EPT
I would of had this up sooner, but I didn't even get home until tonight. I ended up staying in Irvine overnight and then when I was ready to go home in the morning, my car key snapped off inside the door lock and I couldn't get into my car. So I had some delays in getting home.
+ Show Spoiler [my poor car key] +
![[image loading]](http://teamliquid.net/staff/semioldguy/P1000503.JPG)
QUESTIONS ANSWERED:
On March 13 2008 17:31 paper wrote:
do you think blizzard reeeeeally listens to its fans
because they keep consistently churning out shit among some gems
i mean, they have to release the game one day, and the rate of shit-churning is not decreasing
do you think blizzard reeeeeally listens to its fans
because they keep consistently churning out shit among some gems
i mean, they have to release the game one day, and the rate of shit-churning is not decreasing
I honestly think they do. In the interviews and in talking with Chris, Dustin and Sam they are all very concerned about the community's opinions. That being said, there are always going to be lots of people who are on both sides of any discussion. I remember Sam saying that if the fans can back up their issues with good reasoning/suggestions it really helps as they can see why something might need to change or what does and doesn't work.
Things seem to change and be tweaked on a weekly basis, and when we played on Tuesday, it was last weeks game and they had already begun to make several significant changes to it. Also I think a lot of the issues that some people have problems with are simply because they haven't had the chance to experience it first hand.
But they are listening to what fans have to say. they are reading the forums, and not just their own but the forums on other sites as well, such as ours. Dustin specifically said that we have very useful feedback for them.
On March 13 2008 17:32 G.s)NarutO wrote:
How does the medic-ship feel like? Is it comfortable to play with or is it just bleh? I imagine moving to a certain point of the map it could be pretty pain in the ass, because it can pass all terrain (it flies) while marines cant... so it probably will be there earlier?
Do you like it or is it just... :x?
Edit: Did you bunkerrush LR ?
How does the medic-ship feel like? Is it comfortable to play with or is it just bleh? I imagine moving to a certain point of the map it could be pretty pain in the ass, because it can pass all terrain (it flies) while marines cant... so it probably will be there earlier?
Do you like it or is it just... :x?
Edit: Did you bunkerrush LR ?
I didn't take the chance to play Terran while I was there. i played Zerg almost entirely as it is my preferred race in the original and I had already played the other two at both Blizzcon and GenCon last year. I don't have any first hand experience with the medic ship, but it sounds like it will either undergo changes or possibly be dropped. As it is now it is kind of annoying to deal with.
As much as there are people who love the medics, it was pointed out that medics are difficult to have an answer to, they basically are just there and make the army stronger since it isn't really feasible to try picking them off. the medic ship is their first attempt at a way to still include the medic, but also make it have a vulnerability that makes them easier to deal with.
And since I never played with Terran against LR, I did not bunker rush him.
On March 13 2008 17:55 Konni wrote:
Were you able to micro like you are able in SC1? I'm thinking that because of the 3D-look and feel it'd be more difficult. You have to get the right units, have an overview of the battle and recognize everything fast. Did it feel like SC1? Like, you were in charge of everything?
Were you able to micro like you are able in SC1? I'm thinking that because of the 3D-look and feel it'd be more difficult. You have to get the right units, have an overview of the battle and recognize everything fast. Did it feel like SC1? Like, you were in charge of everything?
yes and no, depending on the cases. For instance, I couldn't get Mutalisks to work like how I am used to with the original. This is actually something that was a bug in the first game and they are having touble including it now because their coding is much better. They are wokring on the programming to get Mutas to do this in SC2. But there are lots of micro opportunities that are in the game already, including dancing for units such as Dragoon and the new Roaches for Zerg.
The games feels like Starcraft in my opinion. I've been asked whether it felt more like Starcraft or Warcraft 3 and though the interface has definitely changed a lot from the original, there is not question in my mind that this feels more like Starcraft than Warcraft. units are easily recognizable, and it is something that the art direction wants to make sure that they can make every unit as different looking as possible.
