|
If you've been reading the battle.net forums, you would know that Blizzard is surely up for something, and I'd bet my Starcraft CD if they're not extremely interested in making SC2 in a short time. Head on over to the www.battle.net forums and you will see tons of topics being made by the blizzard admin about suggestions for Starcraft 2. JosephH has asked us before if we prefered hard counter vs soft counter, whether or not autocast should be implemented. Now, he is taking many more suggestions. Remember the last time it was stated if Starcraft is to spawn an RTS sequel, many people thought it could be another RTS (W4, new series, etc.), but this time, he has stated specifically: in a future StarCraft RTS game
Show your support. Blizzard is asking for Starcraft 2 suggestions. These are just a few important ones:
We'd like to know what you think about the addition of 3D movement (moving units in 4 cardinal directions plus up and down as well) as an addition in a future StarCraft RTS game. If it were to be implemented, how would the game benefit? If you dislike the idea, why?
We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units/buildings that persist from map to map in the single-player campaign. Something we often hear from customers is a sense of frustration that all the units they built are suddently gone when the next map starts. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why?
We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units gaining experience to the StarCraft series. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why?
What platform do you most want to see the next RTS StarCraft game on? Which would you least like to see it on? Why? What advantages/disadvantages do you see to that platform compared to others?
NEW UPDATE #2. JosephH had just put on a few new questions.
We'd like to know what the community thinks of the idea of resource gathering in RTS games - some games in the genre have eliminated it completely. Should future RTS StarCraft games still force the player to have 'workers' who collect resources? What advantages/disadvantages does it have in terms of gameplay?
and:
We're curious what the forum community thinks about the idea of placing negative feedback functions on supply in future RTS StarCraft games. What advantages does this system have? What disadvantages? One of the more common criticisms of StarCraft is that the game depends on large groups of units and rewards turtling (I'm not arguing that that is the case or not; but it's certainly something we hear often from customers). The upkeep system in Warcraft III helps to eliminate this situation. Do you feel that something like this can be (or even needs to be) successfully integrated into future StarCraft titles? (To those confused: he's asking if upkeep should be implemented in SC2)
Don't let Starcraft 2 be like W3 with heroes, items, experience, autocast, 3d, upkeep, etc. Come and let Blizzard know what we want in a true Starcraft sequel
http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?fn=sc-general&pageno=1
To everyone: If you have something good to say, don't just post in this topic. Post it in the Blizzard forums. That is where your voice will be most heard. What you say will not have that much influence if you're just going to post within this topic.
|
|
|
what is "hard counter"/"soft counter" supposed to mean?
|
On September 10 2004 21:48 blackblood wrote:
what is "hard counter"/"soft counter" supposed to mean?
Explanation:
StarCraft was the game of 'hard' counters (unit x counters unit y in virtually every case), with Warcraft III having 'soft' counters (units a, b, and c or combinations thereof can be used to combat unit y effectively
Basically in Starcraft, one unit counters another. For example, firebat counters ling. Hydra counters firebat, and so forth. In W3, it takes multiple units to counter a unit. In theory, this encourages a mix of units. However in reality, this post sums it up pretty well:
Hard counter = extremely little room for mistakes. Takes a massive amount of skill to make sure your units are alive. Skill-intensive
Soft counter = TONS of rooms for mistakes. You have time to pull back your units and not be hurt so badly at all. You don't have to be attentive to your units. Newbie-friendly
It's basically comparing skill-intensive vs newbie friendly. Which is similar to comparing SC vs W3.
SC takes a massive amount of skill because the player has to be extremely attentive to their units. W3 allows lots of room for mistakes
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Units carrying over in anything but single player is absolutely ludicrous! Impossible to balance --
Experience as in giving 1+ damage, some small % dodge ability or something like that I guess could be balanced and make for a fun game o_O
3D no. It will simply be too slow to play that game when playing people across the globe --
Bleh I'll make a post tomorrow I think :O
|
actually i really like the idea of experience , but only 1 level eg when a marine get 5 kills he becomes a 'veteran' and has 1+ attack or something , but not level 1,2,3,4,5 etc just veteran status
|
On September 10 2004 21:50 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2004 21:48 blackblood wrote:
what is "hard counter"/"soft counter" supposed to mean?
