Is it bad that I immediately started thinking about backporting the Xel'naga towers to StarCraft 1 maps upon seeing those battle reports? It'd be decently easy to do.
Is it bad that I immediately started thinking about backporting the Xel'naga towers to StarCraft 1 maps upon seeing those battle reports? It'd be decently easy to do.
It's been done. I can't find the link right now but they put in watch towers, high grass and of course destructible terrain which is already in SC1 (in the form of neutral buildings around the map).
They didn't try to balance the map though so it was terrible.
Dangerisk on
If what you say is true, the Shaolin and the Wu-Tang could be DANGERISK.
Has Blizzard made any comment on if SC2 campaign mode is going to have items or leveling on the hero characters, like they do in WC3? Or is Jim Raynor just going to be a buffed up Space Marine or Vulture unit again? The real reason I want to know about items and levels is because I'm curious what sort of tools will be available to the mod community. Without these things, a SC2 DotA might not be possible.
Blizzard has quite a few vids up of their campaign editor at work and it's a cmmuntiy consensus that it be tight.
As far as in-game campaign items no idea. They haven't released much on that front aside from in-game achievements like building 100 marines and stuff like that.
Yeah. The single player campaign/multiplayer may not have items, leveling up, leveled skills, etc. but the editor will have it.
A SC2 DotA will be possible, and will be poorly attempted by nearly everybody. We'll see which one catches on..
..even if there are plenty of MOBAs on the market right now (DotA, Demigod, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth).
I am sure there will be people in Starcraft who attempt to lose levels/rank by just losing over and over. Although the battle.net thing does sound like a good idea, if it takes a cd key for an account then there will be a lot less shit bags in this game.
There will be units included in the Map Editor which will not be in the standard multiplayer skirmish mode. These will include various units from the original StarCraft, such as the Protoss Dragoon.
There will be units included in the Map Editor which will not be in the standard multiplayer skirmish mode. These will include various units from the original StarCraft, such as the Protoss Dragoon.
I'm willing to bet that they will be in the single player campaign in the obligatory "capture the old supply depot and units within" type mission.
There will be units included in the Map Editor which will not be in the standard multiplayer skirmish mode. These will include various units from the original StarCraft, such as the Protoss Dragoon.
I'm willing to bet that they will be in the single player campaign in the obligatory "capture the old supply depot and units within" type mission.
If I recall correctly, some of the classic units will be hireable in the Terran campaign.
I am sure there will be people in Starcraft who attempt to lose levels/rank by just losing over and over. Although the battle.net thing does sound like a good idea, if it takes a cd key for an account then there will be a lot less shit bags in this game.
???
You're going to have to explain the reasoning behind losing on purpose so that you can eventually get easy wins.
Has Blizzard made any comment on if SC2 campaign mode is going to have items or leveling on the hero characters, like they do in WC3?
Well, the indications are that the Zerg campaign will have "RPG elements", which I assume means there will be something like that. But if the rest of the people who've answered your question before me are accurate, then it's pretty much a more user-friendly WC3 editor with different stored models.
I am sure there will be people in Starcraft who attempt to lose levels/rank by just losing over and over. Although the battle.net thing does sound like a good idea, if it takes a cd key for an account then there will be a lot less shit bags in this game.
???
You're going to have to explain the reasoning behind losing on purpose so that you can eventually get easy wins.
I am sure there will be people in Starcraft who attempt to lose levels/rank by just losing over and over. Although the battle.net thing does sound like a good idea, if it takes a cd key for an account then there will be a lot less shit bags in this game.
???
You're going to have to explain the reasoning behind losing on purpose so that you can eventually get easy wins.
It is what people, as an example, in Halo do once they reach 50 or whatever they can delevel all the way to the 10s or 20s so they can play against people of a lower rank. It isn't the best example but it is the first that comes to mind. If people can grief the system in any way it will be done, there are asshats out there that will do it and I am not at all a griefer.
In the Terran campaign you can customize your army with upgrades, kit and the like. In the Zerg campaign I can imagine you'll actually be customizing units in great detail, experimenting with genes from slain wildlife and enemies - like on some level you can find a weird plant that gives the Hydralisk a poison effect to it's attack but also shortens its vision range or something. Like the Spore creature creator, except good and not "Heehee - silly!"
That seems like an awful lot of work for something that barely passes as griefing. Since when does "being really good" qualify. And if you lose a 2 minute game against someone who's clearly much better than you, so what?
That seems like an awful lot of work for something that barely passes as griefing. Since when does "being really good" qualify. And if you lose a 2 minute game against someone who's clearly much better than you, so what?
Because the skill gap is so large that there is no way the person losing can even learn what they did wrong. With a game like starcraft there are so many minor ways that you can screw up and lose the entire game, but if you are new playing new people there is a lot more room for error. People will grief like this most likely.