Sam talked about using unit silhouettes as an example. Since there are many infantry/man-shaped units they want to make them all distinct from one another, so that even looking at a silhouette it is immediately recognizable from other units. Different units should be easily identifiable from one another.
the 3-D is a big change, but something that has to be done. Still I maintain that while playing the game does feel like Starcraft, though obviously different from the original in a lot of ways it has the same fast paced feel and enough familiarity with the original that it feels about how I think the sequel should feel.
On March 13 2008 18:13 azndsh wrote:
do you know if they hire summer interns there at Blizzard, specifically beta testers or designers (and probably programmers since they already have the engine up and running)?
as a zerg unit, favorite unit so far?
do you know if they hire summer interns there at Blizzard, specifically beta testers or designers (and probably programmers since they already have the engine up and running)?
as a zerg unit, favorite unit so far?
I have absolutely no idea about the hirings of Blizzard. I am sure they would take testers if they were people with previous progaming experience as that would seem invaluable to them. But aside from that i don't know what they could offer. Though they did have hirings at Blizzcon for new staff.
Favorite Zerg unit: Roach, it's just so powerful for an early unit and the super fast regeneration is a pretty cool ability. Though it may have to be toned down a bit for balance purposes. The regen is so fast right now that two Roaches against one without upgrades is a stalemate. Though their attack speed is not particularly fast. 10 damage, normal attack speed, range 3, 90 hit points, and at the cost of a Hydralisk.
On March 13 2008 18:14 Daigomi wrote:
Everyone's (that's never played the game) is complaining about the queen. So, how did it play?
Everyone's (that's never played the game) is complaining about the queen. So, how did it play?
The first game I played I didn't even make a Queen, which never happened in any game after. I didn't mind the queen so much, it kind of feels like a mix between a building and a unit because it seems you'll almost always make one in a game, as you would any tech building. Also it makes defense structures for the Zerg and is the easiest way to expand the creep.
I didn't have any real problems with the queen in regards to how it played. There are some things that might be better tweaked, it is rather large and also pretty slow. I like to think of myself as a generally aggressive player and though the queen does not suit that I was still fine with it. I thought of it as mostly a mobile base defense weapon and it felt as much like a building as it did a unit. It was also nice not to have to waste a bunch of drones on sunken colonies as the Queen makes these instead.
On March 13 2008 18:24 xDark.Carnivalx wrote:
In it's current state how does the game feel balance wise, i realize that the game is going to change a lot up until the release; but in it's current state how does a lot of the newer units feel in regards to balance?
on a less serious but still important note, can you still do cheese ling rushes with zerg? 4 pool/6pool?
[edit: you already answered a couple of the questions i was going to ask in response to someone elses ><]
In it's current state how does the game feel balance wise, i realize that the game is going to change a lot up until the release; but in it's current state how does a lot of the newer units feel in regards to balance?
on a less serious but still important note, can you still do cheese ling rushes with zerg? 4 pool/6pool?
[edit: you already answered a couple of the questions i was going to ask in response to someone elses ><]
The games doesn;t feel balanced, though I wouldn't say it is completely imbalanced. We simply did not have enough time ourselves to explore this aspect. LR and I spent some time in a game just experimenting unit matchups and effectiveness. the newer units definitely feel the most out of balance, but mostly I think this is due to them being new to us as players. For example, none of the other press figured out how to deal with an early Roach rush, so it was very effective. The devs on the other hand knew exactly how to counter it as they have had more experience.
You can still cheese, but I think it is more difficult to do successfully because of starting with six workers instead of four, meaning your opponent's economy could be stable enough to find an answer to the cheese if it isn't pulled off correctly. Definitely still there, but I think it will be more difficult to do.
Yeah, my responses are lengthy :p
On March 13 2008 18:44 Highways wrote:
Do they read TL forums?
If so how often?
Do they read TL forums?
If so how often?
They do read TL forums. I didn't ask how often, but they love us and the good feedback they get from our site.
On March 13 2008 18:53 Aesop wrote:
Were there any notable upgrades in the game which totally change the role of a unit, e.g. for lategame viability and have not been in the original? Something like adren glands for zerglings or stimpacks on rines?
And out of curiosity, how did the devs counter a roach rush?
