|
Sweden33719 Posts
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=11226742562&sid=3000
What is the StarCraft II Trilogy?
The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets. StarCraft II is subtitled Wings of Liberty (working title) and will include a lengthy single-player campaign that focuses on the terrans and puts players in the role of Jim Raynor, one of the series’ main heroes. The first expansion set, Heart of the Swarm (working title), will follow later and include a single-player campaign focusing on the zerg and Kerrigan, Queen of Blades. The second expansion set, Legacy of the Void (working title), will continue the story experience with a single-player campaign centered on the protoss.
Will we still be able to play multiplayer matches of StarCraft II with all three races?
Yes! From the beginning, StarCraft II will be a fully featured multiplayer game, and all three races will be available for competitive play.
How will the expansion sets impact multiplayer gameplay?
The expansion sets will add new content to each race for use in multiplayer matches. This could include additions such as new units, abilities, and structures, along with new maps and Battle.net updates.
If I buy StarCraft II but don’t buy any of the expansion sets, will I still be able to play online?
Yes. This will work similarly to Warcraft III and the original StarCraft, which maintained separate online gaming lobbies and ladders for expansion set players and players with the base Warcraft III or StarCraft.
How long is each of the campaigns?
StarCraft II’s terran campaign will consist of approximately 26 to 30 missions, and each expansion set will include a similar number of missions. This means that the complete StarCraft II Trilogy will include as many as 90 single-player missions. This allows us to create a truly epic story experience with a great variety of unique missions and gameplay types.
Why did you decide to release each race’s campaign separately?
We’re aiming to push the boundaries of storytelling and character development in RTS games through the unique single-player campaign design of StarCraft II. Players will be able to choose their mission path and technology upgrades for their army as they advance through the campaign. In order to make these choices meaningful while creating an epic story and well-developed characters for each faction, we needed to focus on a single race for a large number of missions.
The Trilogy also allows us to create more in-game and prerendered cinematics to tell the story in between missions. There will be more interactive sets and elements for players to explore during each campaign, along with other interesting design elements to differentiate the single-player game from multiplayer matches. For example, the technology choices within the terran single-player campaign will include special upgrades and unit types that are unique to the single-player game. These could include the ability to purchase classic units such as the wraith or firebat to add to Jim Raynor’s army.
Are these three separate games? How much will all of these games cost?
The StarCraft II Trilogy will consist of the base StarCraft II game and two expansion sets. Pricing on these games hasn’t been determined at this early stage; however, we’ve always charged an appropriate price for the content the player receives, and we will continue to release high-quality games that offer great value.
How long will it take to ship each expansion set in the Trilogy?
We’re still focused on developing the base StarCraft II game, and all the content associated with the terran campaign, including the missions, cinematic cutscenes, and interactive sets. It’s too early to provide an estimate on how long it will take to develop each of the expansion sets in the trilogy, but as always, we will take as much time as is needed to create the best possible gaming experience with each expansion set.
|
Hopefully the second and third sets will be priced like an expansion ($25 -$30)
|
Basically this is saying that for the full multiplayer experience, you will need to buy both of the expansions.
I think people will buy them, even if they complain and say they won't even buy SC2 right now.
|
Even if the trilogy isn't as appealing as the ideal all-at-once alternative, buying all three is still more appealing than buying three shitty games made by other companies imo
|
Wings of Liberty sounds bad, hope they change the name.
On the other hand the Trilogy sounds good.
|
Oh great, now I have to buy one game three times. Starcraft I only had to buy twice.
Well, at least this is going to keep the proscene interesting what with new units/abilities coming after a year or two.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Well, to be honest, the more I hear about it, the more I like it.
Why?
First of all, I like well-made campaigns. Focusing on one race at a time will make it very deep and provide an immersion. That's point number one and it's quite important.
But even more important is the multiplayer state-of-art. The thing is, I don't like the way things are in SC2 now and it will hardly change. Yes, Blizzard is experimenting and doing some weird stuff, but I've completely lost faith that they will be able to release a competetive product. Have I lost faith in Blizzard? No. I've just come to realize that there is no development model that can produce SC 1.14 right away. Before you glorify SC, try to recall how bad it was (competetive-wise and judged by nowadays' standards) when it was 1.00. I'd even take the responsibility to state that SC was trash before it's expansion came out. Imagine SC without medics, without lurkers, DT's and corsairs, without ultra upgrades and with 150/50 dragoons. It's trash, it's completely different from what we're used to watch and love. Even after that it took many months to release 1.08 that started things running.
