|
On July 03 2008 05:31 prayanavita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2008 05:27 MrRammstein wrote:On July 03 2008 04:07 Nyovne wrote:On July 03 2008 02:29 MrRammstein wrote:On July 03 2008 02:11 Nyovne wrote:On July 03 2008 01:18 MrRammstein wrote:
but if Banelings can hit Protoss shields and can't Terran buildings than something is wrong IMO.
In situation with hard time to get more expansions they will be pain in the ass for P... Why that, buildings just take less damage. Protoss buildings just have shields as part of their toughness. Shields have always taken full damage from any sources, the reason why vultures are so effective vs them in SCBW. The fact that baneling splash hits every protoss shield for full damage in its radius has no reason to be an exception to the rule. Yea but I read shields are supposed to be mirrors of armor type whatever they surround - Light just as Zealots are light armored, and Armored as any buildings or some Stalkers, with all bonuses included...? Where did you read that? Cause shields went down pretty damn fast for my feel, at least faster then the hp itself. But obviously since I didnt really check that might just be my expectations from SCBW warping what im perceiving so if you got a source plz shoot ;o. I think it was Q&A batch but not sure. I'm going to dig in earlier ones anyways so as soon as I will find I will post it  Thank you Prayanavita downloading now No problem, enjoy!
Oh My God dude when I saw those screenshots earlier I already thought they look great BUT NOW I can watch them in resolution high enough they don't fit as whole on my screen and I have 22" monitor xD
2 things
1 I actually started liking Baneling Nest, have totally nothin NOTHING against it anymore x)
2 I wonder if to put some Terran unit as new background, like Jackal or Medivac; btw wtf some tard asked on art panel why Siege Tank looks as it looks it simply can't look better in Siege and I have feeling looks even better in Tank mode than I last checked
|
a)How is the Zerg Queen? I have a feeling that its either a "gimicky unit" or a must build every game "hero unit". Whats your thoughts on the Queen and should it be a single player only unit or does it gel nicely with the zerg gameplay?
b) Burrow mechanic, I am assuming that burrow is smarter so that if you select a mixed of burrowed and non-burrowed units, they will do _____?
c) Did you get to play with the display options at all? I was curious if when a different screen resolution was set if it gave the player an advantage of seeing more of the battlefield.
d) In your opinion, which race needs the most work from a design standpoint and why? I have a strong feeling that Terran will need the most work as it seems that none of their units seem to "gel" together, or at least their factory and starport units. It seems like they only got the Barracks units good (except the reaper which needs to be a firebat imo, and the jackel should be a vulture again)
thanks again!
|
On July 03 2008 11:03 Tiamat wrote:
a)How is the Zerg Queen? I have a feeling that its either a "gimicky unit" or a must build every game "hero unit". Whats your thoughts on the Queen and should it be a single player only unit or does it gel nicely with the zerg gameplay?
b) Burrow mechanic, I am assuming that burrow is smarter so that if you select a mixed of burrowed and non-burrowed units, they will do _____?
c) Did you get to play with the display options at all? I was curious if when a different screen resolution was set if it gave the player an advantage of seeing more of the battlefield.
d) In your opinion, which race needs the most work from a design standpoint and why? I have a strong feeling that Terran will need the most work as it seems that none of their units seem to "gel" together, or at least their factory and starport units. It seems like they only got the Barracks units good (except the reaper which needs to be a firebat imo, and the jackel should be a vulture again)
thanks again!
Queen doesn't have to be build every game, I wasn't too crazy about her so I hardly build the queen. I was a bit scared that she would be a hero kindof units, but from what I've seen she's not too bad. The queen definitely has its uses but she is not the hero unit you saw in earlier movies (The one where the queen killed 15 marines by herself)
No clue what happens when you have a mixed army of burrowed and not burrowed units. Nyovne will know, he was the master of sneak with his little baneling bombs.
Computers at WWI only allowed 2 options, "Play computer, play multiplayer" so no options at all. In the presslounge they had a different version of Starcraft II though, one where you could actually pick the map and set the graphic options. I did not do a comparision of different resolutions, but I'm 99% sure that Blizzard would not implement it like that. Only thing I can imagine is that 4:3 and 16:10 will show the battlefield in different proportions. But there were only widescreen monitors at WWI so I did not get to experiment with that. Funny thing to notice is that if you put all setting on high the game would not run at all on the computers in the press lounge.
|
Nyovne
I found this thing about shields and stuff in batch 25
"How will damage against Protoss Shields be calculated with the new damage bonus system?
