One of the reasons I have been against SC2 being in 3d -

(yes, it's a lost cause apparently, not that im going to give up my view, when there are apparent faults, more than i write about here, but not that many, but im just going to write about 1 topic here.)

- is how the terrain will function diffrently from a 2d view. It has alot to do with how the "camera" is "mounted".

In SC1, bw..
There are only a few ways to hide a unit in "plain sight", appart from actual gameplay by the player -

(like by lifting a rax or useing a small unit behind a tall player made building like spire or gass extractor, or spells)

- The only other forms of hiding a unit has to be designed into the map, with doodads. -

(like trees and big stones)

- So it's always optional for the designer to opt to put in a tree in bases for a ghost to sneak in and drop a nuke from under where the other player whould have to look on the minimap to see where it is.

- The terrain and camera angle in BW is "shaped" so that it's impossible to get away with hideing things in normal gameplay whitch does not include the two above scenarios mentioned.

(maybe there are more ways, but I cant remember any off the top of my head)

In SC2 3d..-

(from videos i have seen since that is the only way I have seen sc2 so far)

- Merly by drawing out elevated terrain in the editor; which will be commen of course; you will you be creating blindspots for players.

When a camera will be in a certain spot you will have blindspots "behind" elevated plateau.
So instead of it being intentionally designed into the map as it had to be done in BW, this will now be a fixed thing that will always have to be considered.

I find this extreemly annoying, and since I've only seen gameplay from videos, it might not be a big deal for me at all when I play the game.

But I do get "flashbacks" from WC3 where trees got in the way, and how annoying it felt to have to rotate the camera to see behind them. NOT that WC3 is satans work, it's an OK game. But SC2 will have smaller units and way more critical units for the game, like the nuke. Where spotting that ghost in milliseconds after the sound off goes will be critical.

This could of course not be an issue with wider collision range on the plateau's "backside" but then if it was to be made wider; from some angles you would see an empty area that you could not walk units over.

Theese 2 pictures are NOT photoshopped and can be viewd in BR1 from around 04:20 min in. I think it illustrates my point.

Also by viewing the BR1, as he pans the camera around you can spot for yourself how the terrain will be able to hide units from diffrent angles as you get further away with the camera, there will be more "hideing" possibilities going on..

Theeeere, done!

/edi :: in screen 2 look for the marine, maybe that wasnt too clear :p It IS behind there in the center of the screen.
And my screenshots may be extreeme examples, i don't know for sure. As I did not spend long trying to find screenshot of units hideing, and it might not be this bad behind all elevated terrain, I don't know for sure..

MamiyaOtaru

United States1687 Posts

April 14 2009 01:02 GMT

That is going to be potentially problematic. The thing that bothers me about 3d is needing to move the mouse farther to select the same number of tightly grouped units in the foreground than in the background, and things like tank range being a different number of pixels depending on where it is.

I really hope we'll get beyond the everything-must-be-3d phase some day. Street Fighter is doing fine without it. I guess I'm just change averse. I just bought a 1600*1200 monitor, because screw widescreen.

I'm pretty sure this has been beaten to death here already. I wasn't here for it, so sorry for the probable repetition.

ShadowDrgn

United States2497 Posts

April 14 2009 01:32 GMT

On April 14 2009 10:02 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
and things like tank range being a different number of pixels depending on where it is.

It's not that big of a deal, plus you can click on your tanks and see a dotted circle representing the siege range.

Viledica

Canada361 Posts

April 14 2009 02:00 GMT

I suppose mini-map use will be a lot more prevalent.

I don't see this as anything that can't be adjusted to, it'll just be a minor difference that will feel awkward once we're away from BW.

But from where you're standing on the issue you do bring up good points, and it will change gameplay for sure. But again, it won't be 'make or break'.

R3condite

Korea (South)1541 Posts

April 14 2009 02:32 GMT

On April 14 2009 11:00 Tsumi wrote:
I suppose mini-map use will be a lot more prevalent.

I don't see this as anything that can't be adjusted to, it'll just be a minor difference that will feel awkward once we're away from BW.

But from where you're standing on the issue you do bring up good points, and it will change gameplay for sure. But again, it won't be 'make or break'.

i agree and not only that it'll add more challenge to the game (remember how every1 was saying SC2 will have no skill gaps? well u just found one!)

United States6173 Posts

April 14 2009 02:59 GMT

On April 14 2009 10:02 MamiyaOtaru wrote:

I really hope we'll get beyond the everything-must-be-3d phase some day. Street Fighter is doing fine without it. I guess I'm just change averse. I just bought a 1600*1200 monitor, because screw widescreen.

sf4 is 3d...it's just shaded to look 2d.

3clipse

Canada2555 Posts

April 14 2009 03:02 GMT

On April 14 2009 11:32 R3condite wrote:

Show nested quote +

i agree and not only that it'll add more challenge to the game (remember how every1 was saying SC2 will have no skill gaps? well u just found one!)

Yeah, I actually like this. It presents an interesting dimension of stealth. Could hide a probe behind a pillar, then when the lings have gone past, get into z's base to scout.

randombum

United States2378 Posts

April 14 2009 03:15 GMT

Wait, isn't he marine just hiding behind a pillar? How is that different from hiding behind a tree in SC:BW?

Sure its not intentional by the map maker, but its clearly foreseeable. So as SC2 develops, the players will just have to realize that a large ass pillar may hide a marine behind it.

I dunno, I just don't see this as going to be much of a problem.

Elian

United States129 Posts

April 14 2009 04:36 GMT

Yeah, I too don't see that big of a problem with this. If anything, it lets cool things develop. Basically what Randombum and 3clipse are saying. . .

ocoini

648 Posts

April 14 2009 08:42 GMT

#10

mmhm, if it was only a pillar, but im fairly certain it's on all terrain, as i've seen it other places aswell and it's to be expected by 3d when the terrain is not rolling, something will get hidden when the viewangle is not looking straight down. There are lots of examples in the BR1 if you look for it.
in general one can Look for when the camera moves, how the 3d effect makes less of ANYthing behind a platform less visible. You see it by the edges(top) of elevated terrain moves faster than the lower ground behind it.

probe comeing from top left