So the point is that we won't get a SC-killer at release no matter how hard Blizz tries. Fine-tuning doesn't even start before a public beta and even then you probably need about a year of a full-scale ladder to make conclusions on what to change and how. Patches are hardly a solution, as it's not usual to add content with them (sometimes there's a clear gap and you just need to push in a new unit to fix a race) and they don't provide complete overhauls.
Blizzard needs to research the game well enough to make it good. The only way to do that is to release it. I'm not saying that they should rush the release, no, they should do as much as possible, but not more than that =) Planning expansions is a good practice here, it makes an excellent ground for data collection.
|
9070 Posts
well...90 missions sounds epic,but the fact that I'll have to wait like 2-3 years to play the toss expansion- not at all.
|
On October 15 2008 15:37 disciple wrote:
well...90 missions sounds epic,but the fact that I'll have to wait like 2-3 years to play the toss expansion- not at all.
It's either wait 2 or 3 years for the protoss campaign or wait 1-2 more years before SC II comes out. I rather have the game out first.
|
The only con I can think of is the overabundance of Terran players we'll see in multiplayer until the expansions are released.
|
I hope there are a lot more prerendered cinematics. I found wc3's cinematic to be high quality, but not enough compared to SC. In this case, I rather have quantity over quality regarding cinematics. The later stage WC3 cinematics weren't as interesting anyways.
|
Hopefully this will help people to stop whining about things they have been misinformed about.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
I would imagine each expansion at 39.99
|
I love this idea as a gamer (and a fan of the story) and do not mind the pricing or timing issues that may arise.
From an e-sports spectator though, I'm a little worried about the game's early success. The splitting of the single-player content is irrelevant to my concerns; the very fact that there will be two expansions that alter multiplayer content, separated by as much as 6-12 months means the game will have a difficult time establishing an e-sports scene until the final pack is out. Players will be able to develop mechanics and core competencies from the first 2 parts, but they won't be able to reach the true top tiers until the units stop changing on them. If any type of pro-scene pops up quickly as a result of SC2's expectations (especially if Korea establishes the game as its new archetype e-sport early), there will be lull periods around each of these expansion releases where every player is forced to retool their game and learn new units as best they can. This concern is only short-term though, and who knows, maybe it means Starcraft 1 will remain the dominant force until the game reaches its final stage.
Which actually brings up maybe an even more important point. This may prove to be a fantastic move for e-sports in the long run. Because expansions allow Blizzard to alter content a lot more than patches (new units, mechanics, etc.) this basically means that they get to have two practice runs and massive amounts of what is essentially beta testing to get the balance just right. This makes me so much less worried about the viability of the game as an e-sport at launch, because it means the best gamers in the world will have tons of time with the game and will be able to figure out what works and what doesn't.
|
three games.. ffs.. bye bye
|
I'm concerned about the fact that I have to pump 120-150 euros in one game. On the other hand I'll probably spend hundreds of hours on this game so it'll still be a great deal.
|
On October 15 2008 16:47 geno wrote:
From an e-sports spectator though, I'm a little worried about the game's early success. The splitting of the single-player content is irrelevant to my concerns; the very fact that there will be two expansions that alter multiplayer content, separated by as much as 6-12 months means the game will have a difficult time establishing an e-sports scene until the final pack is out. Players will be able to develop mechanics and core competencies from the first 2 parts, but they won't be able to reach the true top tiers until the units stop changing on them. If any type of pro-scene pops up quickly as a result of SC2's expectations (especially if Korea establishes the game as its new archetype e-sport early), there will be lull periods around each of these expansion releases where every player is forced to retool their game and learn new units as best they can. This concern is only short-term though, and who knows, maybe it means Starcraft 1 will remain the dominant force until the game reaches its final stage.
Somehow I doubt that the esports scene will actually adopt SC2 until all the units are out (unless perhaps the pros would be allowed greater access to protoss/zerg units beforehand). It does not make sense for people who play the game at a high level to devote even 6 months to learning the ins and outs of one game, only to have more tacked on after another 6 months. Instead, they may experiment on the side, but the vast majority of competition will be SC1 until they work out the first huge wave imbalances that are sure to arise, because having official tournaments and leagues determined on a buggy game will only lead to unhappiness everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there were early tournaments just for fun - but the OSL/MSL/PL stuff can't possible switch over on release.
Which actually brings up maybe an even more important point. This may prove to be a fantastic move for e-sports in the long run. Because expansions allow Blizzard to alter content a lot more than patches (new units, mechanics, etc.) this basically means that they get to have two practice runs and massive amounts of what is essentially beta testing to get the balance just right. This makes me so much less worried about the viability of the game as an e-sport at launch, because it means the best gamers in the world will have tons of time with the game and will be able to figure out what works and what doesn't.
Thus, I totally agree that this extended period is awesome for esports in general. When SC2 hits the progaming scene, everyone will be ready for it and the games will be at a high level.