Protoss shields will take up the characteristics of their normal armor type. For example, if a Protoss Zealot with light armor gets shot by a Terran Ghost with plus light armor damage, the Zealots shields will also take that light armor bonus damage. On the same note, if a Protoss Colossus were to be hit by a Protoss Stalker with bonus damage towards armored unit, the shields would also take that additional damage. "
Well, better ask them tho...
|
On July 03 2008 04:18 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2008 03:07 Ra.Xor.2 wrote:
has anyone really used antigrav much? Is it as effective as cyclone was in wc3? Haven't used it at all sadly, just forcefields from nullifiers. Hope someone else can elaborate on this for you, maybe Idra.
i dont know i only used it to mess around in games that were already over. my guess is its gonna end up like sc1 hts where both spells are good, but forcefield/storm is so much better that antigrav/hallucination rarely get used.
|
On July 05 2008 00:04 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2008 04:18 Nyovne wrote:On July 03 2008 03:07 Ra.Xor.2 wrote:
has anyone really used antigrav much? Is it as effective as cyclone was in wc3? Haven't used it at all sadly, just forcefields from nullifiers. Hope someone else can elaborate on this for you, maybe Idra. i dont know i only used it to mess around in games that were already over. my guess is its gonna end up like sc1 hts where both spells are good, but forcefield/storm is so much better that antigrav/hallucination rarely get used.
Could Antigrav possibly (with some tweaks?) replace both old Maelstorm and Stasis Field?
(on smaller scale ofc)
|
Did anyone play as Terran enough to mess around with the tech lab/reactor core stuff? I've been wondering if you build a reactor core on lets say a barracks, can you only ever marines from that barracks until you lift up and build a tech lab for it, and which point you don't have the reactor core any more? I guess I'm asking if add-ons are like SC1, where you need 1 machine-shop per factory to build tanks from it instead of just 1 machine-shop total to build tanks from all factories.
So basically, I'm asking if building a reactor core delegates a production building (barracks/factory/starport) to only ever building standard units (marines/jackals/vikings/medivacs) from those buildings (and also some units that don't need a tech lab to be made I guess, like thors I believe still need armory)?
|
Does the zerg buildings take dmg when they're out of creep?
Like what happens if you poo creep with the overlord, plant sunkens there then move away the overlord? Creep expires, sunken stays there as if nothing happened?
|
On July 05 2008 03:06 Ideas wrote:
Did anyone play as Terran enough to mess around with the tech lab/reactor core stuff? I've been wondering if you build a reactor core on lets say a barracks, can you only ever marines from that barracks until you lift up and build a tech lab for it, and which point you don't have the reactor core any more? I guess I'm asking if add-ons are like SC1, where you need 1 machine-shop per factory to build tanks from it instead of just 1 machine-shop total to build tanks from all factories.
So basically, I'm asking if building a reactor core delegates a production building (barracks/factory/starport) to only ever building standard units (marines/jackals/vikings/medivacs) from those buildings (and also some units that don't need a tech lab to be made I guess, like thors I believe still need armory)?
First of all reactors can be build on not only barracks they can be build on all terran production buildings with the exception of command centers. So barracks/factories and starports can all have a reactor. But back to your original question:
Yes you need a techlab to build units that require a techlab. I believe in the barracks both the marine and reaper can be build with a reactors. Ghosts and marauders require tech lab, although I mostly played zerg so i might be mistaken here. So basicly it is the same as in starcarft 1.
Buils vary though so they might change it although I like the current mechanic better than the one you are describing in your post.
|
On July 05 2008 03:34 VIB wrote:
Does the zerg buildings take dmg when they're out of creep?
Like what happens if you poo creep with the overlord, plant sunkens there then move away the overlord? Creep expires, sunken stays there as if nothing happened?
You move overlord, no more creep, sunkens will get hurt 
It is as simple as that
|
I'm also adding to the corruptor ideas.
On July 03 2008 07:57 caution.slip wrote:
wait corrupters having to have the killing blow makes perfect sense, hell yeah more micro opportunity to deny your BCs or whatever
corrupters look as though they deal a lot of damage anyways
Kill denying should stay in DotA. Sniping an irratiated unit so it doesn't damage others around it is reasonable, but killing your own units just to prevent your opponents from doing so is completely unintuitive. The same applies to exploiting this behaviour as a zerg player. Use your mutalisks no nearly kill enemy flying units and finish them with, say, a single corruptor. You shouldn't gain an advantage by not killing an enemy unit. This may add more micro, yes, but not the kind of micro I want to see.
