EPTHonestly I miss the Firebat. I think they ought to replace the Reaper's silly Halo dual wielding pistols (I guess in SC1 you had guys with rifles shooting down gigantic space cruisers...and hydras squirting on tanks) with the Firebat's flamethrowers, but anyway as that's out of the question would units like the Firebat, and "neutral" flavor units, be in the game at all? Has anything been said or shown?
"Neutral" Units?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
kingcomrade
United States115 Posts
Honestly I miss the Firebat. I think they ought to replace the Reaper's silly Halo dual wielding pistols (I guess in SC1 you had guys with rifles shooting down gigantic space cruisers...and hydras squirting on tanks) with the Firebat's flamethrowers, but anyway as that's out of the question would units like the Firebat, and "neutral" flavor units, be in the game at all? Has anything been said or shown? | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66161 Posts
And to normal games, no. We don't want another wc3 | ||
|
kingcomrade
United States115 Posts
| ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
As for the game, I'm sure the campaign will include usage of scenario-dependant neutral 'mercenary' units and characters, as well as random 'creep' camps, but since I'm pretty sure that even while the editor does have the possibility to add experience gain to hero-tagged units, this won't be used in the single player campaign, so I wouldn't be expecting WC3-esque creeping or anything similar to that. | ||
|
konadora
Singapore66161 Posts
| ||
|
kingcomrade
United States115 Posts
'm pretty sure they've already stated that all the SC:BW units will be present in the editor of SC2, as well as other single-player only-units and other discarded units. Very cool, thanks. hence it won't be in normal games I wasn't asking about normal games | ||
|
Suc
Australia1569 Posts
And I have no doubt that these can be used in the map editor for custom games. | ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
On June 27 2009 17:34 kingcomrade wrote: Honestly I miss the Firebat. I think they ought to replace the Reaper's silly Halo dual wielding pistols ... with the Firebat's flamethrowers I'd just have Marauders swap weapons with Hellions. Then again, I'm a n00b and wouldn't know balance if it hit me in the face.  | ||
|
ToT)OjKa(
Korea (South)2437 Posts
| ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
| ||
|
Darcey
Sweden35 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
There's really nothing wrong with the option to have neutral units in a map btw, you don't have to use it, up to the map maker really. Armies of Exigo had a few maps with neutral units blocking expos / merc camps (majority of maps were just like regular BW maps, but nothing wrong with variety). | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
| ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
They probably won't be implemented in Blizzard normal maps, but user mapmakers probably will implement them after the game is out for a while. | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
| ||
|
Toxiferous
United States388 Posts
as for models it won't be near as much as War3 I don't think but the map editor is supposed to be superior in every way. Besides, people always imported their own models to War3 maps too | ||
|
ix
United Kingdom184 Posts
There's really nothing wrong with the option to have neutral units in a map btw, you don't have to use it, up to the map maker really. It's a bit of a nightmare to balance with all the racial differences when applied to killing neutral creatures and potential to abuse AI. Multiplayer games should be just that, neutral units are a gimmick and their role is more effectively achieved by 0 value mineral patches and neutral buildings that must be destroyed. | ||
|
spkim1
Canada286 Posts
| ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
| ||
|
SirNeb
United States243 Posts
| ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
| ||
|
FaTe)SoL
Canada110 Posts
Crazy Bob's Bazaar *shoots himself* | ||
|
Psyonic_Reaver
United States4336 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
On June 27 2009 23:50 Chodorkovskiy wrote: I think the reason creeps are so annoying to BW fans is that they introduce an RPG-esque element into the game, whilst simultaneously distracting you from the other player. How much excitement could a squad of Tauren Marines add to a Jaedong vs Hwasin blood fest? "Hwasin's vultures make it past the hydra grouping, now it's just a home stretch to the drone line- oops, they're taken out by creeps. Never mind." Would id be interesting from the spectators point of view? Yes. Would it be interesting from the players' point of view? No. In the situation you described Hwasin is robbed of his win. He put effort, resources, and planning into that move and he got screw over by AI controlled creeps. How is that fucking fair for him? He could have won the game with that move, or crippled Jaedong's economy even a little bit giving him the edge. That's like a "get away from loss for free" card for Jaedong. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On June 27 2009 17:47 kingcomrade wrote: Very cool, thanks. I wasn't asking about normal games Then your question is equivalent to, "Will I be able to add neutral creeps to custom maps in the map editor". I'm not 100% sure, but it's very likely you will be able to do so. The closest thing to creeps you'll get in normal multiplayer maps will be critters, such as Kakaru and Ursadon, with low health and no attacks or abilities. | ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
