It worked out decently last month, so let's keep it going. -------------------
Q: What is this thread?
A: General purpose, SC2 discussion thread.
Q: What should I be posting about? A: Basically, anything you want to talk about but aren't sure if it warrants a topic of its own. Heard a rumour you want to share? A new video? A brilliant new idea that you want to vet, to make sure it's really as brilliant as you think it is?
This is the place.
Note: Posting standards will not be as high as if you were to make a new thread, but pointless spam will still not be tolerated. I have seen threads like these work out alright on other sites (for other games) so I figured, why not give it a shot? It's possible there's not really enough content for something like this to exist at this point in time, but no harm then, it will just die on its own.
From last months thread, but made in december, I figure it's a good way to start this thread off:
On December 02 2009 08:29 beetlelisk wrote: New blue posts:
About visual changes after upgrades, also BC "specializations" and E Bay upgrade for Bunkers:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=21333737768 "Yes, I can confirm that some units get visual upgrades when you boost them through research. Zerglings, Marines and Banelings are just some examples though, as there are other units that are getting a visual upgrade.
For example, Battlecruisers have the ability to choose between three specializations: - Defensive Matrix (a shield that absorbs damage) - Missile Pods (Air to Air AoE damage) - Yamato Cannon (honestly, do I need to introduce this one? ) Each one of these specializations changes the graphic of the battlecruisers, thus making it easily recognizable. Just to clarify things up: you can only have one specialization per Battlecruiser, and once you choose you cannot switch to another one.
But not only units are affected by this visual upgrades, even buildings are being visually upgraded. Let's talk about Bunkers: when the NeoSteel Frame upgrade is completed (+2 cargo space) the bunker actually gets bigger and taller."
"In the last four Battle Reports, you've seen the following matchups: Protoss vs Terran, Zerg vs Terran, Protoss vs Zerg and Terran vs Protoss. Which race matchup would you most want to see in future Battle Reports?"
1 - Wow, December and no beta. Good thing I'm busy with school, my wife and daughter. Time flies when you're not a lonely nerd with nothing better to do.
2 - I'm anxious for beta to eliminate redundant abilities like changeling, and hopefully axe the macro mechanics.
3 - Doesn't Blizzard realize that warp-in is a macro mechanic and Toss don't 'need' another one?
4 - If macro mechanics are kept, why do Toss need a building for it? Just give the nexus those abilities.
5 - My greatest worry about SC2 at this point is the homogenous, dense unit formations - the armies look smaller because they're so close together, and it's not good for viewing or playing IMO.
On December 02 2009 15:30 0neder wrote: 5 - My greatest worry about SC2 at this point is the homogenous, dense unit formations - the armies look smaller because they're so close together, and it's not good for viewing or playing IMO.
Agreed 100%. The units should be more refined and not allowed to clump together at all... Make it more dense, like brood war, allow for better micro and spread out unit formations...
I watched some of the games from GStar and i am concerned about the visibility in the battles with all this spells and explosions.Some times i cant really understand whats going on in a battle especially when tanks collosus and storms are involved and i think the death animations take too long. Anyone else experienced this too?
I'd like to see what people think about spine crawler offense. The spine crawler has a really decent range, and if the overlord could drop some creep, or probably faster would be moving a slow queen forward and planting a tumor for the spine crawlers to sink into outside of a main choke early then it could be quite devestating.
On December 02 2009 16:23 Deus ex machina wrote: I watched some of the games from GStar and i am concerned about the visibility in the battles with all this spells and explosions.Some times i cant really understand whats going on in a battle especially when tanks collosus and storms are involved and i think the death animations take too long. Anyone else experienced this too?
I've heard from people who've actually played the game that visibility during battles is much clearer than what we can make out while watching games. I do agree with you about some of the death animations being over the top/taking too long.
On December 02 2009 16:23 Deus ex machina wrote: I watched some of the games from GStar and i am concerned about the visibility in the battles with all this spells and explosions.Some times i cant really understand whats going on in a battle especially when tanks collosus and storms are involved and i think the death animations take too long. Anyone else experienced this too?
I've heard from people who've actually played the game that visibility during battles is much clearer than what we can make out while watching games. I do agree with you about some of the death animations being over the top/taking too long.
you're probably right about battle visibility. when wc3 beta came out it was extremely confusing trying to distinguish what was happening in big battles. eventually your eyes adjust and it'll feel almost as comfortable as sc does.
