|
I was looking through StarCraft pics trying to find some hints of what new techs and units might be hiddenin the screen shots. Unfortuanatly I wasn't able to find anything good. But I did come accross this...
Original Pic: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss4-hires.jpg
It shows a tank above the first and second level at a third level. If their are more than two levels in SC2 it would definatly make for more strategies and diversify the game even more.
Good/Bad.. why? Discuss.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
StarCraft already has multilevels. Low dirt, high dirt and high temple on jungle tileset are all different levels, so I don't see anything radically new to discuss here.
Anyway, there's true multileveling (up to 16, afaik) in WarCraft III and it doesn't have a significant impact on the game.
|
On June 09 2007 12:23 BluzMan wrote: StarCraft already has multilevels. Low dirt, high dirt and high temple on jungle tileset are all different levels, so I don't see anything radically new to discuss here.
Anyway, there's true multileveling (up to 16, afaik) in WarCraft III and it doesn't have a significant impact on the game.
I've never played on maps using all three levels. >.<
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Sure you did, it is just really insignificant with SC mechanics. Being 2 levels above gives the same advantage as being 1 level above.
Since they've already changing high ground concepts (units firing from high ground no longer give vision) they might also change the mechanics, but since we know exactly nothing about it this thread could only become pure speculation.
|
woah.. didn't notice that but after reading what bluzman wrote i kind of have to side with him XP
|
the question to the thread is... how the hell can the tank get multi layer without dropship (or lifting the factory)??
|
Uh, did it ever say that there wasn't a dropship? No.
|
Belgium6733 Posts
On June 09 2007 12:59 anch wrote: the question to the thread is... how the hell can the tank get multi layer without dropship (or lifting the factory)??
rofl are you serious
|
I think if they made range increase as the ground level increase, that'll be rly cool. Say a Siegue tanque can fire rly rly far on a cliff, that'll be TOTOAL DOMINATION!
|
On June 09 2007 12:27 BuGzlToOnl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2007 12:23 BluzMan wrote: StarCraft already has multilevels. Low dirt, high dirt and high temple on jungle tileset are all different levels, so I don't see anything radically new to discuss here.
Anyway, there's true multileveling (up to 16, afaik) in WarCraft III and it doesn't have a significant impact on the game. I've never played on maps using all three levels. >.<
RoV?
first one that came to my mind =\\
i'm sure there's been plenty more though
in wc3 it didn't have a significant impact because the terrain advantages weren't as important as in starcraft
|
Belgium6733 Posts
Also that screenshot has a thing saying "real men drill deep" at the top
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On June 09 2007 14:29 Locked wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2007 12:27 BuGzlToOnl wrote:On June 09 2007 12:23 BluzMan wrote: StarCraft already has multilevels. Low dirt, high dirt and high temple on jungle tileset are all different levels, so I don't see anything radically new to discuss here.
Anyway, there's true multileveling (up to 16, afaik) in WarCraft III and it doesn't have a significant impact on the game. I've never played on maps using all three levels. >.< RoV? first one that came to my mind =\\ i'm sure there's been plenty more though in wc3 it didn't have a significant impact because the terrain advantages weren't as important as in starcraft
Actually, the system for high ground in War3 is exactly the same as SC. High ground means less in War3 just because generic "ground" has less value. War3 is unit-driven whereas SC is more territory-driven. The mechanics, however, are exactly the same in both games.
|
Germany1297 Posts
Starcraft already has 5 levels, guess you need not less and not more.
|
United States7166 Posts
what the heck is that thing on the top of that 100m spire
|
On June 09 2007 17:16 Raist wrote: what the heck is that thing on the top of that 100m spire
A siege tank, duh! It's pretty obvious he tried to recreate the graphic from the demo, so it sucks ;P
|
Lost temple, islands are level-3 height
|
On June 09 2007 14:59 Xeofreestyler wrote: Also that screenshot has a thing saying "real men drill deep" at the top
|
There are 3 levels of terrain in SC1 but there was not 3 level cliff sides or even 2 level cliff sides like you see in the SC2 screenshot or you have in Warcraft 3. That is a huge difference considering we have units that can walk/jump up or off cliffs to reach lower or higher ground levels.