Were there any notable upgrades in the game which totally change the role of a unit, e.g. for lategame viability and have not been in the original? Something like adren glands for zerglings or stimpacks on rines?
And out of curiosity, how did the devs counter a roach rush?
The upgrades for Zerg are all unit specific (for example level 1 Zerglings increases their armor, damage and movement speed). LR and/or I will get more into these sorts of aspects in our news over the next couple days. I will say that are upgrades which keep many earlier units useful even going into he late game.
Roaches absolutely destroy almost any melee unit with appropriate micro. Zealots have a very hard time with them until they can dash. I don't recall what was said to be counters, (my brain can only take so much information in and my notes didn't cover everything) but I do remember the discussion about this with Dustin and he listed several ways early game to deal with an early Roach assault for each race. The one I do remember is with Zerg, Hydras tear through Roaches. And of course any air unit can take them out later in the game. Roaches are only average movement speed and have a pretty limited range. So outranging them is the easiest way to deal.
On March 13 2008 19:24 Latham wrote:
As we all know eye-candy is a big part of SC2. While getting to test the game did the eye-candy distract you, make it harder to play/see what's going on and did the big fancy explosions really make it hard to play? Do you think some of the units death animations/ shooting animations/explosions/ moving animations/overall unit animation/were a bit too complex? Did the overall environment have a big inpact on gameplay? Did it add a nice feel or was it just distracting/annoying?
As we all know eye-candy is a big part of SC2. While getting to test the game did the eye-candy distract you, make it harder to play/see what's going on and did the big fancy explosions really make it hard to play? Do you think some of the units death animations/ shooting animations/explosions/ moving animations/overall unit animation/were a bit too complex? Did the overall environment have a big inpact on gameplay? Did it add a nice feel or was it just distracting/annoying?
The eye-candy did not distract a whole lot, in most cases, which I'll get to in just a moment. Sam and the artists are well aware of this issue and are doing their best to make it both visually sexy but not too distracting from the gameplay. Because of this they hold back on a lot of the artistic effects that they could add because it would clutter the screen. They take into account for both unit deaths and animations that there are likely to be many going off at once.
An example Sam used was death of Siege Tanks and originally the explosions were bigger (too big) at which point they said to themselves, "This looks great as one tank exploding, but we want it to look good for five tanks exploding." So this is something that the team is well aware of, and though they could exercise more artistic power, they do not because of the distraction factor.
The one thing that I thought was too distracting when playing were the zerg natural defenses. As they were, each only took up a 1x1 square so you could get a ton in a small area and then when units come in you have no idea how many you are up against. This is something that they said they had already fixed for the next test version of the game (increased the size of the structure), which would be the end of this week, as tests are done on a weekly basis.
On March 13 2008 19:52 Plexa wrote:
Couple general 'feel' quesitons;
1) How distinct are the races really? Like, does each race feel like a completely new 'game' compared to another race? Is there still a relative amount of diversity in each mu?
2) Do the races play similar or not similar to sc1? Do the terran feel more defensive? Protoss more mobile? etc
3) What would you consider the defining point of each race? (e.g. defense for terran etc)
Couple general 'feel' quesitons;
1) How distinct are the races really? Like, does each race feel like a completely new 'game' compared to another race? Is there still a relative amount of diversity in each mu?
2) Do the races play similar or not similar to sc1? Do the terran feel more defensive? Protoss more mobile? etc
3) What would you consider the defining point of each race? (e.g. defense for terran etc)
The races feel very distinct, there are a few points which I think could use some attention as each race has a few things still that don't feel like how I imagine the races to be. I brought a couple of these points to Dustin's attention, to which he agreed on some points and we discussed between us and some of the others there. They are working hard to keep the races distinct from each other and that is something I can surely feel in playing one race compared to another. Match-up diversity isn't something I got much of a view on, as my sample size for games is not large enough (or skilled enough) to determine. Though I am confident that there will be diversity with any given match-up.
Both yes and no. There are definitely ties to the original, but I think some of the concepts and ideas behind each of the original races are pushed a bit further to give them even more distinction. The same build orders don't work, obviously, but it has a lot of feel to the original in its game play and speed.