Edit: Well the good thing about waiting 2 years to get to SC2 is that Boxer will have plenty of OSLs to get back into shape and bring home that golden mouse!
|
It's making alot more sense blizzard calling them expansion packs. A third expansion pack should allow even tighter tuning of multiplayer. That is unless they run out of ideas and shove some OP unit in there just because they feel they have to.
Does anyone know the current unit count by the way is it more or less than BW?
|
Basically just buy 1 game, with just 1 campaign. or 1/3 of whats there.
and if this is like WoW, a expansion would cost 39.99 at start.
|
does anyone know the answer to this question:
does game 3 requires both games 1+2? or is only game 1 necessary
|
Donno why everyone is bitching.
Imagine if blizzard announce another expansion pack to Starcraft 1. Adding new multiplayer units, new campaign etc. I very much doubt people would be all like, "WAAHH I DONT WANNA PAY FOR 3 GAMES TO PLAY STARCRAFT". I think people would be all over it like its christmas.
Its the same thing here. Blizzard are letting you know in advance that they plan on making 2 expansion packs for SC2. Only downside is that Im a zerg player and I would like to play the zerg campaign  . Still, doesnt suck for me as much as the protoss players 
|
Yeah I don't get what is wrong with a lot of you this is a great idea
|
Australia3818 Posts
Blizzard is just doing this to get more revenue and profit!
omfg....
|
so there is going to be 4 "b.nets"
SC with no expansion
SC with 1 expansion (part 1)
SC with 1 expansion (part 2)
SC with 2 expansion
At least if you hack, you have to get few extra keys to play full multiplayer (if you get banned that is). Which makes me happy when there is huge ban reported 
|
I don't get it. I'm not against the trilogy concept, but there's something wrong with their reasoning. When SC II was announced may 2007, we kept hearing that they would keep about the same number of units that were present in brood war, with each new unit being a replacement for an old one. Now if the game would get 1 expansion, with maybe each faction getting 2 more units, then we already have more units to each faction than in brood war, possibly clouding a particular unit's role and having a couple of superfluous units. With two expansions, we would get even more units. Imagine a faction in brood war with +4 units; that's just too much.
|
Your math is weird, Too_MuchZerg. There will be 3 ladders: SC2 Original (T), SC2 First Expansion (Z) and SC2 Second Expansion (P). If you want to count SC1 ladders you add two more, so you either have 3 ladders or 5 ladders. How did you come up with 4?
It doesn't really matter, as pretty much anyone competent will be playing the latest ladder anyway.
|
On October 15 2008 21:07 Doctorasul wrote:
Your math is weird, Too_MuchZerg. There will be 3 ladders: SC2 Original (T), SC2 First Expansion (Z) and SC2 Second Expansion (P). If you want to count SC1 ladders you add two more, so you either have 3 ladders or 5 ladders. How did you come up with 4?
It doesn't really matter, as pretty much anyone competent will be playing the latest ladder anyway.
Easy, I dont buy first expansion instead of 1 get 2nd expansion.
SC2 (no expansion)
SC2 expansion pack vol 1
SC2 expansion pack vol 2
SC2 with both expansion
how hard I count its still 4 ladders.
e: of course we are talking about SC2 all the time (don't know why you went SC1)
|
On October 15 2008 21:07 Doctorasul wrote:
How did you come up with 4?
T
TZ
TP
TZP
However, I think P is going to require Z, so then it would be 3.
|
They can always replace units in the expansion that are kinda crappy. Wouldnt it be nice if there was another expansion that replaced Valks and Devourers and gave us something actually useful.
|
This sounds awesome.
I can't wait, I love the wait for expansion packs, and 2 just adds to that. Just makes you want to play the game even more.
I think it's funny how most people now decide "They're going to make me pay 3 times, I'm not playing." when in all honesty; I would much rather pay for one game and two expansions (Expansion costs are generally cheaper than base games), than pay for several games over the same period of time that cost more in total, and probably don't keep me satisfied nearly as long. (I'm especially looking forward to SC2 because no games on any platform deliver anymore; they're all too short, overrated, just flat out suck, or are too easy. So maybe SC2 will offer that extra depth that's been lacking in gaming lately.)
|
Well, if the storyline for each pack is epic (as claimed), then I wouldn't mind buying the whole trilogy. I just hope it doesn't turn out like another Heroes of Might and Magic 4.
|
it'll probably cost the same amount as the WoW expansions.