Hard Counter Hard Counter Hard Counter :D
|
Hard counter is something that is supposed to outright dominate and it's usually on a 1 to 1 basis. Soft counter is like a matchup vs matchup persay, where either side can win, but its favored in one direction.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
.. When I think about it, I don't want SC 2.. AT ALL.
Well I guess it would be okay if they just like.. updated it so to speak. More battle.net features and such.. Adding new units I guess could possibly be done without fucking things over.. Ugh..
I mean, I don't want it to play differently from BW at all.. So aggrevating.
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 10 2004 21:51 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Units carrying over in anything but single player is absolutely ludicrous! Impossible to balance --
Experience as in giving 1+ damage, some small % dodge ability or something like that I guess could be balanced and make for a fun game o_O
3D no. It will simply be too slow to play that game when playing people across the globe --
Bleh I'll make a post tomorrow I think :O
There are a lot of dumb replies being posted. Joseph even said FOR SINGLE PLAYER and people are saying "NO DON'T USE IT IN MULTIPLAYER!" Seriously people, use your fucking heads before you reply. For some reason this irritates me greatly.
|
On September 10 2004 21:35 tfeign wrote: If you've been reading the battle.net forums, you would know that Blizzard is surely up for something, and I'd bet my Starcraft CD if they're not extremely interested in making SC2 in a short time. Head on over to the www.battle.net forums and you will see tons of topics being made by the blizzard admin about suggestions for Starcraft 2. JosephH has asked us before if we prefered hard counter vs soft counter, whether or not autocast should be implemented. Now, he is taking many more suggestions. Remember the last time it was stated if Starcraft is to spawn an RTS sequel, many people thought it could be another RTS (W4, new series, etc.), but this time, he has stated specifically: in a future StarCraft RTS gameShow your support. Blizzard is asking for Starcraft 2 suggestions. These are just a few important ones: We'd like to know what you think about the addition of 3D movement (moving units in 4 cardinal directions plus up and down as well) as an addition in a future StarCraft RTS game. If it were to be implemented, how would the game benefit? If you dislike the idea, why?We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units/buildings that persist from map to map in the single-player campaign. Something we often hear from customers is a sense of frustration that all the units they built are suddently gone when the next map starts. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why? We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units gaining experience to the StarCraft series. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why?Don't let Starcraft 2 be like W3 with heroes, items, experience, autocast, 3d, etc. Come and let Blizzard know what we want in a true Starcraft sequel http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?fn=sc-general&pageno=1
amen
|
|
|
BTW you guys, in the new post about 3D motion, I think he might have been implying motion like that in Homeworld- the game is set in space and has full 3d motion. It might be interesting to have SC actually in space- so air battles are in 3d and there are platforms for ground too. Someone who also thinks this is what he implied please tack it on the post... I don't know why no one's mentioned this.
|
|
|
|
|
I read the old thread fakesteve made... wow that wc3 faggot doesnt know what the fuck hes talkin about its pathetic..
|
|
|
MURICA15980 Posts
|
anyways start off with 3 new races!
|
My ideas.
3 new races, Or completely revamp the units and take all of them out and start again.
War3 bnet features such as ladder cool icons and shit
No fucking userfriendly shit that takes quite a bit of skill out of the game
Units should not have massive HP as in war3
No gay stores or hero's
Some new tilesets
a slightly larger unit amount than now
Observer mode
make the game with a slightly faster game speed
2D same perspecitve as sc TOP DOWN but improved graphics is good.
Some ideas, most have been said already but this is what i want 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
