|
Sweden33719 Posts
Q: What is this thread?
A: General purpose, SC2 discussion thread.
Q: What should I be posting about?
A: Basically, anything you want to talk about but aren't sure if it warrants a topic of its own. Heard a rumour you want to share? A new video? A brilliant new idea that you want to vet, to make sure it's really as brilliant as you think it is?
This is the place.
Note:
Posting standards will not be as high as if you were to make a new thread, but pointless spam will still not be tolerated. I have seen threads like these work out alright on other sites (for other games) so I figured, why not give it a shot? It's possible there's not really enough content for something like this to exist at this point in time, but no harm then, it will just die on its own.
|
Beta coming shortly after Battle.net 2.0 WoW merger (November 11)?
Discuss..
|
What exactly does the merger mean? Are they just merging the accounts, or are they actually moving all the wow players over to the bnet2.0 servers. Does this mean the cross-game features are complete? will they be running bnet2.0 code? If so, then that is a big deal. If not, then it means nothing.
|
My ideas seem to be disliked somewhat but here is something to get the ball rolling: Blizzard should try out every combination of properties they can imagine for map objects and make these available in the editor. We've seen some really promising things in the footage of the editor with entities glued together to create the big monster.
There are some logical map elements that as far as I know are missing in SC such as a terrain effect that blocks only fliers and not ground units in invulnerable and destroyable varieties. This might be applicable to designs like Battle Royale, which if I'm thinking of the right one was made not worth playing due to the low air distance. Proper objects for some of the tricks people have devised like Battle Royale's destroyable assimilators, map routes that are permanently destroyable or temporarily.
Other left-field ideas like minerals that grow and spread like the Tiberium in C&C (farming micro \o/) would be fun but only as experimental things for the editor, not for mainstream play.
|
if by shortly after you mean six months after, then yes, shortly after.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 03 2009 11:34 ix wrote:
My ideas seem to be disliked somewhat but here is something to get the ball rolling: Blizzard should try out every combination of properties they can imagine for map objects and make these available in the editor. We've seen some really promising things in the footage of the editor with entities glued together to create the big monster.
There are some logical map elements that as far as I know are missing in SC such as a terrain effect that blocks only fliers and not ground units in invulnerable and destroyable varieties. This might be applicable to designs like Battle Royale, which if I'm thinking of the right one was made not worth playing due to the low air distance. Proper objects for some of the tricks people have devised like Battle Royale's destroyable assimilators, map routes that are permanently destroyable or temporarily.
Other left-field ideas like minerals that grow and spread like the Tiberium in C&C (farming micro \o/) would be fun but only as experimental things for the editor, not for mainstream play.
I used to think the same way, and was quite annoyed that they hadn't put in a million different "watch tower"-esque doodads. However, I've since come to believe that there will not be a distinction between melee maps and ums maps in SC2, so you'll be able to do pretty much anything you want with the editor.
Want a bunch of teleports in a melee map? Np.
Some thunderstorms blocking air units? Sure.
Basically, I think it's good if they put some more basic options into the editor, but I think we'll be able to make our own even if they don't.
On November 03 2009 11:34 Mastermind wrote:
What exactly does the merger mean? Are they just merging the accounts, or are they actually moving all the wow players over to the bnet2.0 servers. Does this mean the cross-game features are complete? will they be running bnet2.0 code? If so, then that is a big deal. If not, then it means nothing.
I'm not exactly sure. I do know they've had to delay some ESL WoW tournament because of problems caused by the merge.
|
United States127 Posts
On November 03 2009 11:28 puttputt wrote:
Beta coming shortly after Battle.net 2.0 WoW merger (November 11)?
Discuss..
I dont think it will be shortly. According to my wow player friends, the main reason for the merger is hackers have been stealing wow accounts and merging them to new battle.net accounts which makes them difficult to recover. Also, i dont think that Activision-Blizzard would launch a the beta close to the nov 10 release of MW2.
God i hope im wrong.
|
However, I've since come to believe that there will not be a distinction between melee maps and ums maps in SC2, so you'll be able to do pretty much anything you want with the editor.