My guess would be you cannot walk up any cliffs that are higher than 1 level with collosus like units or jump up (but you can jump off) with reapers. So a map creator can decide how effective collosus or reaper type units would be for base raid assaults without a drop ship of some sort.
Btw in warcraft high ground did play a huge role on certain maps like twisted meadows. Fighting at the bottom of a hill with ranged units at a choke point is really stupid. It however is true that multi leveling didn't play much of a role in warcraft 3 (although it does on some maps) just not enough like SC1.
|
On June 09 2007 15:09 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2007 14:29 Locked wrote:On June 09 2007 12:27 BuGzlToOnl wrote:On June 09 2007 12:23 BluzMan wrote: StarCraft already has multilevels. Low dirt, high dirt and high temple on jungle tileset are all different levels, so I don't see anything radically new to discuss here.
Anyway, there's true multileveling (up to 16, afaik) in WarCraft III and it doesn't have a significant impact on the game. I've never played on maps using all three levels. >.< RoV? first one that came to my mind =\\ i'm sure there's been plenty more though in wc3 it didn't have a significant impact because the terrain advantages weren't as important as in starcraft Actually, the system for high ground in War3 is exactly the same as SC. High ground means less in War3 just because generic "ground" has less value. War3 is unit-driven whereas SC is more territory-driven. The mechanics, however, are exactly the same in both games.
that's why i said it wasn't as important
of course it wasn't meaningless (like the above example on twisted meadows)
|
gorky island has 3 levels, but no maps of sc have more than 2 levels THIS close to each other
[edit] 4 lol
|
actually, I believe people are underestimating the importance of the walker unit in SC2... If there really are to be 5+ different levels, than 2 lvls up are walker in accessible, yet 1 level is. Perhaps the zerglings can only jump down 1 level, not 2+? This makes terrain 10x more strategic.
|
On June 09 2007 19:53 Raidern wrote: gorky island has 3 levels, but no maps of sc have more than 2 levels THIS close to each other
[edit] 4 lol jungle story
|
On June 09 2007 23:27 SoMuchBetter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2007 19:53 Raidern wrote: gorky island has 3 levels, but no maps of sc have more than 2 levels THIS close to each other
[edit] 4 lol jungle story dont even mention that imba map :D gorky pwned though
|
On June 09 2007 19:28 AC3 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2007 14:59 Xeofreestyler wrote: Also that screenshot has a thing saying "real men drill deep" at the top
|
Germany1297 Posts
|
Are you sure 2, 3 and 4 aren't the same level, just different skins?
|
Germany1297 Posts
1 and 2 are close to the same, but not really. 3 und 4 are not the same.
|
2 can exist on higher ground aswell so that would be 6..
|
Two is irrelevant because it gives no terrain advantages over one, It acts as normal ground that looks a little higher. Walk a ground unit on normal terrain and it can see and fire on what's on two without issue, it just can't walk up there.
|
On June 10 2007 09:07 Lord.of.Nukes wrote: Two is irrelevant because it gives no terrain advantages over one, It acts as normal ground that looks a little higher. Walk a ground unit on normal terrain and it can see and fire on what's on two without issue, it just can't walk up there.
... which is exactly why it gives a terrain advantage over 1
|
While it's unpassable it is still different than a wall, since you can't see trough walls and I hope there are the options of such small height differences in terrain in sc2, too.
|
I think my comment was ignored for some reason. THE NEW WALKER UNITS ARE GOING TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU ARE GIVING THEM CREDIT FOR....
walkers cant go up two levels, zerglings cant go down more than one... Therefor, terrain is even more important to maximize in SC2
|
On June 10 2007 13:38 treckin wrote: I think my comment was ignored for some reason. THE NEW WALKER UNITS ARE GOING TO BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOU ARE GIVING THEM CREDIT FOR....
walkers cant go up two levels, zerglings cant go down more than one... Therefor, terrain is even more important to maximize in SC2
Precisely where are you getting this information, pray tell? Details such as zerglings going "down" would be news, but you seem to know that they can't go down more than one level and that walkers as you call them, can't go up 2 levels. I won't insult you by assuming that this is pure speculation and ask you instead:
Are you some sort of ninja saboteur that broke into Blizzards' HQ? Please send me a PM if this is the case, I will strive to keep your identity a secret as long as you provide us with this sort of tips and updates regularly.