(sc2 expansions)
|
On October 15 2008 22:34 meegrean wrote:
Well, if the storyline for each pack is epic (as claimed), then I wouldn't mind buying the whole trilogy. I just hope it doesn't turn out like another Heroes of Might and Magic 4.
what happened with HOMM4? i stopped at 3
|
On October 15 2008 21:13 Too_MuchZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2008 21:07 Doctorasul wrote:
Your math is weird, Too_MuchZerg. There will be 3 ladders: SC2 Original (T), SC2 First Expansion (Z) and SC2 Second Expansion (P). If you want to count SC1 ladders you add two more, so you either have 3 ladders or 5 ladders. How did you come up with 4?
It doesn't really matter, as pretty much anyone competent will be playing the latest ladder anyway. Easy, I dont buy first expansion instead of 1 get 2nd expansion. SC2 (no expansion) SC2 expansion pack vol 1 SC2 expansion pack vol 2 SC2 with both expansion how hard I count its still 4 ladders. e: of course we are talking about SC2 all the time (don't know why you went SC1)
I'm not sure if they said so explicitly, but it's pretty clear you'll need to install the first expansion before installing the second, it's common sense.
|
in Age of Empires III, you didnt have to install the first expansion to install the second expansion
edit - but, like >90% of players had both installed anyways
|
On October 16 2008 00:20 Doctorasul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2008 21:13 Too_MuchZerg wrote:On October 15 2008 21:07 Doctorasul wrote:
Your math is weird, Too_MuchZerg. There will be 3 ladders: SC2 Original (T), SC2 First Expansion (Z) and SC2 Second Expansion (P). If you want to count SC1 ladders you add two more, so you either have 3 ladders or 5 ladders. How did you come up with 4?
It doesn't really matter, as pretty much anyone competent will be playing the latest ladder anyway. Easy, I dont buy first expansion instead of 1 get 2nd expansion. SC2 (no expansion) SC2 expansion pack vol 1 SC2 expansion pack vol 2 SC2 with both expansion how hard I count its still 4 ladders. e: of course we are talking about SC2 all the time (don't know why you went SC1) I'm not sure if they said so explicitly, but it's pretty clear you'll need to install the first expansion before installing the second, it's common sense.
There are people who will get Terran campaing and then skip Zerg to just get protoss campaign and this needs multiplayer ladder too
|
So... ¿They are gonna have 3 or 4 different ladders?, ¿isnt that spliting the community?, the same damn reason why they refused to put a hardcore mode in the game (SBS, no automine, etc), although most people will just buy all three games... But even so, it seems stupid.
The main issue here is the price, if they sell those two expansion at the same price as the original game just because it has 30 more stupid missions for the single player, and therefore it should cost the same, then its gonna be a big ripoff.
|
On October 15 2008 23:07 KOFgokuon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2008 22:34 meegrean wrote:
Well, if the storyline for each pack is epic (as claimed), then I wouldn't mind buying the whole trilogy. I just hope it doesn't turn out like another Heroes of Might and Magic 4. what happened with HOMM4? i stopped at 3
Stopping at 3 was probably the best gaming decision you ever made. 4 was complete shit. I loved 1, 2 and 3, but 4 was just a disaster. They tried to re-imagine the entire game and it just didnt work out. Then they released two shitty expansions.
|
I think ladders will naturally die as SC2 with no expansions will keep some popularity and SC2 with all expansion packs will win other 2 packs.
If named ladders 1) SC2 no expansion packs 2) SC2 with Z expansion 3) SC2 with P expansion 4) SC2 with both expansion packs
when 3 is released, ladder 1 will continue but loses some popularity, but ladder 2 will have major hit as people will move to ladder 3 and 4 (mainly 4). 3 been mainly who doesn't have 2 option.
|
It's not like you have to pay for all whatever it will cost at one time. How hard is it to save $100++ over the course of 2-3 years?
Anyways, what jumped out to me even more, was how Protoss was the last race. Given the precedents of SC and BW, the last race is always the race that "wins." I know this is just speculation, but I guess Protoss will eventually win this whole thing. I know this forum is based mostly around the competitiveness of SC as opposed to the lore, but I found that to be most interesting.
|
On October 16 2008 01:31 TheosEx wrote:
It's not like you have to pay for all whatever it will cost at one time. How hard is it to save $100++ over the course of 2-3 years?
Anyways, what jumped out to me even more, was how Protoss was the last race. Given the precedents of SC and BW, the last race is always the race that "wins." I know this is just speculation, but I guess Protoss will eventually win this whole thing. I know this forum is based mostly around the competitiveness of SC as opposed to the lore, but I found that to be most interesting.
maybe they will mess things up (Blizzard) so it won't be that obvious. 
|
3 or 4 separate ladders and communities = the suck
|
On October 16 2008 01:31 TheosEx wrote:
Anyways, what jumped out to me even more, was how Protoss was the last race. Given the precedents of SC and BW, the last race is always the race that "wins." I know this is just speculation, but I guess Protoss will eventually win this whole thing. I know this forum is based mostly around the competitiveness of SC as opposed to the lore, but I found that to be most interesting.
