Templar, Dark Archons, and Arbiters safely for pretty much eternity. With the right units, you can hold a base forever against your opponent. If you play Brood War for only a moment, you will immediately notice the insane power of defender’s advantage.
![chronoboost legacy of the void chronoboost legacy of the void](http://speed-new.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/573563756756.jpg)
I want to avoid making too many Brood War vs StarCraft 2 arguments, but I think it would be willfully ignorant to gloss over the things that BW did correctly just to avoid a comparison argument.
![chronoboost legacy of the void chronoboost legacy of the void](https://iigryvideos.ru/upload/iblock/997/99719567ddc5b3629d8e3cd3f71582a2.jpg)
I know a lot of people believe that the final expansion has made a lot of progress and created a much better game, but through my own observations, watching tournaments, and seeing others play, there are still plenty of core issues that still persist and taint the potential of this beautiful game. Note: I have not played Legacy of the Void since the first few weeks of release. StarCraft has been a huge part of my life, and I feel it’s necessary to put down on paper all of the things that have been bothering me about its design and development from day one-and hopefully in the process, I can explain why some of these things came to be in the first place.
#Chronoboost legacy of the void free#
I’ve been through a lot of ups and downs with StarCraft 2, and since I’ve taken the long way around to playing Brood War, I feel I’m qualified to explain the design failures of StarCraft 2 accurately with a sober and impartial approach free from “arguments of nostalgia”. It’s important to do this sort of analysis, not just because I just want to disagree with David Kim, but because I truly believe the developers didn’t think through their design decisions properly, and thus the finished product was botched beyond belief. Nonetheless, I think it failed to live up to its potential, and it’s important to look back on the history of the game, how it evolved, how it came to be, and really think critically about how it was handled. I want to be very clear that StarCraft is quite honestly one of the best things that has ever happened to me it completely changed my view of the world, and I’ve never been the same since I first discovered it.