You must be one of those guys that also had insider information in 1999 that they are working on SC2 and is now proudly proclaiming to have been the first to inform us of the project but we just wouldn't listen. Well, I've learned my lesson! From now on I'll give credence to all wild speculation any snotty spoiled pubescent kids' imagination blurts out, however unsubstantiated by any reliable source other than their own wet dreams of becoming a modern-day Nostradamus.
And your post doesn't even rhyme.
|
On June 10 2007 09:33 SoMuchBetter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2007 09:07 Lord.of.Nukes wrote: Two is irrelevant because it gives no terrain advantages over one, It acts as normal ground that looks a little higher. Walk a ground unit on normal terrain and it can see and fire on what's on two without issue, it just can't walk up there. ... which is exactly why it gives a terrain advantage over 1
...which gives neither an advantage
and 3 = 4
:D
|
|
I misstated in my post; IMO walkers are going to be more important than people realize. Blizz wouldnt have blown a large sum of money developing their IK system if it was for ONLY the colossus. Also, if you watch the movie closely, when he is displaying the IK system, you can see how the colossus' legs are the same height as one level of terrain. It would be silly to assume that they can extend their legs up taller than their legs are. The system is obviously based on realism, so I would think that making them move unnaturally would be antithetical to that goal. I also was proposing that the lings are able to jump down cliffs as an idea. The man in the vid says that the zerg have continued to evolve... the lings have wings now... I was giving examples of things that could utilize the environmental levels to their advantage. we already have seen Terrain and Protoss hopping cliffs.... it would be asinine tothink that blizz would ignore the zerg.
BTW I am a ninja, but im too busy sneaking into LA county jail and consoling Paris Hilton to perform any magic B&E at Blizzard...
|
United States1271 Posts
Screw that, zerglings that can blow up and jump walls would be ridiculous. oO
|
Much more reasonably formulated, thank you.
In the video, the zerg evolution he is referring to is the "baneling" mutation, but you do make a valid point about the IK system and the wings make it reasonable to assume zerglings will be able to fly small distances over obstacles.
If that is the case, the zerg would have a mainstream unit able to hop cliffs. (Unless zerglings won't be mainstream, which is unlikely). Reapers and stalkers are specialist units that presumably will be built specifically because they have this rare ability, whereas the zerglings have the potential to be present in the game in great numbers serving other purposes alltoghether.
A restriction on zerglings to only jump to lower levels would therefore make sense and we are again in agreement.
|
Yes, we are What I was envisioning for the lings was something akin to a fluttering hop down a level...
It was proposed (although badly represented) that higher level could equal greater ranged attack. IMO this would detract from what is great about BW... IMO what makes SC great, of which exquisite balance is but a component, is the parallel to chess; SC has very few options. There are only so many things that one can do. That is IMO why they are going to attempt to stick to the same unit counts in SC2. The limited amount and effect of the special abilities allowing for massing army's and assistance from abilities. The more things they add the more the game will fall apart. This is why I think that allowing players to change the camera view angle is a faulty idea; it lends to many varibles to a single scenario. Perhaps one player has a different view angle than another and misses a crucial element of a battle for that reason (lame example, i know, bear with me)? SC battles should not be won or lost based on these factors (view angle, super powers etc). I think at the least they should have the camera angle be a lockable feature in the server setup options, somewhat like counterstrike.
|
On June 10 2007 09:33 SoMuchBetter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2007 09:07 Lord.of.Nukes wrote: Two is irrelevant because it gives no terrain advantages over one, It acts as normal ground that looks a little higher. Walk a ground unit on normal terrain and it can see and fire on what's on two without issue, it just can't walk up there. ... which is exactly why it gives a terrain advantage over 1 The units on Raised Jungle can't walk down onto the normal terrain either. There's effectively just a small wall which doesn't affect vision or attacking at all.
|
On June 10 2007 04:18 Chosi wrote:5 Levels ...
3 = 4, id say. and if we're taking vision into consideration here, 2 = 1.5
|
right. we've established that vanilla had more than 2 layers... The question is how will multiple levels affect game play in SC2. My theory is that it will be hugely impacted by the walker units/jumping units. I believe we will see a zerg unit that either jumps, hops, walks etc up/down levels. The terrains have the reapers, toss has the Colossus, and IMO the lings will be able to jump down the cliffs w/ upgrade (however no up, making what you jump down MUCH more important).