Another very interesting thing is that you will not beat/cleanse Kerrigan in the Raynor missions since she is the focus of the second campaign.
Also it is possible that protoss do not win at all, just that they are able to restore status quo after kerrigan pwnage in campaign 2. That is at least how the warcraft campaigns ends, the nelf campaign ends with you thwarting the demons tries to destroy the world of azeroth, and the end of TFT ends with you barely rescuing the lich king from getting destroyed.
At least this are my estimates that the campaigns are about:
Raynor: He takes control over most of the human settlements.
Zerg: They almost conquers the whole sector and pwns all resistance.
Protoss: Is about surviving the zerg, after a few missions Duran realizes his plan and unleashes the new cross breed driving the zerg back. In the middle of this you as the protoss learns of the ultimate weapon which would restore balance and it all ends in a climax timer based defense mission a la world tree of wc3 with zerg/cross breeds attacking from one side each and you get help from all of the allies you gathered up from the diplomatic campaign.
On October 16 2008 02:01 blabber wrote:
3 or 4 separate ladders and communities = the suck
It is not like regular wc or sc are that popular, and those who buys one expansion will most likely also buy the other if they are still active.
|
On October 16 2008 01:04 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2008 23:07 KOFgokuon wrote:On October 15 2008 22:34 meegrean wrote:
Well, if the storyline for each pack is epic (as claimed), then I wouldn't mind buying the whole trilogy. I just hope it doesn't turn out like another Heroes of Might and Magic 4. what happened with HOMM4? i stopped at 3 Stopping at 3 was probably the best gaming decision you ever made. 4 was complete shit. I loved 1, 2 and 3, but 4 was just a disaster. They tried to re-imagine the entire game and it just didnt work out. Then they released two shitty expansions.
Four was horrid, yes, but 5 is actually pretty awesome, since they basically scrapped everything 'innovative' about 4 and expanded on the good bits from 2 and 3. Pretty epic gameplay and art, although the story is still as bland as it always has been.
|
I rather have pay to play than paying 3 times as much so I can get 90 missions that took a skilled and expensive to operate team 3 years to make.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 16 2008 00:51 CrimsonLotus wrote:
So... ¿They are gonna have 3 or 4 different ladders?, ¿isnt that spliting the community?, the same damn reason why they refused to put a hardcore mode in the game (SBS, no automine, etc), although most people will just buy all three games... But even so, it seems stupid.
The main issue here is the price, if they sell those two expansion at the same price as the original game just because it has 30 more stupid missions for the single player, and therefore it should cost the same, then its gonna be a big ripoff.
Having 2 different UI modes is not feasible primarily for reasons other than this (ie balancing the game for both UI modes at once..), and they have never said this is their reason either.
Their "less buckets is better" reasoning applied to AMM primarily, which is something that would be affected by having two different UIs.
|
On October 16 2008 01:31 TheosEx wrote:
It's not like you have to pay for all whatever it will cost at one time. How hard is it to save $100++ over the course of 2-3 years?
Anyways, what jumped out to me even more, was how Protoss was the last race. Given the precedents of SC and BW, the last race is always the race that "wins." I know this is just speculation, but I guess Protoss will eventually win this whole thing. I know this forum is based mostly around the competitiveness of SC as opposed to the lore, but I found that to be most interesting.
I don't know if Protoss really won Original SC. I mean, look at the situation in their first mission of BW. It really felt to me like Terrans were the wons who "won" Original, though I think they supposedly lost like 8 of their 13 colonies?
I feel like multiple expansions isn't a bad thing at all as long as Blizzard's new units aren't too imbalanced. If you look at BW, most of the new units seem to have been inserted to counter the most imbalanced unit of Original: the mutalisk. I'm hoping that SC2 expansions will do the same sort of thing.
|
What exactly are people complaining about? Almost all RTS releasing today and even years ago almost always guarantee an expansion. Just that this time they told us how many expansions there will be and what will be in them. Expansions are almost required in RTS these days, Blizz is just telling us what will be in them and announce them ahead of time.
|
Korea (South)3086 Posts
I dun like the fact that we don't get the whole package with the first game in the multiplayer. It feels like we're being screwed over. One full campaign out of the 3 and an incomplete multiplayer. I mean I don't know if they're planning to design more new units and add it every new additional expansion, but I thought we get the FULL multiplayer experience right off the first game...
|
On October 16 2008 03:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2008 00:51 CrimsonLotus wrote:
So... ¿They are gonna have 3 or 4 different ladders?, ¿isnt that spliting the community?, the same damn reason why they refused to put a hardcore mode in the game (SBS, no automine, etc), although most people will just buy all three games... But even so, it seems stupid.