Each races takes different approaches to almost everything, including things like unit upgrades and transportation. I'll have to give this question some more thought though as I don't see any huge points as defining factors but rather a bunch of smaller things that help to differentiate the identities of the races. I totally just dodged your question, but I'll try to get a better answer to you after I think about it a bit.
On March 13 2008 19:52 Daigomi wrote:
How much fun was it playing? Do you still get some kind of adrenaline rush if you're in an evenly matched game?
How much fun was it playing? Do you still get some kind of adrenaline rush if you're in an evenly matched game?
It was a lot of fun for me, especially since all three races have now been introduced and are playable. Most of the games I played weren't exactly very even on skill levels, but in one of the 2v2 matches there was surely some adrenaline going for a few very intense moments. So the intensity, excitement and adrenaline are all still there in my opinion. Obviously things like that don't happen every game, but they will happen.
On March 13 2008 20:05 Nyovne wrote:
I presume you can infest colossi with corruptors since they can be attacked by air? That should friggin rape right back at ya :D.
I presume you can infest colossi with corruptors since they can be attacked by air? That should friggin rape right back at ya :D.
I think they had a problem with this in the version they ran for us. I don't know that it worked the way they want it to in regards to this specific situation. I didn't get a chance to try it myself, but there were a few problem with how some of the Zerg spells functioned as it is a very early pass at the race for them and they are tweaking and such to make sure everything fits. I'd imagine that your scenario would work though.
On March 13 2008 23:02 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
how long does an average game last, is it comparable to sc1 in that respect? Is it mainly a rushing game or gaining econ/macroing game? have the phoenix's been nerfed at all? what was your win/loss record?
how long does an average game last, is it comparable to sc1 in that respect? Is it mainly a rushing game or gaining econ/macroing game? have the phoenix's been nerfed at all? what was your win/loss record?
The game length is very comparable to the original. In the tournament games (and most of the 2v2's LR and I played) I don't think any game went longer than twenty minutes, and if they did it wasn;t by much. They might have lasted longer if we had better opposition though :p
I wouldn't say it's mainly a rushing game and Blizzard is working, and doing pretty well so far, to make all of those strategies viable to some degree. The options that are at your hands keep the game interesting as game experience can vary greatly from one game to the next. the phoenix is much worse that it was at Blizzcon, or rather, it is no longer the complete powerhouse that it once was.
The only games I lost were to LR and Blizzard employees. I don't recall my record specifically.
On March 13 2008 23:04 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:
oooh also did you get to play the single-player game and if so is it way different than multiplayer like they said it was going to be??
oooh also did you get to play the single-player game and if so is it way different than multiplayer like they said it was going to be??
We did not get to play single player, and from the sounds of it, it isn't ready yet anyway. There is still a lot they are working out on this and haven't even cemented themselves into a campaign order yet. From the sounds of it though it does seem like they will be making it much different than the multiplayer experience.
On March 13 2008 23:21 Tien wrote:
How semi old are you semioldguy?
How semi old are you semioldguy?
How old do I look?
On March 14 2008 00:35 JoxxOr wrote:
Do you think the game is close to beta or far away?
Do you think the game is close to beta or far away?
I don't think it is close to beta at this point. they are still making changes on what seems like a nearly daily basis. Before moving it to Beta they will distribute it to all of Blizzard employees so that they can test it internally on a wider scale. Since it isn't even to that point yet I think we have some time before a playable beta is released. I am not impatient though and making the game good should take priority, and that seems to be Blizzard's view as well.
On March 14 2008 00:38 eugen1225 wrote:
Can you tell us what the stationary edfence s for zerg are? I mean, we all know that the queen sets them up, but are they permanent or time limited like a summon, do they cost minerals or queen energy, is there just 1 (like the toss cannon) attacking ground and air, or are there 2 or more, each with a specific role, and if so what are the roles og the base defences?
Can you tell us what the stationary edfence s for zerg are? I mean, we all know that the queen sets them up, but are they permanent or time limited like a summon, do they cost minerals or queen energy, is there just 1 (like the toss cannon) attacking ground and air, or are there 2 or more, each with a specific role, and if so what are the roles og the base defences?