I disagree with this. Melee maps should remain "pure". IIRC, in Warcraft III, if you change anything beyond the basics, it becomes a melee map. Not that there's any problem with playing a competitive UMS multiplayer map.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Hm but there's not really any reason why triggers shouldn't work in a melee map is there?
As an example, many modern BW maps are made in non-Blizzard map editors, and by essentially breaking the game (or at least what Blizzard had made possible with the official editor) map makers have been able to include things like neutral dark swarms, dwebs, neutral creep, neutral buildings and so on.
I don't see this as different from being able to apply attributes to objects.
|
Is there any news about what the general state of the game is? I know they're not gonna set a date for release/beta but it would be nice to know what's done and what isn't. Is the game pretty much ready for beta and they're just waiting for battlenet 2?
|
ooo this thread sounds like a very nice idea, especially for those people who haven't been following to closely(I.E me) and don't know what is/isn't confirmed, etc.
|
On November 03 2009 11:28 puttputt wrote:
Beta coming shortly after Battle.net 2.0 WoW merger (November 11)?
Discuss..
comes out on nov 14th of course
+ Show Spoiler +common blizzard be nice to me on my bday
|
I believe that the beta testing will start in January of 2010.
I'm not just drawing this date out of the air. i know that it's very disappointing that beta wont be out this year but if my source is right I do believe it won't be out until 2010
|
Your source? Hmm sounds like we may have another beta or ban me opportunity here 
But as for what I'm looking forward is I thought I saw somewhere that when the beta comes out blizzard is allowing people to take video/make demos of themselves playing and post them online with no consequences. That is when I think it will get really interesting.
|
Speculation about beta in November/December, that guy that apparently talked to dustin at blizzcon said somewhere around there and I just checked the sc2 site and the Beta Test Opt-In FAQ has been updated and been pushed to most recent news on the sc2 homepage. http://eu.starcraft2.com/
Edit: purely speculation
|
On November 03 2009 13:09 StorrZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2009 11:28 puttputt wrote:
Beta coming shortly after Battle.net 2.0 WoW merger (November 11)?
Discuss.. comes out on nov 14th of course + Show Spoiler +common blizzard be nice to me on my bday
mom's birthday too lol
|
I am just wondering about what unit people are most excited for in SC2. Post your opinions.
|
On November 03 2009 11:54 SpiritWolf wrote:
Also, i dont think that Activision-Blizzard would launch a the beta close to the nov 10 release of MW2.
Nope, I'm afraid you're right. I wouldn't expect to see the Starcraft 2 beta cannibalizing Activision's holiday season sales. But I don't think Activision has anything coming in Q1 2010 except Singularity, so there's a natural release gap there for the beta.
edit: More explicitly, I expect a beta announcement to be timed at the start of January to buoy the stock right when Activision's Q4 earning's report is scheduled to come out.
|
On November 03 2009 11:34 ix wrote:
There are some logical map elements that as far as I know are missing in SC such as a terrain effect that blocks only fliers and not ground units in invulnerable and destroyable varieties. This might be applicable to designs like Battle Royale, which if I'm thinking of the right one was made not worth playing due to the low air distance. Proper objects for some of the tricks people have devised like Battle Royale's destroyable assimilators, map routes that are permanently destroyable or temporarily.
I had a concept for a map with short air distance. Basically, you're fighting on an abandoned world that still has parts with defensive capabilities, f.e. turrets guarding the airspace between the spawn points. In this case you wouldn't be able to send your Overlord to the other person's base in a straight line, same with your dropship, but you would be able to destroy the defensive structures opening a quicker route(sort of like destructible rocks for air).
|
Not allowed spamming but you are allowed to bitch you do not like?
Oh man, heaven just opened up to me, I hate the fact we have destructible shit in sc2. I hate the xel'naga watchtowers and I hate the yellow minerals.... I love the idea there are going to be new units but man, not this type of thing, I am too much a sc purist I am afraid....
My main argument.... they are way tooooo much cnc like and it reeks like any other sucky game who had them... Can't stand it, please help me understand why it is soo cool and unique to have them and not repetitive at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