If you can imagine, selecting a defensible position that is 2 levels down from the surrounding terrain on one side, and 1 level higher than the terrain on the other... you would have to take serious precautions as toss to make sure that nothing (siege tanks!?) get place on that high ground, as your colossus cannot reach it, while the other side of your base is open to attacks by reapers. Add a third side only 1 level down from the surrounding terrain.... open to a zergling stampede...
I think this would make geography 10 times more important than it is now (if thats possible)
|
On June 10 2007 18:31 useless wrote:3 = 4, id say. and if we're taking vision into consideration here, 2 = 1.5
1 = 2 in terms of vision and advantageous terrain :d
2 is basically another copy of 1
|
|
On June 10 2007 21:10 treckin wrote: right. we've established that vanilla had more than 2 layers... The question is how will multiple levels affect game play in SC2. My theory is that it will be hugely impacted by the walker units/jumping units. I believe we will see a zerg unit that either jumps, hops, walks etc up/down levels. The terrains have the reapers, toss has the Colossus, and IMO the lings will be able to jump down the cliffs w/ upgrade (however no up, making what you jump down MUCH more important).
If you can imagine, selecting a defensible position that is 2 levels down from the surrounding terrain on one side, and 1 level higher than the terrain on the other... you would have to take serious precautions as toss to make sure that nothing (siege tanks!?) get place on that high ground, as your colossus cannot reach it, while the other side of your base is open to attacks by reapers. Add a third side only 1 level down from the surrounding terrain.... open to a zergling stampede...
I think this would make geography 10 times more important than it is now (if thats possible)
I hope
|
just thinking, it would really suck to jump down something with the lings, and not be able to come back up/retreat. However from the looks of it, it seems that removing them with a nydus worm would be simple. I feel that the nature of the mass armies in SC2 mean that zerglings are cheaper, come in larger packs, and are more expendable (if possible) than in BW
|
from all the screens we've seen the only 2+ story cliffs that exist connect the map to places that land units cant exist (free space, probably water)
so why go assuming that there will be 2 story cliffs that connect land to land?
|
|
I agree. That made no sense... ????????????
|
On June 10 2007 21:30 treckin wrote: 2 is not 1... 3=4 though 2=1, you have vision up there and your shots never miss
|
ok, so they are the same property wise, but not ELEVATION... you cant walk from 1 ---> 2 without a ramp. Figure it out guy.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Well, afaik, the map editor has three levels. Temple and High Dirt are basically the same thing (I may be mistaken here though, but I have better than 50% degree of confidence), while any kind of raised jungle is the same level as host. Treat raised jungle bounds as walls, that's it, the elevation level for all kinds of purposes is the same. Same with many "sunken tiles" like ice on the actual Ice tileset. Btw, you can, in fact, easily walk from level 2 to level 3, different levels only trigger line of sight and accuracy, you need an actual impassable tile to be prevented from walking. The passability between high and low tiles is commonly being used during the production of reverse ramps.
|
@treckin.
We're talking about the strategic value of the elevation and how it effects BW, in comparison to how it MAY effect SC2.
2 is the same as 1. Shots don't miss, and there is no line of sight issues. What is the ONLY factor that makes you consider it another tier of elevation? Because it looks like damn elevation. Sure, people can't get from 1 to 2 without a ramp, but neither can people get from 2 to 1 without a ramp. My argument is as follows;
If it has the exact same properties as 1, and is literally no different than a line of impassable doodads creating a walled off section of terrain, then maybe we should not consider it a level of elevation, and simply consider it a different tileset with a natural buffer. Figure it out guy.
|
I understand your reasoning, however I believe the fact that it appears higher has a LITTLE more bearing than you give it credit for. I will aquiesse, however, that the properties are important. I believe the original post and thread topic was on the topic of Levels, which automatically triggered Elevation in my mind (likely a simple nomenclature association) While the terrain effects you discuss are important, they are no more or less important than what I was strategically referring to- The walker units in SC2, and how many LEVELS they will be able to walk up/down, as well as the reapers and possibly Lings. I suppose I was saying that we are both right
|
|
|
|