I'm sure they will have neutral units in the map editor but I gurantee they wont be anywhere in the normal game. They have also said they will have all the old units from the original sc/bw (goliath, firebat, etc) in the map editor but not the game. | ||
|
Shade692003
Canada702 Posts
On June 28 2009 00:45 Latham wrote: Would id be interesting from the spectators point of view? Yes. Would it be interesting from the players' point of view? No. In the situation you described Hwasin is robbed of his win. He put effort, resources, and planning into that move and he got screw over by AI controlled creeps. How is that fucking fair for him? He could have won the game with that move, or crippled Jaedong's economy even a little bit giving him the edge. That's like a "get away from loss for free" card for Jaedong. ehh... Except that never happens in War3. GJ describing a non-existent situation of War3. | ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
On June 28 2009 00:45 Latham wrote: Would id be interesting from the spectators point of view? Yes. Would it be interesting from the players' point of view? No. In the situation you described Hwasin is robbed of his win. He put effort, resources, and planning into that move and he got screw over by AI controlled creeps. How is that fucking fair for him? He could have won the game with that move, or crippled Jaedong's economy even a little bit giving him the edge. That's like a "get away from loss for free" card for Jaedong. I'm afraid your reading comprehension could use some improvement. | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On June 27 2009 17:34 kingcomrade wrote: I was wondering if there would be a bunch of extra-factional units to mess around with in custom maps, campaign, etc. Yes On June 27 2009 17:34 kingcomrade wrote: would units like the Firebat, and "neutral" flavor units, be in the game at all? Yes Please close topic. Arguments in this thread is getting pretty out of hand. | ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
On June 28 2009 00:45 Latham wrote: Would id be interesting from the spectators point of view? Yes. Would it be interesting from the players' point of view? No. In the situation you described Hwasin is robbed of his win. He put effort, resources, and planning into that move and he got screw over by AI controlled creeps. How is that fucking fair for him? He could have won the game with that move, or crippled Jaedong's economy even a little bit giving him the edge. That's like a "get away from loss for free" card for Jaedong. Uh... yes? That was my point. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Imagine a map where theres an island expansion with yellow minerals, but to get it you need to drop there and kill a powerfull neutral ultralisk, its not something that will detract you from your strategy anymore than rocks in the middle of the CC spot would. but instead of considering the possibilities, people are like "ZOMFGTWTFND WAR3 NOOBSIHT" | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
| ||
|
Kimera757
Canada129 Posts
On June 27 2009 17:34 kingcomrade wrote: I think something that added a lot of interesting flavor to War3 were all the neutral creeps Are creeps actually neutral, since they try to kill you? "Creeps" have a place in the campaign/UMS. I suspect most of them will consist of terran pirates, "lost" zerg (like those obsolete zerg on Aiur) and maybe a few "attack critters" (eg ursadons, bengalaas and scantids could plausibly be able to attack in some maps). I would suspect that "attack" scantids, for instance, would be a "clone" of the scantid unit but with different AI, so you coudl choose which to use in a scenario. (Otherwise desert maps would kind of stuck.) It doesn't matter if heroes don't gain levels in the campaign, as the "creeps" would be there for plot or flavor reasons, not to make your heroes more powerful. Honestly I miss the Firebat. I think they ought to replace the Reaper's silly Halo dual wielding pistols (I guess in SC1 you had guys with rifles shooting down gigantic space cruisers...and hydras squirting on tanks) with the Firebat's flamethrowers, but anyway as that's out of the question would units like the Firebat, and "neutral" flavor units, be in the game at all? Has anything been said or shown? They've been confirmed to be in Wings of Liberty. In the campaign, after the third mission, you have a choice of two missions to take. One of them gives firebats, and one of them gives marauders. I'm not sure if you can choose to do both missions, though, but firebats have been confirmed to be in the game multiple times. (Along with Wraiths, goliaths and vultures.) I don't know if all StarCraft I units will be in the map editor. I don't think I've actually seen Blizzard say that anywhere. Anyone have the reference for that? | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
 (I can't think of a good unique word to use for the find feature) | ||
|
Probe.