The main issue here is the price, if they sell those two expansion at the same price as the original game just because it has 30 more stupid missions for the single player, and therefore it should cost the same, then its gonna be a big ripoff. Having 2 different UI modes is not feasible primarily for reasons other than this (ie balancing the game for both UI modes at once..), and they have never said this is their reason either.
Actually, I'd think it would be even more difficult to balance the game across different expansions than it would across multiple UI modes. I'm no expert, but from what I've heard vanilla isn't remotely close to being balanced anymore (if it ever was).
|
On October 16 2008 03:23 SilveR.sKy)ChoseN wrote:
I dun like the fact that we don't get the whole package with the first game in the multiplayer. It feels like we're being screwed over. One full campaign out of the 3 and an incomplete multiplayer. I mean I don't know if they're planning to design more new units and add it every new additional expansion, but I thought we get the FULL multiplayer experience right off the first game...
It is the FULL multiplayer experience of SC2.
Then they will add on top of it later with expansions, just like every other game released during the past 10 years.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 16 2008 03:36 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2008 03:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 16 2008 00:51 CrimsonLotus wrote:
So... ¿They are gonna have 3 or 4 different ladders?, ¿isnt that spliting the community?, the same damn reason why they refused to put a hardcore mode in the game (SBS, no automine, etc), although most people will just buy all three games... But even so, it seems stupid.
The main issue here is the price, if they sell those two expansion at the same price as the original game just because it has 30 more stupid missions for the single player, and therefore it should cost the same, then its gonna be a big ripoff. Having 2 different UI modes is not feasible primarily for reasons other than this (ie balancing the game for both UI modes at once..), and they have never said this is their reason either. Actually, I'd think it would be even more difficult to balance the game across different expansions than it would across multiple UI modes. I'm no expert, but from what I've heard vanilla isn't remotely close to being balanced anymore (if it ever was).
A balance patch for expansion pack 1 doesnt have to apply to the original game, so as long as the original game is REASONABLY playable by the time the first expansion rolls out, it's gonna work out fine.
Personally, as long as the most recent expansion is balanced I'm content ;p
|
On October 16 2008 03:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2008 03:36 LonelyMargarita wrote:On October 16 2008 03:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 16 2008 00:51 CrimsonLotus wrote:
So... ¿They are gonna have 3 or 4 different ladders?, ¿isnt that spliting the community?, the same damn reason why they refused to put a hardcore mode in the game (SBS, no automine, etc), although most people will just buy all three games... But even so, it seems stupid.
The main issue here is the price, if they sell those two expansion at the same price as the original game just because it has 30 more stupid missions for the single player, and therefore it should cost the same, then its gonna be a big ripoff. Having 2 different UI modes is not feasible primarily for reasons other than this (ie balancing the game for both UI modes at once..), and they have never said this is their reason either. Actually, I'd think it would be even more difficult to balance the game across different expansions than it would across multiple UI modes. I'm no expert, but from what I've heard vanilla isn't remotely close to being balanced anymore (if it ever was). A balance patch for expansion pack 1 doesnt have to apply to the original game, so as long as the original game is REASONABLY playable by the time the first expansion rolls out, it's gonna work out fine. Personally, as long as the most recent expansion is balanced I'm content ;p
Now that I think of it, with all the rumored power of the campaign editor, it could be trivial to save a set of build times/unit stats/attributes and quickly transfer it to any UMS map. In this case, KeSPA could easily make their own "patches" as a standard set of these settings to be used in any map for sanctioned play. This would allow balance across a different UI mode that would be used for pro games. I guess Blizzard still need not necessarily implement the "pro" UI mode in their game, as it would also probably be customizable into UMS maps. However, it would be much more likely to catch on if they did.
...
And with three (or four) different online modes, it will probably be even worse than with vanilla vs brood war in their neglect for the older versions. I doubt they will do anything to balance previous versions once each new expansion comes out. It may hurt the community to have 3 games to buy to play the real thing as well, but if CD keys work the same perhaps casual players will still be able to just pirate the expansions after buying the initial game. Otherwise, a lot of people are never going to become devoted enough to play the final version if it's 100 bucks beyond the initial game.
|
On October 16 2008 03:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2008 03:48 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 16 2008 03:36 LonelyMargarita wrote:On October 16 2008 03:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:On October 16 2008 00:51 CrimsonLotus wrote:
So... ¿They are gonna have 3 or 4 different ladders?, ¿isnt that spliting the community?, the same damn reason why they refused to put a hardcore mode in the game (SBS, no automine, etc), although most people will just buy all three games... But even so, it seems stupid.
