EPTYay zerg power!
Heart of the Swarm will have a Separate Ladder - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Steel
Japan2283 Posts
Yay zerg power! | ||
|
orotoss
United States298 Posts
A separate ladder would be cool, but then how are achievements going to work? This sounds lame but I really enjoy getting portraits haha. If we use the same account, will MMR transfer over? Will portraits be different? So many questions D: I was wondering the same thing. Do you think they will treat it as its own game? Like new mmr and achievements? It would be weird if we had to start laddering from scratch, but at the same time, we will be playing a different game than the current one, so should our previous wins count? What will cross over from WoL? | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:27 Eogris wrote: wait a minute, blizzard has done this before? they first split the RoC game into 5 games with 5 ladders THAN split the frozen throne expansion into 4 games and had 9 total ladders? they split diablo 2 into 5 games? this is completely unique from their previous games So wait, you're saying that you could buy "World of Warcraft" and use all the cool new additions of "Frozen Throne" without paying for the expansion? You're saying that people who purchased Diablo 2 could use the Assassin simply by installing a patch without paying for the expansion? When they released Brood War, all I had to do was install the patch and start using Lurkers without paying for the expansion? Wow, to think I completely wasted my money all those times  | ||
|
Eogris
United States148 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:32 Mikau wrote: RoC and TFT are different installments of the same game. SC1 and BW are different installments of the same game. WoL, HotS and LotV are different installments of the same game. Do you really not see how that's the exact same situation? obviously theyre different installments, but how can you tell me that this is the same situation? SC2 -WoL terran campaign, HotS, zerg campaign etc Wc3:RoC - 5 Campaigns, Wc3:TFT - 4 campaigns | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
On February 18 2011 12:59 Combine wrote: Please be GSL maps. Multiple ladders make sense, but they are kind of redundant. Not going to be a ton of people playing on them knowing the older versions aren't going to be very balanced. Yea, the older BW got, the less balanced it... no wait I don't know what to think of this. There are already a gazillion tourneys for SC2 leading (for myself anyway) to oversaturation (like when you ate too many sweets). If there's a separate ladder for the new expansions,... it'll just split up the community even more. I won't be buying HotS or LotV, and what 'expansion' will the GSL (or other large-scale tourneys for that matter) officially use? | ||
|
Eogris
United States148 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:40 Nemireck wrote: So wait, you're saying that you could buy "World of Warcraft" and use all the cool new additions of "Frozen Throne" without paying for the expansion? You're saying that people who purchased Diablo 2 could use the Assassin simply by installing a patch without paying for the expansion? When they released Brood War, all I had to do was install the patch and start using Lurkers without paying for the expansion? Wow, to think I completely wasted my money all those times the main point is that blizzard has never split ONE GAME into THREE based on race. people are saying they do this for all of their games and unless i'm playing different blizzard games, they dont. I understand that I will buy hots if there will be separate ladders, but i remember reading from a blizzard faq that the only thing the expansions added were campaigns. | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:40 orotoss wrote: I was wondering the same thing. Do you think they will treat it as its own game? Like new mmr and achievements? It would be weird if we had to start laddering from scratch, but at the same time, we will be playing a different game than the current one, so should our previous wins count? What will cross over from WoL? I would imagine that the HotS (And LotV) ladders will start us all in the exact same manner as WoL. It won't take long for people to hit a hot streak and shoot up the ladder while others wallow in the lower leagues, maybe a day, maybe 2. It wouldn't be 'weird' at all, it'll be a brand new ladder, and we'll all start out equal. Our previous wins will not "count" on the HotS ladder. Regarding those that say "But Blizzard said you only need to buy one game to get the multiplayer!!!!" Yes, you only need to buy one game. Likely WoL as I believe HotS and LotV are being released as expansions. Your multiplayer experience will not stop just because an expansion is being released, you will still be able to play SC2 on the WoL ladder, making Blizzard's statement 100% accurate (assuming they ever actually said it). | ||
|
HaveANiceDay
Austria29 Posts
Seriously, I would pay double the price of each game Blizzard releases. You would probably too. Kicking and screaming, you will hand over the cash. | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:44 Eogris wrote: the main point is that blizzard has never split ONE GAME into THREE based on race. people are saying they do this for all of their games and unless i'm playing different blizzard games, they dont. I understand that I will buy hots if there will be separate ladders, but i remember reading from a blizzard faq that the only thing the expansions added were campaigns. It might be the first time they've split their SP campaigns based on race, but the general theme is consistent with their past releases. We're getting a couple of new units and/or abilities for multiplayer, and a new campaign to play, not unlike their expansions in SC1, and we're getting more content than we got in their Diablo 2 expansion. We ARE being ripped off when you consider that SC2 and BW both had 3 campaigns (one for each race), but many players don't even bother with the campaign, or only use it as a warm-up before jumping into the multiplayer experience. Scaling back content and selling more of it later on is nothing new in our current era of gaming. I knew what I was getting into long before SC2 beta was even started, and anyone who had done a little bit of research before hand should have known what was going to happen as well. | ||
|
Dox
Australia1199 Posts
On February 20 2011 02:12 Eogris wrote: i was under the impression that the expansions would just be single player campaign upgrades and that multiplayer would be patched to the WoL players.. kind of mad about this. This post, and hundreds of others in this thread just like it really make me wonder if we're all from the same planet. Look at EVERY OTHER BLIZZARD GAME since the dawn of freakin time. Duh. | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:52 Dox wrote: This post, and hundreds of others in this thread just like it really make me wonder if we're all from the same planet. Look at EVERY OTHER BLIZZARD GAME since the dawn of freakin time. Duh. I hear you man. Sometimes you really have to wonder what people are mixing with the sugar they put on their Corn Flakes in the morning... | ||
