I just finished some of the pvz vids. This game looks like it's going to be very fun, challenging, and spectator friendly. Much better than what we saw in the first 3 battle reports. I think there's going to be some very interesting spots with the force field thingy that protoss have now.

Malingo

United States45 Posts

November 29 2009 21:38 GMT

#63

no, I think the zergling we see at 5:31 spotted for the hydras

cerebralz

United States443 Posts

November 29 2009 21:47 GMT

#64

Just watched the pvz. I must say, disruptors with high temps were absolutely devastating to the zerg ground army. I didn't like the tech choice of the zerg with mass roach since the p army was so zealot heavy although the z's control was pretty good and i can see some nice kiting possible if roach speed was done earlier. It's just the psi storm deals damage sooooo quickly now, its hard to dodge. So many hydras dying to just 2 or three storms it was sick. I think zerg will still need that tech switch to mutas to pick off those templars and even the disruptors. Great use of force field all throughout the game. Two critical points in the game the zerg gave it away, once not pursuing the clump of templars out in the open, and once sac'ing his hydra ball trying to counter the expo at 9 when he might have either retreated to defend or marched up the natural.

Still waiting for zerg games where harassment/drop/nydus is used more effectively. It will probably be paramount for the zerg to keep the pressure up on t or p, instead of turtling so hard in the early mid game

ShaperofDreams

Canada2492 Posts

November 30 2009 01:05 GMT

#65

Why the hell is this game not out. Argh, I'm just frustrated I know why it isn't out yet. Damn though it's definitely playable.

DeCoup

Australia1933 Posts

November 30 2009 01:19 GMT

#66

1 more from G-Star not in your OP post atm. ZvT

Actually... there really is tones of them after the pics at http://gall.dcinside.com/list.php?id=starcraft2&no=7817&page=1&bbs=

onmach

United States1241 Posts

November 30 2009 02:22 GMT

#67

Oh my god that was awesome. A few ultras lead in, a couple dozen banelings roll in afterward. It was like he erasered his natural. That was seriously fun to see. Probably because it was the only zerg win I've seen today.

ArvickHero

10387 Posts

November 30 2009 03:09 GMT

#68

holy shit that PvZ was awesome hahaha, Force field looks somewhat broken though.

beetlelisk

Poland2276 Posts

November 30 2009 07:23 GMT

#69

After watching PvZ I say upgraded Roaches in good hands will be hard to deal with >

and Archons really deal 2x damage o.O

Deviation

United States134 Posts

November 30 2009 07:38 GMT

#70

Observers can alter the camera? I thought Blizzard was adamant about a classic isometric view?

New Sunken Colony attack looks kind of shitty compared to everything else. Just kind of 'awkward' looking, unnatural. Subterranean tentacles superior imho.
Ultralisk attack animation also suffers from this slightly, although not as bad.

Game speed looks faster.

beetlelisk

Poland2276 Posts

November 30 2009 07:56 GMT

#71

On November 30 2009 10:19 DeCoup wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Actually... there really is tones of them after the pics at http://gall.dcinside.com/list.php?id=starcraft2&no=7817&page=1&bbs=

Thanks :D
Zerglings!...

watch out for friendly fire D:

grunter

Romania11 Posts

November 30 2009 08:34 GMT

#72

why don't blizzard launch this game on the market....??? or release a demo...why those chinese,koreans or what are they play this wonderful game?? is not fair !

DeCoup

Australia1933 Posts

November 30 2009 08:43 GMT

#73

On November 30 2009 17:34 grunter wrote:
why don't blizzard launch this game on the market....??? or release a demo...why those chinese,koreans or what are they play this wonderful game?? is not fair !

The game itself is ready, the reason for the delay was because battle.net is not ready. The game is playable but the entire matchmaking system / xbox live style is not. Altho I personally would be very happy to get the game now with very limited connectivity and wait for a hotfix with the battle.net system later, the vast majority of customers would not see it this way. Battle.net has to be perfect on release for the game to be as sucessful as Blizzard want it to be.

Schezar

United Kingdom16 Posts

November 30 2009 10:57 GMT

#74

is Gstar not they people who make clothes? can soemone pm me if you can please if you know

thanks

ghermination

United States2851 Posts

November 30 2009 11:22 GMT

#75

The game, like before, looks great but really muddy. I don't know if it's the GUI or just the bitrate, but does anyone know if there are any 720 or 1080p SC2 videos floating around?