The queen builds them, they currently cost 75 minerals for her to make one. They are permanent, I don't recall the stats on them specifically. There is only one structure currently that attacks both land and air units. There is another structure to assist in base defense called the Shrieker. I have a cool photo of Dustin Browder explaining the Zerg defenses on a white board which I will include in one of my news posts sometime in the next couple days with a more detailed explanation of this topic.
On March 14 2008 01:03 Chill wrote:
Are midgame Nukes viable? How many people did you two Nuke? Why none?
When will you regale us with stories of GG.net and IGN.com reporters getting their faces stomped on?
Are midgame Nukes viable? How many people did you two Nuke? Why none?
When will you regale us with stories of GG.net and IGN.com reporters getting their faces stomped on?
I'm not sure as to their viability as I didn;t use or have them used on me. We didn't nuke anyone. LR randomed almost every game and only got Terran once or twice, which he went Metal. He played some games I wasn't in though so ask him and maybe he did have some experience with nukes I don't know about.
I am pretty sure both of us are sharing our stomping stories in our next news post, which both of us will be doing our own part and perspective of and posting later tonight.
On March 14 2008 01:13 Slaughter)BiO wrote:
Wait so when can you make a queen? People are talking about it as a rush stopper so I guess you can make it early on?
Wait so when can you make a queen? People are talking about it as a rush stopper so I guess you can make it early on?
Queens require a spawning pool and 175 Minerals to make.
On March 14 2008 02:05 Snet wrote:
How much is your knowledge of SC1 helping you in SC2? Are races changed drastically enough that people will be starting almost from scratch because their favorite race seems...different to them?
(Sorry, I haven't kept up in the SC2 forum, this question might be answered 100x +1 by now somewhere)
How much is your knowledge of SC1 helping you in SC2? Are races changed drastically enough that people will be starting almost from scratch because their favorite race seems...different to them?
(Sorry, I haven't kept up in the SC2 forum, this question might be answered 100x +1 by now somewhere)
When people stuck to a familiar strategy, we won. The races are different enough that the same build orders are generally not going to work as well. The build order I used each game, which I'll talk about in a news post in more depth, is not something you could emulate in Starcraft 1. LR and I came up with it after a couple test runs and exploration of the units. LR and I spent at least one game where we explored the tech tree of Zerg and tried to see what was useful in which situations. It's going to be a lot of learning from scratch, aside from basic principles which apply to the RTS. Even Starcraft 1 evolves strategically even now.
On March 14 2008 02:56 Zelniq wrote:
What are your thoughts on MBS and other interface enhancements so far? How much easier is macro and micro as a result of it?
Do you know if Blizzard has tested out different variations of MBS? (such as.. you can still select multiple buildings but can only build one unit at a time with each keypress)
What are your thoughts on MBS and other interface enhancements so far? How much easier is macro and micro as a result of it?
Do you know if Blizzard has tested out different variations of MBS? (such as.. you can still select multiple buildings but can only build one unit at a time with each keypress)
MBS is the most questionable enhancement to me, so I'll do that last. other things i was a bit apprehensive about at first, like infinite unit selection. That sounds ridiculous, but in practice it isn't bad at all. There are lots of times when it is a bad idea to just select all your units and say "go attack!" Against a good player they will tear this to shreds. It does allow more freedom though and I think it is overall a good addition having actually tried this out a few times.
MBS... macro is easier, which allow more focus on micro, which is what I have a tendency toward anyway. I don't know what all Blizzard has tried out as for variation of MBS, but they aren't married to having it in the game. They want to make sure that it isn't imbalanced and at the same time are thinking of macro alternatives instead of MBS but have not come up with anything that really works in it's place. (If anyone has ideas about this, please post them along with intelligent thoughts and reasoning) In the end, if MBS needs to be cut from the game, Blizzard will do it, but only if they feel it is necessary.