|
Eogris
United States148 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:52 Dox wrote: This post, and hundreds of others in this thread just like it really make me wonder if we're all from the same planet. Look at EVERY OTHER BLIZZARD GAME since the dawn of freakin time. Duh. read my other posts because i am seriously beginning to wonder if some of you guys even played the other blizzard games.. | ||
|
uberon
United States5 Posts
On February 20 2011 04:51 Nemireck wrote: It might be the first time they've split their SP campaigns based on race, but the general theme is consistent with their past releases. We're getting a couple of new units and/or abilities for multiplayer, and a new campaign to play, not unlike their expansions in SC1, and we're getting more content than we got in their Diablo 2 expansion. We ARE being ripped off when you consider that SC2 and BW both had 3 campaigns (one for each race), but many players don't even bother with the campaign, or only use it as a warm-up before jumping into the multiplayer experience. Scaling back content and selling more of it later on is nothing new in our current era of gaming. I knew what I was getting into long before SC2 beta was even started, and anyone who had done a little bit of research before hand should have known what was going to happen as well. Actually, SC1 and Brood War each had ~30 missions, ~10 for each race. SC2: WoL has ~30 missions, and each expansion is planned to have ~30 as well. Along with new units/buildings/spells in multiplayer. So we're actually getting the same amount of content (besides basic game functions) in each installment. I would expect the expansions to be priced from $30-$40 (USD). That being said, I don't understand the complainers in this thread. Blizzard has been done this for every game since the beginning of Battle.net. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Dox
Australia1199 Posts
On February 20 2011 05:13 hunts wrote: This made me wonder. If they already knew before releasing WoL that they wanted to make and sell 2 expansions, say with each expansion adding stuff (units/upgrades) to multiplayer, does this also mean that in order to sell those expansions, it would be in their best interest to NOT have the game be completely balanced before LotV? Almost seems like if before that expansions ready if the multiplayer becomes completely balanced and everyones happy with it they would either mess that balance up by adding new multiplayer things and competitive players would wantto stay on HotS. Or they would have to not add anything new to multiplayer in the interest of balance and then there would be people who don't care about the campaign not buying it. Sorry for the terrible grammar, what do you people think? The answer to your question is... Brood War. The Frozen Throne. Lord of Destruction. etc. | ||
|
Cluster
Sweden125 Posts
| ||
|
Leeoku
1617 Posts
On February 20 2011 05:00 uberon wrote: Actually, SC1 and Brood War each had ~30 missions, ~10 for each race. SC2: WoL has ~30 missions, and each expansion is planned to have ~30 as well. Along with new units/buildings/spells in multiplayer. So we're actually getting the same amount of content (besides basic game functions) in each installment. I would expect the expansions to be priced from $30-$40 (USD). That being said, I don't understand the complainers in this thread. Blizzard has been done this for every game since the beginning of Battle.net. the point was that it was previously stated (i cant find the link) that each release would be a full standalone with the same battle net experience for all 3 versions | ||
|
megagoten
318 Posts
On February 20 2011 05:13 hunts wrote: This made me wonder. If they already knew before releasing WoL that they wanted to make and sell 2 expansions, say with each expansion adding stuff (units/upgrades) to multiplayer, does this also mean that in order to sell those expansions, it would be in their best interest to NOT have the game be completely balanced before LotV? Almost seems like if before that expansions ready if the multiplayer becomes completely balanced and everyones happy with it they would either mess that balance up by adding new multiplayer things and competitive players would wantto stay on HotS. Or they would have to not add anything new to multiplayer in the interest of balance and then there would be people who don't care about the campaign not buying it. Sorry for the terrible grammar, what do you people think? i think you need paragraphs. I think players would still move on to the expansions if blizzard had managed to make all players of all race happy about balance (not a chance that it happens anytime soon). more units/spells/stuff should mean more depth, which should also mean more fun (playing/spectating), so that reason alone is enough for me to think that players would move on to the expansions | ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
On February 20 2011 05:13 hunts wrote: This made me wonder. If they already knew before releasing WoL that they wanted to make and sell 2 expansions, say with each expansion adding stuff (units/upgrades) to multiplayer, does this also mean that in order to sell those expansions, it would be in their best interest to NOT have the game be completely balanced before LotV? Almost seems like if before that expansions ready if the multiplayer becomes completely balanced and everyones happy with it they would either mess that balance up by adding new multiplayer things and competitive players would wantto stay on HotS. Or they would have to not add anything new to multiplayer in the interest of balance and then there would be people who don't care about the campaign not buying it. Sorry for the terrible grammar, what do you people think? They don't want the game to have broken balance. But at the same time, balance isn't the only thing for them to fix in an expansion. What if the game was completely balanced, but one race just wasn't fun to play at all, even if you could win with them? They'd want to fix things like that to make the game more fun. | ||
|
Assirra
Belgium4169 Posts
On February 20 2011 05:22 Leeoku wrote: the point was that it was previously stated (i cant find the link) that each release would be a full standalone with the same battle net experience for all 3 versions Like many ppl said the last couple pages, this is simply not true. Was this with warcraft 3 and frone throne? Was this with starcraft and broodwar? they never said they were standalone packs, where do ppl get this idea from? unless you have a link that proofs it it is simply wrong. | ||
| ||