SWPIGWANG

Canada482 Posts

November 30 2009 11:48 GMT

#76

Its the camera used to film the thing and the projector used to project it onto a white screen...

DeCoup

Australia1933 Posts

November 30 2009 12:02 GMT

#77

Yeah the only problem at all with the graphics comes from its dodgy recording method. If you look at some of the ZvP in this collection even the disrupters just look like a glowing white object if facing up or 45 degrees in either direction of that, and almost white in any other direction. With the exception of the brightness of high contrast colours and the blur of the camera it is quite understandable even with this shitty camera work. In game and from a replay or live recording (like the current tournaments are) will be very easy to understand.

Also note, that if they are recording for standard definition TV or anything lower than a 720p video the in-game output will be lowered aswell. Watching a vid which was recorded at 720p then downscaled to 480i always looks shit, but if you record at the output quality then it looks fine.

ghermination

United States2851 Posts

November 30 2009 12:04 GMT

#78

On November 30 2009 21:02 DeCoup wrote:
Yeah the only problem at all with the graphics comes from its dodgy recording method. If you look at some of the ZvP in this collection even the disrupters just look like a glowing white object if facing up or 45 degrees in either direction of that, and almost white in any other direction. With the exception of the brightness of high contrast colours and the blur of the camera it is quite understandable even with this shitty camera work. In game and from a replay or live recording (like the current tournaments are) will be very easy to understand.

Also note, that if they are recording for standard definition TV or anything lower than a 720p video the in-game output will be lowered aswell. Watching a vid which was recorded at 720p then downscaled to 480i always looks shit, but if you record at the output quality then it looks fine.

Obviously lowering the quality of a recording will lower it's quality.
Are there any video that have been recorded at a better quality than what is generally on youtube etc? You would think someone at blizzard would have made digital recordings directly from the computer itself - I assume they have to be around somewhere

Excelsior

United States46 Posts

November 30 2009 12:29 GMT

#79

It seems pretty clear from these videos that Zerg still is way too underpowered... but a lot of the fundamental gameplay mechanics are looking good. Why do we never see certain units, like immortals (the half of the dragoon replacement units that are actually cool), though?

Another thing that I'm sort of concerned about is that all of these matches sort of play out like a PvP. I'm a Protoss player and PvP is fine and all as ONE of the matchups, but the issue that I think is causing every single SC2 matchup to play more like a PvP is the lack of advantage that the defender has over the attacker, which is how it tends to be in PvP, the fact that usually as the defender you don't really have THAT huge of an advantage as you would as Terran (siege tanks, mines) or Zerg (lurkers, super fast reinforcements at home base).

I would actually say that Zerg plays closer to the original, but especially Terrans with Terran vs. Protoss, it just feels a lot like SC1 PvP - both players have to maintain huge standing armies all of the time to avoid losing to a frontal attack.

Finally it's unfortunate that tactical positional advantage in battles also seems to be playing less of a role - does anyone else have any thoughts / observations about this? It might be just me, but it seems that because of the way the units move / clump together, the angles of attack and surrounds (especially in larger scale battles) are less important than before.

SWPIGWANG

Canada482 Posts

November 30 2009 13:25 GMT

#80

Immortals was shown in the PvT where david kim's marauder start got owned by a warp-ray first start. It is kind of hard to tell them apart from stalkers with the low res vid but it is there and it owned some marauder/thor silly together with zealots and a carrier.

Finally it's unfortunate that tactical positional advantage in battles also seems to be playing less of a role

I think tactical positioning is as important as ever, but not in a "fortress TvP" way. (unless slow push makes a return in one of the matchups) It is more like bio TvZ where positioning is critical but the battle is dynamic and timing is just as critical. Just look at the force field abuse in one of the vids on how such an advantage can happen in battle, and defender's advantage in this case may be something like ability to cut the attacking force in half with a force field or something after careful positioning of units. The tank, nydus and moving sunkens can be buffed if the game becomes too unstable with regard to midgame map control battles as well....

Its probably not a bad thing, since watching 13 minutes of camping into a one-ko punch isn't that interesting anyways.