On December 02 2009 15:30 0neder wrote: 3 - Doesn't Blizzard realize that warp-in is a macro mechanic and Toss don't 'need' another one?
Of course they know it is. Why doesn't toss need another one? I think most people agree that warp-in is a cool mechanic, and if Blizzard can think up more mechanics like that, then why not? I would like to see Blizzard add more mechanics as interesting as warp-in to all the races.
Formations doesn't have a place in Starcraft. They make units harder to micro while at the same time removing skill from the game. Also, since they are so dense, counting the enemy's units is a pain.
Is there any news about the zvz matchup. I vaguely remember them mentioning trying to incorporate other units so that it wasn't just a muta-ling battle all the time. Any updates?
I pretty much disagree with almost everything everyone says about sc2. I actually think it's going to be just fine for the most part and have just enough trust in blizz to deliver. However..
Ugh at the unit formations! I'll just go back to age of mythology if I want that
I'm just as impressed as Blizzard is with Team Liquid. SC2 is progressing well, and they are addressing the balance of the game. The true next gen features...multiple animations, real choices to make, blizzards epic sense of control, and many others, are all being refined over a long period of time before it gets in our hands. With their twitter and facebook, along with forums, we have a real chance to help shape the game.
On December 02 2009 15:30 0neder wrote: 3 - Doesn't Blizzard realize that warp-in is a macro mechanic and Toss don't 'need' another one?
Of course they know it is. Why doesn't toss need another one? I think most people agree that warp-in is a cool mechanic, and if Blizzard can think up more mechanics like that, then why not? I would like to see Blizzard add more mechanics as interesting as warp-in to all the races.
Less is more, my friend. As a product designer, I can testify of this.
If Blizzard threw every "interesting" idea into the game, it would be a disaster. A beautiful RTS game will be achieved only when everything that lessens the intensity of the experience is removed, and only a perfectly harmonious system remains.
Warp-In is a good macro mechanic that fits into the game and does not complicate the economic situation too much. It should stay and nothing else should remain.
Come to think of it, Terran already have a macro mechanic - the tech lab double productivity thing. Ugh! This makes the current experiments even more stupid. Zerg is the only race that really lacks a macro mechanic - find one for them and leave it be. Heck, just leave it be and balance it for time and larvae quantity.
From what I've understood more people are worried about the game being too simple and easy to master rather than too complex. The more economic variables there are the harder it is to come up with easily memorisable buildorders.
I noticed that flying units have their shadow alot more on the side compare to the original starcraft, so in the case that a dropship flies over a cliff behind someone's mineral, it should be stealth (unless the oponent has vision on cliff of course) but his shadow is totally visible. I wonder if Blizzard did this so we can anticipate drops. Also that doesnt make sens that we can see the shadow on the ground and not the unit that's casting it.
- I am very confident that we will all know what's going on even in big battles once SC2 is out, even when I watch these shaky cam videos, after a little adaptation it's already fine, and future SC2 Vods will a) not be shaky and b) way better quality, also on youtube and of course we will all be used to the game, so I see really no problem at all.
Zerg:
-Tier 3 is absolutely awesome, we will probably see the Brood Lord more often than the Guardian in SC:BW
- Don't destroyed Zerg buildings spawn Broodlings/Mantalings anymore? I really liked that At least the Brood Lord still throws Broodlings <3
- I am very happy with what the Zerg look like in this Pre-Beta Stage of the game, also the mechanics of Creep Drop, Changeling, Queen, Roach, Brood Lord, Banelings, Corrupters - it's awesome and they are no doubt gonna be my favourite race as in BroodWar
- I am not happy with the lack of Infestors in the videos, I didn't count one. Like everybody else I also have the impression Zerg Tier 2 is lacking. Some Visuals are not appealing at all to me, like the Roach Warren, Hydra Attack Animation
-Somehow I still get the feeling that Zerg has the hardest time vs the other races but I am not as dumb to insist they are weaker right now, we need a lot more games than that to judge
Terrans: -I hope we're not gonna see Marines & Marauders in every game. I like that bio seems to be viable not only against Zerg, but I don't like the impression that it is generally stronger than mech/air/whatever. This of course is still to be investigated in beta.