The reason they did it in Halo was because they liked easy kills so they could talk shit to people and get a good kill to death ratio. It is griefing because the lower ranked person will lose constantly with no chance of ever winning against this opponent. Or when people have an organized team and they are playing randoms in social. It isn't just that they have better team work so they deserve to win, its that one team has never playing with each other before and the other team has hundreds of hours of team work and it incredibly familiar with what to do in every aspect of halo. They are more skilled and have way more teamwork, they should only be playing people with as much team work not just random people trying to have fun.
Join a different game? Matchmaking is retarded? People who are actually really good have better things to do with their time (I know this for a fact)?
This must be a Halo thing, because I find this concept to be mind boggling. I have taken part in what would now be termed pub-stomps in many different games, on both sides, and never saw anything wrong with it, certainly nothing that couldn't be fixed with one team just leaving the game or sucking it up and taking their lumps.
Join a different game? Matchmaking is retarded? People who are actually really good have better things to do with their time (I know this for a fact)?
This must be a Halo thing, because I find this concept to be mind boggling. I have taken part in what would now be termed pub-stomps in many different games, on both sides, and never saw anything wrong with it, certainly nothing that couldn't be fixed with one team just leaving the game or sucking it up and taking their lumps.
This is going to have replays right? I'd love to run into someone vastly better than me who just destroys me so I can go back and watch the video to steal their tech.
This is going to have replays right? I'd love to run into someone vastly better than me who just destroys me so I can go back and watch the video to steal their tech.
Join a different game? Matchmaking is retarded? People who are actually really good have better things to do with their time (I know this for a fact)?
This must be a Halo thing, because I find this concept to be mind boggling. I have taken part in what would now be termed pub-stomps in many different games, on both sides, and never saw anything wrong with it, certainly nothing that couldn't be fixed with one team just leaving the game or sucking it up and taking their lumps.
Well the problem is a lot of the time that people don't want to just quit or if they do quit their rank goes lower and people love numbers. It really is frustrating to lose games against people who abuse the system, in some games you can force the matchmaking to match your team together against randoms, people use to do it in Halo 2 I think and I know people could do it on older XBL games like Mechassault and Rainbow Six.
Join a different game? Matchmaking is retarded? People who are actually really good have better things to do with their time (I know this for a fact)?
This must be a Halo thing, because I find this concept to be mind boggling. I have taken part in what would now be termed pub-stomps in many different games, on both sides, and never saw anything wrong with it, certainly nothing that couldn't be fixed with one team just leaving the game or sucking it up and taking their lumps.
I, for one, am never in the mood to join-wait-start-raped-quit five times before I can find an actually balanced match.
Join a different game? Matchmaking is retarded? People who are actually really good have better things to do with their time (I know this for a fact)?
This must be a Halo thing, because I find this concept to be mind boggling. I have taken part in what would now be termed pub-stomps in many different games, on both sides, and never saw anything wrong with it, certainly nothing that couldn't be fixed with one team just leaving the game or sucking it up and taking their lumps.
I, for one, am never in the mood to join-wait-start-raped-quit five times before I can find an actually balanced match.
This isn't an FPS. You may not realize you're in a stacked game until well after 5-10 minutes into it.
Join a different game? Matchmaking is retarded? People who are actually really good have better things to do with their time (I know this for a fact)?
This must be a Halo thing, because I find this concept to be mind boggling. I have taken part in what would now be termed pub-stomps in many different games, on both sides, and never saw anything wrong with it, certainly nothing that couldn't be fixed with one team just leaving the game or sucking it up and taking their lumps.
People pubstomp because they like winning more than they like playing for real, and don't want to leave anything to chance. Intentionally creating an unbalanced game one way or another because you want an easy win is an asshole thing to do.
I know the concept behind pubstomping. As I've said, I've been a part of many.
The difference is those were all games on public servers. With goofy stat-tracking matchmaking systems you'd have to go out of your way to lose tons of matches just so that you can get a few easy wins. That's something that I can't quite understand; being a dick, sure, but there are plenty of more productive ways to grief in an RTS. Just because you want to get an easy win and rub it in some guy's face? Losing 20 games so that you can win 2 doesn't really seem like it falls under "easy." He just spent more than 2 hours of his own time so that he could stomp all over you for 5 minutes. Who's losing out here?
But, yeah, high-level Starcraft is not Sim City, it's not even Age of Empires. The games are 25 minutes long, and that's if the other player puts up a steady fight. Not only that, but by most of the information (actually, the entire concept the designers talk about) is to make Starcraft 2 faster than Starcraft, with shorter games.
I can also guarantee you that the actually really good players will not do this, they simply have better things going on. Pretty good players could get away with it, but if you put up token resistance and save the replay I'd bet you'd learn something.
I know the concept behind pubstomping. As I've said, I've been a part of many.