United States877 Posts
On June 28 2009 00:45 Latham wrote: Would id be interesting from the spectators point of view? Yes. Would it be interesting from the players' point of view? No. In the situation you described Hwasin is robbed of his win. He put effort, resources, and planning into that move and he got screw over by AI controlled creeps. How is that fucking fair for him? He could have won the game with that move, or crippled Jaedong's economy even a little bit giving him the edge. That's like a "get away from loss for free" card for Jaedong. I like how you took exactly what he said and re-stated exactly the same thing he wrote, as if people didn't understand his point | ||
|
isleyofthenorth
Austria894 Posts
| ||
|
zazen
Brazil695 Posts
Map makers had a lot of models to play around in WAR3 because there were 4 races and many, many neutral creeps for each one of the tilesets... SC2 has 3 races and no neutral creeps. I'm just hoping they really add a LOT of models we can choose from. | ||
|
danieldrsa
Brazil522 Posts
On June 28 2009 03:24 Tsagacity wrote: I'm like 99% sure they said all SC units are available in the map editor, but too lazy to find it in the Q&As (I can't think of a good unique word to use for the find feature)I think they said that "many units" of SC1 will be in editor, but they dont used the word "all". Not sure also, someone need to confirm this to us. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
CongoJack
Canada417 Posts
| ||
|
Shade692003
Canada702 Posts
On June 28 2009 07:55 cz wrote: Oh jesus, creeps are so f'ing stupid. Especially if there is some bonus to them. War3 is basically walking around killing comps for 20 min before one fight. Makes the game, much, much more boring to watch. You haven't watched any pro matchs I assume. That's like Starcraft is all about teching to carriers and mass them. It's just as ignorant. | ||
|
spkim1
Canada286 Posts
| ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
If you look at current metagame of BW now, they are constantly adding new terrain functions just to keep something fresh in the game so it doesn't stagnate. First we got wide ramps and bridges, Minerals blocks/hybrid maps, then we got neutral buildings/units & spells on maps, then we got upward ramps and other kinds of terrain tricks, and even neutral CC for infested in ZvP. Now imagine if SC editors allowed a cpu controlled AI in melee games. So you can throw down some units here and there. There is no doubt in my mind that pro map makers would experiment with this and we'd at least see a map trying out the concept in pro leagues. Here is an example of the use of neutral creeps: Have 3 bases in close proximity so that they would normally be very easy to take. The catch is that there is a 5-6 ghosts standing outside of the range of HQ building but guarding the minerals of that base, so that as soon as your workers come they get blasted. Since they do concussive damage; most early game units will be raped, so you must wait until mid game (goons, tanks, hydra, etc) to clear them. This is just one example, imagine if there was a big neutral force in the center of a map which opened up a huge hole into the enemy base? It would add some crazy mind games into the game. | ||
|
illu
Canada2531 Posts
Neutral hostile units or creeps, as seen in wc3, will attack any players within a certain radius, or attack any player that attacked them. Neutral friendly units or critters, as seen in wc3 as well as sc (eg. "pandabearguy"), will not actively attack any player nor defend itself. My opinion is that critters in sc was a big failure, as it served absolutely no purpose except being annoying (unless you are talking about mind-controlling it, but that's just ridiculous). For wc3, however, critters play a major role because they serve as a source of corpses for the beginning of the game and can occasionally change the flow of the game in the first a few minutes. The only reason to put in creeps in sc2 is to provide a mechanism that will allow a player to expand at a certain location only after he has accumulated certain amount of forces that would allow him to kill the creeps then expand. In that case I think they should be allowed as it gives new strategic depth into the game. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
On June 27 2009 22:22 Superiorwolf wrote: ... You can already make neutral and/or hostile and/or friendly factions in the Starcraft editor right now. Haven't you played those things called UMS? They probably won't be implemented in Blizzard normal maps, but user mapmakers probably will implement them after the game is out for a while. i think he means not part of the tri-races also yeah, i think they'll let u basically do w.e u want in terms of stuff like ums... kind of like WC3 | ||
|
armed_
Canada443 Posts