-The Terran look has improved a lot, some of the buildings still look too much toy-like. Although I am fan of the Thor, I do not like its movement animation at all. It moves like it weighs a lot less than it actually does.
Protoss: -Looks good. I especially liked that we didn't see mass Stalkers that often. That was a big concern. All the things I don't like about Protoss are to be balanced, so I won't write them down. Also I never liked Protoss, so I shout 'IMBA" way to easily when it comes to those Arrogant Alien Fuckers anyway.
These are just some thoughts I remembered from watching a few days ago, and now I will watch the videos again and might realize that everything I wrote down is bs :D
Has any one posted about possibly implementing "ghost" replays? The concept would work a bit like in racing games where you race against a previously recorded run. I think it would help a lot in understanding relative timings in matchups.
On December 05 2009 09:14 etch wrote: Has any one posted about possibly implementing "ghost" replays? The concept would work a bit like in racing games where you race against a previously recorded run. I think it would help a lot in understanding relative timings in matchups.
I cannot tell you how fucking awesome that would be.
On December 05 2009 09:14 etch wrote: Has any one posted about possibly implementing "ghost" replays? The concept would work a bit like in racing games where you race against a previously recorded run. I think it would help a lot in understanding relative timings in matchups.
That is seriously one of the best ideas I have ever heard. Shit, that was a REALLY good idea!
On December 05 2009 09:14 etch wrote: Has any one posted about possibly implementing "ghost" replays? The concept would work a bit like in racing games where you race against a previously recorded run. I think it would help a lot in understanding relative timings in matchups.
It would be very useful... I wonder how easy it would be to implement though
On December 05 2009 09:14 etch wrote: Has any one posted about possibly implementing "ghost" replays? The concept would work a bit like in racing games where you race against a previously recorded run. I think it would help a lot in understanding relative timings in matchups.
That's an incredibly good idea. I have no idea how hard this would be to implement, but the number of uses this would have are nearly limitless. Not just timings practice, you could practice macro w/ a ghost replay as well.
Although it would be really cool to have ghost replays, I don't think it's really feasible to implement. Ghosting is much more difficult in an RTS game compared to a racing game. I don't even know if the SC2 engine could do no-clipping ghosts for an entire game with no glitching. A stopwatch or timer works well for timings also.
Obviously, that is a fantastic idea, and I don't see at all why it would be difficult to implement, all it would be is running a replay at the same time as a game, with unit interaction turned off....if they can't fit this GREAT idea into the 1st installment, they should def put it into the next 2 expansions.
On December 06 2009 05:26 beefhamburger wrote: Although it would be really cool to have ghost replays, I don't think it's really feasible to implement. Ghosting is much more difficult in an RTS game compared to a racing game. I don't even know if the SC2 engine could do no-clipping ghosts for an entire game with no glitching. A stopwatch or timer works well for timings also.
I didn't think too much about implementation but I could definitely see why that might be a problem. Hopefully though, it isn't one for which there is no solution.
As for using a timer, it works fine for some things such as figuring out when a rush will hit but the problem is that it doesn't provide real time feedback. For instance, a timer isn't quite as useful if you're just practicing a standard build and want to know how many units your opponent has at 4:00, what his tech is like at 5:00, when he takes his expansion, etc. You would have to record/remember all of those timings beforehand which is pretty tedious.
On December 02 2009 15:30 0neder wrote: 3 - Doesn't Blizzard realize that warp-in is a macro mechanic and Toss don't 'need' another one?
5 - My greatest worry about SC2 at this point is the homogenous, dense unit formations - the armies look smaller because they're so close together, and it's not good for viewing or playing IMO.
3. I'm pretty sure Blizzard knows what they are doing. Besides, is it really 100 % confirmed by Blizzard that Protoss will get another macro?
Also, the beta test's purpose is to allow us players to get our own perspective and opinion on things. So IF they are wrong, we will see that, and they won't keep it if it we don't like it.
5. I'm just guessing that you will be able to change formations, somehow. You can in most RTS games. And to take a Blizzard game as an example, WC3 gives you the option to let your units move at the same speed, thus keeping the formation (standard) or just simply let every single unit run at their own maximum movement speed.
But yeah, they're still too dense, I agree on that part. It was better in WC3 as you easily could separate each unit with your eyes
On December 02 2009 15:30 0neder wrote: 5 - My greatest worry about SC2 at this point is the homogenous, dense unit formations - the armies look smaller because they're so close together, and it's not good for viewing or playing IMO.