On March 14 2008 03:52 travis wrote:
so MBS completely ruins the macro element of the game, right?
lol yes that's my question
hey fantastic job btw. keep it up
oh, also
are you able to hotkey groups of multiple buildings? so like, u could select all your command centers by pressing 1, or all ur barracks by pressing 2
so MBS completely ruins the macro element of the game, right?
lol yes that's my question
hey fantastic job btw. keep it up
oh, also
are you able to hotkey groups of multiple buildings? so like, u could select all your command centers by pressing 1, or all ur barracks by pressing 2
I think MBS is something honestly needs to be tested among people at the much higher skill levels, and Blizzard recognizes this fact. If it makes the game completely imbalances for esports play, they are willing to cut it. But they need to have testing results regarding it rather than just speculation, which is difficult for them to attain at this stage in development. As a side note, Dustin said that the Korean progamers who tested it out earlier this week didn't even mention MBS in their concerns after playing the game, so it's something that I think we will just have to wait and see what happens.
I am personally uneasy about MBS, but if it doesn't turn out to be broken then i am okay with it. Though I also think that it has a good chance of being completely ridiculous for unit production.
yes, you can select all of your barracks by pressing 2, and then by pressing M you add a marine to the queue of each one of them.
On March 14 2008 08:04 Titusmaster6 wrote:
Hey your keys being stuck in the hole reminds me of the time when I stupidly locked my own keys in the gas thing, anyway....
I question is, "Did you use the corrupter? If so, how did it fare against other air superiority units such as the phoenix or viking 1v1? Because watching the zerg gameplay video, it seemed like you needed to mass corrupter before they were really effective. And also, how fast is the corrupter's movement? And lastly, does having more corrupters increase the speed of corrupting another unit?
Hey your keys being stuck in the hole reminds me of the time when I stupidly locked my own keys in the gas thing, anyway....
I question is, "Did you use the corrupter? If so, how did it fare against other air superiority units such as the phoenix or viking 1v1? Because watching the zerg gameplay video, it seemed like you needed to mass corrupter before they were really effective. And also, how fast is the corrupter's movement? And lastly, does having more corrupters increase the speed of corrupting another unit?
I didn't get a chance to use the corrupter too much. before the tournament I was busy practicing and figuring out a build order to ensure that we won. We won pretty easily so I don't know that it was necessary. I am really not certain about any answers to your questions, I'll confirm to see if what i think I recall about my limited use with them is correct and do my best to get back to this later.
On March 14 2008 08:31 useLess wrote:
Oh! Do you know what the specs were on the computers you guys played on? Ill just assume the graphics and stuff were turned up optimally.
Oh! Do you know what the specs were on the computers you guys played on? Ill just assume the graphics and stuff were turned up optimally.
I didn;t check the specs, but this was one of the questions we asked Dustin. He has absolutely no idea what the minimum specs are going to be for this game. No one knows at this point, they are trying to keep it low as possible (though still looking plenty sexy). They want it to run on as many computers as possible and also the lower minimum specs it has the better it will run on higher performance computers. He said that as soon as they know for sure about system specs they will let us know. It's not something they want to keep from people once they know what it will be.
On March 14 2008 09:13 geno wrote:
On to the question!
I know that 3D proposes certain challenges for the developers, particularly with creating similar unit movements and attack methods as SC1 (mutalisk micro for instance). Were they overcoming these challenges though for other units?
I know this is a bit general so let me give 2 examples that I find most important. Did the ranged units, like the hydralisk, have to slow pivot full circle before attacking an enemy behind it, or did it feel fluid and instant like it did in SC1? Also, when moving a dozen or more units, did their movement patterns feel like SC1's magic boxes or were they more similar to WC3 in which units would align themselves into moving patterns, then revert when they reached the destination? I imagine if it were like this in SC2, it would make them easy to target with storms while at the same time hard to micro and keep a certain unit in front (like the d-matrix lurker lure of SC1).
On to the question!
I know that 3D proposes certain challenges for the developers, particularly with creating similar unit movements and attack methods as SC1 (mutalisk micro for instance). Were they overcoming these challenges though for other units?