I'm suggesting that the corruptor creates a temporary status effect which stays on the target for a short while (one corruptor firing continuously at an unit would create a permanent effect, which would disappear very quickly after the corruptor stops firing), and death during that period results in corruption, no matter who deals the killing blow. This allows for more freedom in battles with other air targeting units without losing corrupted units you "should" have gotten.
Another idea that could work, maybe even combined with the first one, is counting the damage that corruptors deal to each enemy. When an enemy is corrupted, it receives hit points/damage/time (or any combination of these) based on the damage dealt by corruptors (repairing and/or time would reduce this counter). This removes the possibility of infesting everything with a single corruptor and I think makes a bit more sense. More corruptors infest things more effectively without any silly kill denying or last hitting.
|
On July 05 2008 05:31 Delvin wrote:I'm also adding to the corruptor ideas. Show nested quote +On July 03 2008 07:57 caution.slip wrote:
wait corrupters having to have the killing blow makes perfect sense, hell yeah more micro opportunity to deny your BCs or whatever
corrupters look as though they deal a lot of damage anyways Kill denying should stay in DotA. Sniping an irratiated unit so it doesn't damage others around it is reasonable, but killing your own units just to prevent your opponents from doing so is completely unintuitive. The same applies to exploiting this behaviour as a zerg player. Use your mutalisks no nearly kill enemy flying units and finish them with, say, a single corruptor. You shouldn't gain an advantage by not killing an enemy unit. This may add more micro, yes, but not the kind of micro I want to see. I'm suggesting that the corruptor creates a temporary status effect which stays on the target for a short while (one corruptor firing continuously at an unit would create a permanent effect, which would disappear very quickly after the corruptor stops firing), and death during that period results in corruption, no matter who deals the killing blow. This allows for more freedom in battles with other air targeting units without losing corrupted units you "should" have gotten. Another idea that could work, maybe even combined with the first one, is counting the damage that corruptors deal to each enemy. When an enemy is corrupted, it receives hit points/damage/time (or any combination of these) based on the damage dealt by corruptors (repairing and/or time would reduce this counter). This removes the possibility of infesting everything with a single corruptor and I think makes a bit more sense. More corruptors infest things more effectively without any silly kill denying or last hitting. I perfectly agree, both your ideas are much better than the current one. It's so silly that I'm sure they'll end up changing it anyway.
|
On July 05 2008 01:15 MrRammstein wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2008 00:04 IdrA wrote:On July 03 2008 04:18 Nyovne wrote:On July 03 2008 03:07 Ra.Xor.2 wrote:
has anyone really used antigrav much? Is it as effective as cyclone was in wc3? Haven't used it at all sadly, just forcefields from nullifiers. Hope someone else can elaborate on this for you, maybe Idra. i dont know i only used it to mess around in games that were already over. my guess is its gonna end up like sc1 hts where both spells are good, but forcefield/storm is so much better that antigrav/hallucination rarely get used. Could Antigrav possibly (with some tweaks?) replace both old Maelstorm and Stasis Field? (on smaller scale ofc)
well, if one of the tweaks is making it an area of effect thing then sure, but thats a pretty big change. i think the purpose they have in mind is negating big, key units in the middle of battles. take your opponents tank/thor backbone out of action while you clean up the bio support, or whatever. wouldnt really serve the same purpose if you make it aoe.
but ya of course any spell that immobilizes enemy units can be molded into a maelstrom/stasis type spell.
|
I'm only halfway through the thread, but what awesome info! A few things I'm not surprised by:
Ghosts sound very effective. Maybe too good?
MBS not bad. Great.
Dark Swarm is weak without consume. Not cool.
Banelings were fun and made a few games. Cool.
Stuff I was surprised by:
Hallucination almost deciding a game. Fun.
Psi Storm seemed effective. I hope this pans out against serious competition... I just keep getting the feeling that the Colossus is going to replace the HT.
The increased gas costs on everything. Just an experiment or what??
Other comments:
More gas options sound interesting.
After reading some things on http://www.starcraftwire.net I predict EMP will get moved off the ghost or toned down.
|
"The increased gas costs on everything. Just an experiment or what??"
Yes, it was supposed to encourage people to use that new gas mechanic.