5. I'm just guessing that you will be able to change formations, somehow. You can in most RTS games. And to take a Blizzard game as an example, WC3 gives you the option to let your units move at the same speed, thus keeping the formation (standard) or just simply let every single unit run at their own maximum movement speed.
I don't want formations, I want heterogenous chaos like in SC1. Unequal spacing to make armies seem bigger and more chaotic.
I would love to see a "spread out" command and a "regroup" command. This way you'd never have zerglings prancing up the battlefield in a rectangle like a marching band (which seems to be the main worry about "formations"). It would add an interesting element of strategy, and without reducing micro, because right now nobody uses their micro for this sort of thing anyway. For example, nobody has the several thousand APM they'd need to spread a big group of zerglings out one-by-one as they're running up to a group of high templars.
These two commands would almost always operate in addition to, rather than in replacement of, existing micro. And, unlike many micro tasks, they wouldn't just be APM sinks... they'd require more thinking than clicking. They could strongly affect the outcome of many battles, and the right decision would always depend on the situation, including your unit mix and your opponent's, as well as your opponent's spread/clumped decision.
I suggested this in a previous thread about the Thor but no one responded. I just wanted to repost it and see what people thought.
On October 29 2009 13:29 kingjames01 wrote: I don't know if anyone has suggested this but I get the sense that using SCV's to construct Thors on the battlefield could lead to some obvious problems. For example:
On October 22 2009 02:31 SWPIGWANG wrote: SCV Construction: Don't need to build anti-air or multiple factories to prepare a pump, just spam thor if air tech is spotted! Every race is limited in its macro by buildings, and this breaks the rules. The thor being a "do it all unit" as is, really make building planning less important, macro more lazy and make factories worthless targets in base raids. It also means more annoying macro, while 300/300 isn't "that big" of a unit, when units carriers are spammed.
On October 22 2009 02:51 Ryuu314 wrote: First off, the SCV construction mechanism was removed because it can totally break matchups, more specifically TvP. For example, the T is going say 6 rax and only 1 fact. He scouts out mass carriers with his comsat. He only has mnm, which isn't all that effective v. carriers. No problem, just pull 6 SCVs or so off the mineral line and build Thors. Protoss walks in, carrier fleet demolished in a couple seconds. The Thors then head out and roflstomp the Protoss base which has practically nothing because all their resources was just blown out of the sky, literally. Starcraft places a lot of emphasis on choosing the right tech and being punished for not. SCV construction of the Thor violates that concept.
However, I had an idea that I am not sure has been discussed yet where the construction of a Thor unit would need both a Factory and an SCV to complete. I'm not sure how this would be implemented. Perhaps the Factory begins the base skeleton and the SCV finishes it anywhere on the field or an SCV has to physically be at the Factory to help complete the unit. This would mean that the Terran player would still need to queue the Thor units at his/her Factory and could not spam build a game-winning unit without prior preparation.
Another thought about the two-stage construction... If the SCV's could transport the unfinished Thor pieces to the battlefield for completion, that could add a whole new dimension to the matchups. Just imagine the possibilities!
Any ideas about whether this could be viable or what could be done to flesh it out?
Would it improve the zerg gameplay if the Queen's ability to Spawn larva had to be cast on a Unit instead of the hatchery? The ability could work on either friendly or enemy biological units. It would take a few seconds before the multiple larvas hatched inside the unit and made it explode, meaning that a group of enemy units could destroy their ally before the larva hatched.
This would add decision to the process of spawning larva and also add some complexity to the zerg build; do I want to spawn larva or save my units for now? I'm not considering balance in this, I figure it can be adjusted later.
I hope they get the same sprad system for sc2 where u can pre-lineup ur units^^ it was relly annoying paying without it. Gost replays is an awsum idea and so is the kill 1 unit 4 4 larvae(lol) I really like how they continue to change the teams to make them more different like with the toss teleport macro, cant wait for the new macromechanic :D
On December 04 2009 07:22 JohannesH wrote: What do you mean by formations?
unit formations such as in other rts games like EE, AoE, and C&C i think.
bad idea, EE and AoE have them for historical accuracy, but the top BW players are good enough to micro their own "formations" and it should be even easier in SC2
What if one of new, easy to learn, difficult to master skills would be to make unit formations and prevent them from clumping by using magic boxes?