I know this is a bit general so let me give 2 examples that I find most important. Did the ranged units, like the hydralisk, have to slow pivot full circle before attacking an enemy behind it, or did it feel fluid and instant like it did in SC1? Also, when moving a dozen or more units, did their movement patterns feel like SC1's magic boxes or were they more similar to WC3 in which units would align themselves into moving patterns, then revert when they reached the destination? I imagine if it were like this in SC2, it would make them easy to target with storms while at the same time hard to micro and keep a certain unit in front (like the d-matrix lurker lure of SC1).
I think that they were overcoming this very well in consideration with the 3D models. The unit response time is very good and the animation for most things turning around is not too clunky or slow at all in my opinion. The movements feel very fluid and happen very quickly when told to do something.
Units pack together pretty tightly in Starcraft 2, making AOE spells very effective. As a result they have toned down things such as Psi Storm. though before I hear anything about Psi Storm getting nerfed, that is not what they want to happen. Dustin wants psi storm to be powerful, but it doesn't need to be as strong as it was before in order to get the same worth out of a correctly placed psi storm. Since units get a lot closer together it just increases the general effectiveness of all AOE spells, so in turn the spells have to be toned down just a bit to compensate.
If units are spread apart, they seem to have a tendency get closer to one another as they move along. the pathing and AI of the units in general seems much improved to me. I don't think it is any more or less difficult to micro in this than it was in the original (well, clearly it isn't the same, but microing properly will still require skill as it did before).
On March 14 2008 09:41 NonY[rC] wrote:
Since you said that they recognize that the game needs to be tested by higher skilled players, did they say when they're planning on getting that testing? It came up when you were answering about MBS/macro issues, but it seems to me that pretty much everything they're doing would significantly benefit from higher skilled players doing the testing.
In my opinion, they'd really benefit from some dedicated RTS players playing their weekly builds for 60 hours a week every week to really get at the heart of balance issues. I just can't imagine that the testing they're currently doing is truly productive. They're probably just skimming the surface and making adjustments based on that. I'd hate to see some fan-favorite units or abilities get scrapped because of limited testing indicating that they're imbalanced. If you can provide any info you might have picked up on any of this from them, I'd be glad to hear it!
Since you said that they recognize that the game needs to be tested by higher skilled players, did they say when they're planning on getting that testing? It came up when you were answering about MBS/macro issues, but it seems to me that pretty much everything they're doing would significantly benefit from higher skilled players doing the testing.
In my opinion, they'd really benefit from some dedicated RTS players playing their weekly builds for 60 hours a week every week to really get at the heart of balance issues. I just can't imagine that the testing they're currently doing is truly productive. They're probably just skimming the surface and making adjustments based on that. I'd hate to see some fan-favorite units or abilities get scrapped because of limited testing indicating that they're imbalanced. If you can provide any info you might have picked up on any of this from them, I'd be glad to hear it!
From the sound of it it seems that they are hoping to get the most feedback from the progamers through the beta by getting it into their hands. Several of the players working on testing are of pretty high skill. Obviously the better skilled testers they have the better information they can gt on balancing the game at higher levels of play. They want the game balanced on as many levels of play as possible as they want the game to be a success saleswise and for the esport community. If it isn;t a success to the general public I think that would hamper it's potential in esports as well.
Their current weekly schedule looks something like this: Mon/Tue they brainstorm new ideas and fixes to the current game verion. Tue/Wed they make the changes to the game. Thu/Fri they playtest that week's version of the game.
On March 14 2008 19:56 Nitro68 wrote:
How was the map(s) ? You only speak of one map in the part2, but did you try others ?
How is the minimap ?
Did you have some pathing issues ?
Thx
How was the map(s) ? You only speak of one map in the part2, but did you try others ?
How is the minimap ?
Did you have some pathing issues ?
Thx
There were four available maps to play, that was the only four player map. There was a 6 player map we played a couple times and I didn't get much of a chance to play on the other two maps more than once and I didn't really get a good enough feel of the other maps to talk about them in much detail. The minimap shows the locations of all the resources, it isn't blacked out until you discover like in the original, it is all gray so that you can see the map's features on the minimap before you go wandering around.
I don't recall having any pathing issues while I was playing, except of course when I was trying to get somewhere that was blocked off and I didn't realize it.