On June 28 2009 11:44 illu wrote: My opinion is that critters in sc was a big failure, as it served absolutely no purpose except being annoying (unless you are talking about mind-controlling it, but that's just ridiculous). You're right, how silly to have critters act as map decorations. Such a failure. Tilesets failed completely too, had no effect besides changing the colours of things, srsly. And doodads? ROFL SUCH A JOKE AMIRITE | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On June 28 2009 11:44 illu wrote: First of all, get your terminologies correct. Neutral hostile units or creeps, as seen in wc3, will attack any players within a certain radius, or attack any player that attacked them. Neutral friendly units or critters, as seen in wc3 as well as sc (eg. "pandabearguy"), will not actively attack any player nor defend itself. My opinion is that critters in sc was a big failure, as it served absolutely no purpose except being annoying (unless you are talking about mind-controlling it, but that's just ridiculous). For wc3, however, critters play a major role because they serve as a source of corpses for the beginning of the game and can occasionally change the flow of the game in the first a few minutes. The only reason to put in creeps in sc2 is to provide a mechanism that will allow a player to expand at a certain location only after he has accumulated certain amount of forces that would allow him to kill the creeps then expand. In that case I think they should be allowed as it gives new strategic depth into the game. Thank God! Someone agrees with me | ||
|
muqoou
31 Posts
On June 28 2009 10:29 CharlieMurphy wrote: Here is an example of the use of neutral creeps: Have 3 bases in close proximity so that they would normally be very easy to take. The catch is that there is a 5-6 ghosts standing outside of the range of HQ building but guarding the minerals of that base, so that as soon as your workers come they get blasted. Since they do concussive damage; most early game units will be raped, so you must wait until mid game (goons, tanks, hydra, etc) to clear them. This is just one example, imagine if there was a big neutral force in the center of a map which opened up a huge hole into the enemy base? It would add some crazy mind games into the game. It's called neutral buildings! And they're already being used exactly this way on current SC tourney maps. Sorry for singling your post out; multiple people have suggested things like this. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
While a neutral building is nothing but a big delayer, creeps can create several interesting metagames, not saying I want it in every map, but theres no reason to argue that just because there were creeps in games you dont think are the best ones ever done that they cant be used as a kickass mechanic in sc2 on several maps doing the job of delaying stuff much better than a big pile of rock would. not all ideas that came after BW are bad | ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On June 28 2009 07:55 thewalkindude wrote: No thanks neutral creeps should stay out of Starcraft. As long as neutral units don't give out experience or drop items, they're welcome to StarCraft II. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
On June 28 2009 15:57 lolaloc wrote: As long as neutral units don't give out experience or drop items, they're welcome to StarCraft II. This is what I meant. Other guy who just quoted me has poor reading comprehension. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On June 27 2009 18:12 Suc wrote: I think it's very likely that these things will be in the campaign at some point, not like buying units from a shop or anything, probably you rescue it and gain control of it. It is very likely that you can build them in the campaign, that you can buy them from shops, summon them and also rescue them. Blizzard have gone more and more away from the standard skirmish missions with every game. In the wc3 expansions they even let you play two totally custom races in the campaign, dranei and naga. | ||
|
ERGO
United States168 Posts
On June 27 2009 21:10 FrozenArbiter wrote: There's really nothing wrong with the option to have neutral units in a map btw, you don't have to use it, up to the map maker really. Armies of Exigo had a few maps with neutral units blocking expos / merc camps (majority of maps were just like regular BW maps, but nothing wrong with variety). I concur, I think that a hostile turret or some such blocking you from expanding in the yellow minerals is way cooler than some rocks. I works fluff wise and isn't like wc3 at all, in wc3 the neutral hostiles are a resource, they give you gold and beef up your strongest units. If they ever are present in multiplayer maps, they will be purely a hindrance. I am however opposed to purchasable mercenaries, at least not in a traditional sense. SC is a game that depends on having different races with different advantages, including units that anyone can get would lessen this, taking something vital away from the game and making balance more difficult. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
I do agree that mercenaries seems a bit wrong for Multiplayer (definitely be good idea in Single Player though, Neutrals should be more of a Terrain element.) | ||
| ||