The main issue here is the price, if they sell those two expansion at the same price as the original game just because it has 30 more stupid missions for the single player, and therefore it should cost the same, then its gonna be a big ripoff. Having 2 different UI modes is not feasible primarily for reasons other than this (ie balancing the game for both UI modes at once..), and they have never said this is their reason either. Actually, I'd think it would be even more difficult to balance the game across different expansions than it would across multiple UI modes. I'm no expert, but from what I've heard vanilla isn't remotely close to being balanced anymore (if it ever was). A balance patch for expansion pack 1 doesnt have to apply to the original game, so as long as the original game is REASONABLY playable by the time the first expansion rolls out, it's gonna work out fine. Personally, as long as the most recent expansion is balanced I'm content ;p Now that I think of it, with all the rumored power of the campaign editor, it could be trivial to save a set of build times/unit stats/attributes and quickly transfer it to any UMS map. In this case, KeSPA could easily make their own "patches" as a standard set of these settings to be used in any map for sanctioned play. This would allow balance across a different UI mode that would be used for pro games. I guess Blizzard still need not necessarily implement the "pro" UI mode in their game, as it would also probably be customizable into UMS maps. However, it would be much more likely to catch on if they did. ... And with three (or four) different online modes, it will probably be even worse than with vanilla vs brood war in their neglect for the older versions. I doubt they will do anything to balance previous versions once each new expansion comes out. It may hurt the community to have 3 games to buy to play the real thing as well, but if CD keys work the same perhaps casual players will still be able to just pirate the expansions after buying the initial game. Otherwise, a lot of people are never going to become devoted enough to play the final version if it's 100 bucks beyond the initial game.
They balanced WC3 RoC after they released TFT though, they applied most of the updates and so on.
And getting the community to balance it wont really work, at least it haven't worked yet in any game I have seen. You need one or a few persons who knows exactly what they are doing and them get them to do it right. A community would never accept such a way of balance and there would be balance threads popping up like mbs threads did here but for every little unit and it would just create a huge mess.
So you need a ruler with an iron fist which people have a natural inclination to follow (Blizzard official patches) or anarchy will come. Even if someone else takes up the job and people trust him I still trust Blizzard more than anyone else to give balanced updates since they are still unbeaten in that regard in the RTS world. Yes, wc3 is very balanced compared to the competition.
|
Don't forget that this is the age of DLC. They might offer a $15 DLC to get the new online units for the base game without the campaign, for people who don't want to buy the new campaigns. If they do, then you would end up paying a total more similar to SC + BW to get the full SC2 multiplayer.
|
On October 16 2008 02:21 Klockan3 wrote:
Another very interesting thing is that you will not beat/cleanse Kerrigan in the Raynor missions since she is the focus of the second campaign.
Also it is possible that protoss do not win at all, just that they are able to restore status quo after kerrigan pwnage in campaign 2. That is at least how the warcraft campaigns ends, the nelf campaign ends with you thwarting the demons tries to destroy the world of azeroth, and the end of TFT ends with you barely rescuing the lich king from getting destroyed.
At least this are my estimates that the campaigns are about:
Raynor: He takes control over most of the human settlements.
Zerg: They almost conquers the whole sector and pwns all resistance.
Protoss: Is about surviving the zerg, after a few missions Duran realizes his plan and unleashes the new cross breed driving the zerg back. In the middle of this you as the protoss learns of the ultimate weapon which would restore balance and it all ends in a climax timer based defense mission a la world tree of wc3 with zerg/cross breeds attacking from one side each and you get help from all of the allies you gathered up from the diplomatic campaign.
I thought they were just different points of view of the same overarching story? Or that's what was mentioned at blizzcon...
|
On October 16 2008 03:00 BlackStar wrote:
I rather have pay to play than paying 3 times as much so I can get 90 missions that took a skilled and expensive to operate team 3 years to make.
LOLWUT?!
$90 Once & Free Battle.net
OR
$10 per month for 48 months (this is low-balling at 4 years of play) = $480
Idk man think about what you're saying....
|
On October 15 2008 15:04 holy_war wrote:
Hopefully the second and third sets will be priced like an expansion ($25 -$30)
Pfft, try $10. The only way I'm going to buy the expansions is if the story is REALLY epic, <$20 or a pack for all three for <$50. No way I'm paying $100, 50 of which just for the campaign.
