EPT[SC2B] Blizzard HQ Visit - Page 15
| Forum Index > News |
|
the420kid
Canada1 Post
| ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
-.-|| | ||
|
landaishan
Australia104 Posts
| ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
I love multiplayer but man I can't wait for the campaign now. Thanks you two for the information and the time spent getting it. | ||
|
JInxy
Denmark5 Posts
| ||
|
rexob
Sweden202 Posts
| ||
|
holyone
Portugal43 Posts
| ||
|
roemy
Germany432 Posts
 | ||
|
guitarizt
United States1492 Posts
| ||
|
hacpee
United States752 Posts
| ||
|
Flames
United States105 Posts
| ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
 | ||
|
unkkz
Norway2196 Posts
| ||
|
bmw
United States14 Posts
| ||
|
Pengu1n
United States552 Posts
| ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
Gamespot link IGN link have fun guys ! | ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
| ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
*sigh* Oh well, at least SP looks good. | ||
|
mucker
United States1120 Posts
High ground mechanic: They like how it is now. According to Dustin Browder, it gives a clear advantage at first and then it eventually disappears. This really blows my mind. How can an experienced RTS game designer think it is a good idea for strategic positioning to mean less as the game goes on? Why not just have the terrain slowly erode during the course of the game so you end up with a completely flat map at the end? And then you could have gravity slowly decrease so there is no difference between ground and air units. How about the range of units just keeps increasing as the game goes on so eventually they no longer need to move to hit each other? If someone told me they were in to Starcraft and didn't think high ground should give an advantage in the later stages of the game I would honestly assume they'd never played anything but fastest maps. I hope somebody gets to talk to them seriously about this soon and get some more detail on what they're thinking. | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
High ground mechanic: They like how it is now. According to Dustin Browder, it gives a clear advantage at first and then it eventually disappears. I think that's so ignorant and will ruin the game on the long run. Actually it was the one part where I really had alot of hope when I start reading the article (great job from TL's side btw!) http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=121216 On April 24 2010 09:25 mucker wrote: This really blows my mind. How can an experienced RTS game designer think it is a good idea for strategic positioning to mean less as the game goes on? Why not just have the terrain slowly erode during the course of the game so you end up with a completely flat map at the end? And then you could have gravity slowly decrease so there is no difference between ground and air units. How about the range of units just keeps increasing as the game goes on so eventually they no longer need to move to hit each other? If someone told me they were in to Starcraft and didn't think high ground should give an advantage in the later stages of the game I would honestly assume they'd never played anything but fastest maps. I hope somebody gets to talk to them seriously about this soon and get some more detail on what they're thinking. Total Agreement. Please, get somebody scan Blizzard guys' heads for tumors or fungal growth somewhere around the era of logic and common sense. | ||
| ||