On March 14 2008 20:53 SayTT wrote:
How was the balance of early-mid-late gameplay? Where you able to rush and finish the game in 3-5 minutes as well as finish off you opponent in mid and late? Or is it like wc3 where every race has overpowered basedefence so no rush is doable at all.
How was the balance of early-mid-late gameplay? Where you able to rush and finish the game in 3-5 minutes as well as finish off you opponent in mid and late? Or is it like wc3 where every race has overpowered basedefence so no rush is doable at all.
I didn't try any rushes personally, though in playing the game there is enough early game vulnerability that a rush or cheese build would definitely be viable. We didn't get too good of a feel for late game play since nobody was on a similar skill level as we were. Game length's varied though and victories happened in all stages of the game in my experiences.
On March 14 2008 22:28 Mowse wrote:
Did the gold mineral patches make an appearance on any of the maps u guys played on, and if so was it worth it to try mine them since they apparently are suppose to be in harder to defend areas and was it worth the risk...does f2 , f3 and f4 still work for hotkeying locations, did u ever need to assign ure units to more than 1 hotkey in any of the games i.e for flanking or multiple attacks.. or harassment..
Did the gold mineral patches make an appearance on any of the maps u guys played on, and if so was it worth it to try mine them since they apparently are suppose to be in harder to defend areas and was it worth the risk...does f2 , f3 and f4 still work for hotkeying locations, did u ever need to assign ure units to more than 1 hotkey in any of the games i.e for flanking or multiple attacks.. or harassment..
There were gold mineral patches on the tournament map we used, though I didn;t know it until LR told me about them. I never mined from them personally, though I did keep someone else from being able to in one of my games. LR may have though so you might want to ask him about that. I didn't check for location hotkeys, but I imagine that they were either there or will be there when the game is done.
For hotkeying units I don't think I ever hotkeyed them all to one key. I almost always used several groups. Just because there is infinite unit selection doesn't mean that selecting all of your units is a good idea. I don't want all my units in one place and it's easier to control units if they are kept in separate hotkeys. One thing I did do with hotkeys, since I didn't need to waste a bunch of them on buildings due to MBS, so instead I would put any of my scouting units (usually Overlords in my case) each to their own hotkey. At any time I would usually have a few hotkeys each with only a single Overlord which made it really easy to move between each of them and control them how I needed.
On March 15 2008 02:14 Taiche wrote:
Hey semioldguy, cool thread
Here's my question : was some form of replay feature available in the SC 2 you played ? Like, when the game ended, was there some "Save Replay" button like in SC 1 ? If so, did you try it ?
Hey semioldguy, cool thread
Here's my question : was some form of replay feature available in the SC 2 you played ? Like, when the game ended, was there some "Save Replay" button like in SC 1 ? If so, did you try it ?
There was no save replay button, so we had asked about this after a few games. All the replays, for every game, are saved to the system automatically. I am not sure if this is something that they intend to keep with the final version of the game or a feature they use simply to make sure they can review any game that they have others play. Watching replays wasn't immediately obvious, so I didn't do it, though one of the Blizz guys offered to show us had we really wanted to. I guess I probably should have to see what sort of replay options there currently were.
On March 15 2008 04:02 Centric wrote:
One of my greatest concerns is that when I look at some of the screenshots of StarCraft 2, they are so messy that I can't really tell what was going on, due to some of the "prettier" unit attack animations. That really wasn't so in the original, where at any given point you could look at a battle and tell what was happening. Do you feel like as a player this was a problem at all for you?
One of my greatest concerns is that when I look at some of the screenshots of StarCraft 2, they are so messy that I can't really tell what was going on, due to some of the "prettier" unit attack animations. That really wasn't so in the original, where at any given point you could look at a battle and tell what was happening. Do you feel like as a player this was a problem at all for you?
I didn't feel that the unit attack animation got too much in the way, with one exception, which I won;t mention because when I brought it up Dustin said they were already in the process of changing it because of that specific issue they had while playing it. When going to battles it wasn't ever particularly difficult to tell what was going on and what I thought as myself needing to be doing.