EDIT: Oh... I just read that the multiplayer will be like... BW -> SC Vanilla. Damn, now I can't resist! Here goes spending my money when it comes out.
|
On October 16 2008 06:09 Archaic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2008 15:04 holy_war wrote:
Hopefully the second and third sets will be priced like an expansion ($25 -$30) Pfft, try $10. The only way I'm going to buy the expansions is if the story is REALLY epic, <$20 or a pack for all three for <$50. No way I'm paying $100, 50 of which just for the campaign. EDIT: Oh... I just read that the multiplayer will be like... BW -> SC Vanilla. Damn, now I can't resist! Here goes spending my money when it comes out.
lol yes you will.
YES posT # 50!
|
On October 15 2008 15:44 holy_war wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2008 15:37 disciple wrote:
well...90 missions sounds epic,but the fact that I'll have to wait like 2-3 years to play the toss expansion- not at all. It's either wait 2 or 3 years for the protoss campaign or wait 1-2 more years before SC II comes out. I rather have the game out first.
Sounds fine to me, I'm a T player now and I plan to continue to play T in SC2 so when the expansions come out I might have an advantage already ;D
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
I don't get why people are complaining. You get sc2 released with a full campaign from Terran's pov with fully implemented MP. Then an expansion that includes another full campaign for Z's pov as well as additions to multiplayer. Then a 2nd expansion set for P.
How can you put these three together and just say "SC2"? It's sc2 with 2 expansions and thus should be priced as such.
And seriously, $50 per year is NOT a lot of money to spend...
And did you guys really think that sc2 will not have any expansions? It was bound to have at least 1. I think getting sc2 out significantly sooner is more than worth the extra $50 or w/e that I'll be paying for the 2nd expansion. I'd seriously pay $100 if I Blizzard released sc2 tonight.
|
Yes it's kind of annoying that we are going to have to wait even more years to get the whole SC2 Story line, but other than that there is no real problem. Trying to make small possible problems sound large to discourage Blizz from taking this approach isn't going to work. As said by someone else, I'd rather get SC2 early next year than the full version some time in 2010.
My biggest complaint is I think they started talking about SC2 far too early. I'd been waiting long enough when the announcement was made I didn't expect to wait another 2 years!
|
On October 16 2008 17:40 WolfStar wrote:
Yes it's kind of annoying that we are going to have to wait even more years to get the whole SC2 Story line, but other than that there is no real problem. Trying to make small possible problems sound large to discourage Blizz from taking this approach isn't going to work. As said by someone else, I'd rather get SC2 early next year than the full version some time in 2010.
My biggest complaint is I think they started talking about SC2 far too early. I'd been waiting long enough when the announcement was made I didn't expect to wait another 2 years!
They probably thought they could finish it for 2009, but we know Blizzard usually releases at least 2 years after they announce a game.
|
On October 15 2008 15:05 Fontong wrote:
Basically this is saying that for the full multiplayer experience, you will need to buy both of the expansions.
I think people will buy them, even if they complain and say they won't even buy SC2 right now.
Nah dude, i watched the video of the guy annoucing this, they are realsing the first single player, terran one with fully working multiplayer, and the next 3 single players dont do shit to multiplayer
|
On October 16 2008 18:15 Scaramanga wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2008 15:05 Fontong wrote:
Basically this is saying that for the full multiplayer experience, you will need to buy both of the expansions.
I think people will buy them, even if they complain and say they won't even buy SC2 right now. Nah dude, i watched the video of the guy annoucing this, they are realsing the first single player, terran one with fully working multiplayer, and the next 3 single players dont do shit to multiplayer
Nah dude, Dustin Browder said every expansion pack will add units to multiplayer.
http://www.mymym.com/en/coverage/529/18.html - listen from minute 8 to the end.
|
On October 16 2008 05:05 d.arkive wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2008 02:21 Klockan3 wrote:
Another very interesting thing is that you will not beat/cleanse Kerrigan in the Raynor missions since she is the focus of the second campaign.
Also it is possible that protoss do not win at all, just that they are able to restore status quo after kerrigan pwnage in campaign 2. That is at least how the warcraft campaigns ends, the nelf campaign ends with you thwarting the demons tries to destroy the world of azeroth, and the end of TFT ends with you barely rescuing the lich king from getting destroyed.
At least this are my estimates that the campaigns are about:
Raynor: He takes control over most of the human settlements.
Zerg: They almost conquers the whole sector and pwns all resistance.
Protoss: Is about surviving the zerg, after a few missions Duran realizes his plan and unleashes the new cross breed driving the zerg back. In the middle of this you as the protoss learns of the ultimate weapon which would restore balance and it all ends in a climax timer based defense mission a la world tree of wc3 with zerg/cross breeds attacking from one side each and you get help from all of the allies you gathered up from the diplomatic campaign. I thought they were just different points of view of the same overarching story? Or that's what was mentioned at blizzcon...
They specifically said that they would be consecutive, I do not know were that other rumor comes from that they are only different points of views on the same story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