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 06 2008 02:28 Blacklizard wrote:I'm only halfway through the thread, but what awesome info! A few things I'm not surprised by: Ghosts sound very effective. Maybe too good? MBS not bad. Great. Dark Swarm is weak without consume. Not cool. Banelings were fun and made a few games. Cool. Stuff I was surprised by: Hallucination almost deciding a game. Fun. Psi Storm seemed effective. I hope this pans out against serious competition... I just keep getting the feeling that the Colossus is going to replace the HT. The increased gas costs on everything. Just an experiment or what?? Other comments: More gas options sound interesting. After reading some things on http://www.starcraftwire.net I predict EMP will get moved off the ghost or toned down.
Don't trust any "valueing" of any unit from any article on that site that isn't hard numerical data, that's all I have to say about it.
If you would just read their Terran and Zerg reviews, just oh my god. I played the game and I can tell you my hair just stood on end reading it with shivers crawling up my spine. I have rarely seen anyone so incapable of valueing a game at its worth.
Pretty much any and every unit evaluation there is so off the mark its just mindnumbing.
For the rest:
Ghosts are *very* expensive and not even close to being overpowered from my point of view and experience.
MBS is not as bad as expected but still terrible for the game. Not being quite as bad as expected doesn't even come close to every proper player valueing it as a good thing. It's gotta go or needs to be seriously toned down.
Automining I dont even have a single good word to say about instead of cruisecontrol macro, especially combined with MBS.
Darkswarm without consume kinda hurts the spell so much but there hasn't been any way to tell if darkswarm will be as pivotal and 100% required to stand a chance as zerg in some lategame matchups. There can't be a deciding vote on this one yet without extensive high level/endgame playtesting. Remember, it's tier2 now, not tier 3 as it used to be. And there aren't any unit snipe spells anymore like irradiate with the exception of well.. "snipe" from the ghost which is far from an acceptable substitute for irradiate to snipe out the casters.
Banelings aren't just fun, they are awsome little balls of rolling rape. They are maybe the most influential new unit in the whole game concerning at least earlygame-play and very influential throughout the whole game and maybe even in every single matchup zerg can play.
---
Hallucination is really nice, and on strong side of spells and might even be a bit too good with their current duration (3 minutes t___t) and energycost.
Psitorm was effective and will most certainly not be replaced by the collossus for the simple reason as before with the templar/rvr choice in the original starcraft that templars are cheaper, bring a different kind of bang for their buck, bring more utility to the table and most important of all their tech is straight in line with the zealot charge upgrade and stalker blink upgrade. Plus collossi are very very expensive and take a long ass time to build (75 sec). So unless you can afford dual tech it's a very tough tradeoff and I expect to see more nullifier/templar support builds then collossi builds. All at least seen from the perspective of the latest build we played at WWI.
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
Oh little p.s. there is nothing wrong with EMP on the ghost. It's a vulnerable expensive unit, it should bring something to the table which it's currently doing. I have absolutely no beef with this unit at all.
The new gas costs and macro-techniques are probably to experiment with the impact of variable and certain resource management on gameflow.
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 05 2008 00:00 MrRammstein wrote:Nyovne I found this thing about shields and stuff in batch 25" How will damage against Protoss Shields be calculated with the new damage bonus system?Protoss shields will take up the characteristics of their normal armor type. For example, if a Protoss Zealot with light armor gets shot by a Terran Ghost with plus light armor damage, the Zealots shields will also take that light armor bonus damage. On the same note, if a Protoss Colossus were to be hit by a Protoss Stalker with bonus damage towards armored unit, the shields would also take that additional damage. " Well, better ask them tho...
Thanks! No idea if that is still going but I guess so. My prejudices blinded me from actually remembering and checking this out.
Reactor/Techlab techniques are btw a kickass mechanic for terran imho. I loved it and it made for some good choices what to do with what and it brought some flow into your buildorder management with the new income/resource return and still allowed you to effectively spend all your cash.
|
If you burrow a bunch of units in one spot, and you unburrow them, do they sort themselves out better? Or do you have to wait 5 secs before they stop moving like in SCBW?
|
Netherlands19137 Posts
On July 06 2008 05:21 xenero wrote:
If you burrow a bunch of units in one spot, and you unburrow them, do they sort themselves out better? Or do you have to wait 5 secs before they stop moving like in SCBW?
There is no unit "stacking" or "worker drilling" anymore in SC2. You cannot burrow units ontop of eachother and they are sorted out the second they spawn. The new pathing/clutter rules are insanely effective and make micro (if needed at all) almost an unbelievingly amount easier then in SC1.
A programer or good player will control his units at this level anyway like in SCBW but for players with less control their units will turn out to be a whole lot more efficient then before due to this.
p.s. burrow = teh s3xx0r.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