Another thing I was thinking about is what will be possible to break in SC2 (MBS etc, at least Scarab pathing, multiple unit selection...?) to make UMS as similar to BW as possible... I remember blue post that said it won't be easy but will be possible to "turn off" MBS. What if BW leagues don't die and keep on living (as SC2 UMS) with new SC2 ones?
have they released an actual reason for why beta has been delayed? i heard it was because b.net 2.0 wasnt ready, and if so have they told anyone when it will be ready (beta specifically)?
On December 12 2009 00:53 Kleander wrote: have they released an actual reason for why beta has been delayed? i heard it was because b.net 2.0 wasnt ready, and if so have they told anyone when it will be ready (beta specifically)?
TL: I have to ask quickly about the beta – there had been hints that it would be coming in the first few months of 2010. What types of numbers would we be looking at for the first wave? And is there any sort of format for how new players will be added later on (bulk waves, trickle in etc)?
DB: I don't think I have the answer to that question, it would be a better question for Chris Sigaty as he usually keeps that stuff. I also know that those numbers will change over time and we will decide as the beta goes forward how many people to invite based on how well we are doing with our server load, player activity etc. It will be a little bit organic – there isn't sort of a secret document somewhere that I can read to you and say “Oh there's the whole plan!”. We're going to play it a little bit by ear as we go.
A good amount of zerg units are affected by the immortal's Hardened Shell. They are particularly effective against roaches, ultralisks, and spine crawlers. Also, Psionic Storm and Nuclear Strike do not appear to be affected by the Hardened Shell as the immortal I just nuked disintegrated gloriously.
Would of made my own topic, however I realise I have only been here for 2 days, not 3. If someone could turn this into a discussion topic for me giving credit, I would be grateful. Thanks.
Can someone point me to one or a few solid articles/threads that really nail TL's general position on macro as a whole? Essentially, I want to know what you guys feel the "macro problem" is and why you think that.
I was wondering about the Thor.. I thought one of the earlier ideas behind it was that it could function as a heavy siege unit to lead during base attacks? Considering that currently it's so much like a Marauder with an air attack, except stronger, I didn't see what was special about the Thor, and how they could balance it so it's not dominant yet does have a unique role in the terran arsenal, not just as generic T3 unit to base your army around.
I remembered a unit from a game I played when I was younger, Earth 2140, which was called the TIGER Hellmaker. I thought of it since it physically resembles the Thor a lot, but more importantly, I figured its attack might as well be a good idea for the Thor. It fires two slowly moving napalm grenades that impact the ground a second or two later, only to explode in fire. Standing around for the explosion deals damage and standing in the fire as well(which lasts 4-5 seconds).
I really feel like such an attack could be useful for an army leading unit, especially in not terribly mobile situations such as base assaults, in which case it works well on a siege unit. This is because leading with a Thor armed with these weapons forces your opponent to move away, or fight, so if you can force a fight it becomes more destructive.
Besides this, it's also a fun attack to play with. Faster enemy units can try to avoid the attack in smaller numbers, even it requires heavy attention, and there's also a benefit for individually macroing your Thors to attack different targets so avoiding it is more difficult. A minor benefit is that it's somewhat intricate, yet not an ability. (which is a concern, I believe)
Regarding Terran Macro tension - aka Mule vs. Scan. Given that mules and scans are done from the same building, forcing a Terran to scan means one less mule (not sure if they're the same cost or not). Given that mules are estimated to gather a few hundred minerals each (foggy memory, at best - not sure what the exact number was last time someone was able to check) forcing a Terran to scan, even if you don't do much, could theoretically set them economically back. If this is actually true, it would strengthen obvious stuff like DT harass/Lurkers, as well as something simple like burrowing a single ling at an expansion site (a la vulture mines of old), Roaches, etc. Sniping an observer without tower detection (aka, Obs suicide)/a mobile detector of your own becomes more costly as well.
Last I knew mules could be called down anywhere in the player's sight range, not just at the CC calling it down. Of course all of this is subject to tons of change/balance/etc. If they can be called down anywhere, then scanning would still effectively cost minerals even late into the game. If there's a range limitation then you'd eventually have CCs that don't need to call mules and have the spare energy to scan, at which point it's less of an issue.
EPT
)
)