The difference is those were all games on public servers. With goofy stat-tracking matchmaking systems you'd have to go out of your way to lose tons of matches just so that you can get a few easy wins. That's something that I can't quite understand; being a dick, sure, but there are plenty of more productive ways to grief in an RTS. Just because you want to get an easy win and rub it in some guy's face? Losing 20 games so that you can win 2 doesn't really seem like it falls under "easy." He just spent more than 2 hours of his own time so that he could stomp all over you for 5 minutes. Who's losing out here?
But, yeah, high-level Starcraft is not Sim City, it's not even Age of Empires. The games are 25 minutes long, and that's if the other player puts up a steady fight. Not only that, but by most of the information (actually, the entire concept the designers talk about) is to make Starcraft 2 faster than Starcraft, with shorter games.
I can also guarantee you that the actually really good players will not do this, they simply have better things going on. Pretty good players could get away with it, but if you put up token resistance and save the replay I'd bet you'd learn something.
The disgusting part about this is that soon enough Star Craft will turn into a FPS. Real time first person shooter strategy. And these aren't even strategy games at this point. It's tactics.
Well for someone who wants to actually progress through the system it can be frustrating to lose a game you never had a chance of winning. This is getting a little off topic though, we will just have to see what happens when the game comes out.
Posts
It's been done. I can't find the link right now but they put in watch towers, high grass and of course destructible terrain which is already in SC1 (in the form of neutral buildings around the map).
They didn't try to balance the map though so it was terrible.
As far as in-game campaign items no idea. They haven't released much on that front aside from in-game achievements like building 100 marines and stuff like that.
SC2: XxKhrushchev.539
A SC2 DotA will be possible, and will be poorly attempted by nearly everybody. We'll see which one catches on..
..even if there are plenty of MOBAs on the market right now (DotA, Demigod, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth).
Which is actually fairly annoying, since WC3 had so many models thanks to the creeps.
But the new editor completely supports importing your own models which makes up for it honestly.
I was under the impression that they would be including models of ALL Starcraft 1 units.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think they remade a lot of SC1 units. For example, all the SC1 terran units at the very least.
I'm willing to bet that they will be in the single player campaign in the obligatory "capture the old supply depot and units within" type mission.
Yeah they have specifically stated if it was in SC1 or cut from SC2 its in the editor
If I recall correctly, some of the classic units will be hireable in the Terran campaign.
Yeah? I thought they were just gonna stick in SC1 units that they were considering for a reappearance and made models for.
When you say "cut" do you mean developed for the game and then dropped, like the soul hunter, or not carried over from SC1, like the firebat?
???
You're going to have to explain the reasoning behind losing on purpose so that you can eventually get easy wins.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Well, the indications are that the Zerg campaign will have "RPG elements", which I assume means there will be something like that. But if the rest of the people who've answered your question before me are accurate, then it's pretty much a more user-friendly WC3 editor with different stored models.
So.
Yes?
So that you can grief low-levels.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
The reason they did it in Halo was because they liked easy kills so they could talk shit to people and get a good kill to death ratio. It is griefing because the lower ranked person will lose constantly with no chance of ever winning against this opponent. Or when people have an organized team and they are playing randoms in social. It isn't just that they have better team work so they deserve to win, its that one team has never playing with each other before and the other team has hundreds of hours of team work and it incredibly familiar with what to do in every aspect of halo. They are more skilled and have way more teamwork, they should only be playing people with as much team work not just random people trying to have fun.
This must be a Halo thing, because I find this concept to be mind boggling. I have taken part in what would now be termed pub-stomps in many different games, on both sides, and never saw anything wrong with it, certainly nothing that couldn't be fixed with one team just leaving the game or sucking it up and taking their lumps.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
This is going to have replays right? I'd love to run into someone vastly better than me who just destroys me so I can go back and watch the video to steal their tech.
Now you're thinking like Zerg!
I, for one, am never in the mood to join-wait-start-raped-quit five times before I can find an actually balanced match.
This isn't an FPS. You may not realize you're in a stacked game until well after 5-10 minutes into it.
People pubstomp because they like winning more than they like playing for real, and don't want to leave anything to chance. Intentionally creating an unbalanced game one way or another because you want an easy win is an asshole thing to do.
The difference is those were all games on public servers. With goofy stat-tracking matchmaking systems you'd have to go out of your way to lose tons of matches just so that you can get a few easy wins. That's something that I can't quite understand; being a dick, sure, but there are plenty of more productive ways to grief in an RTS. Just because you want to get an easy win and rub it in some guy's face? Losing 20 games so that you can win 2 doesn't really seem like it falls under "easy." He just spent more than 2 hours of his own time so that he could stomp all over you for 5 minutes. Who's losing out here?
But, yeah, high-level Starcraft is not Sim City, it's not even Age of Empires. The games are 25 minutes long, and that's if the other player puts up a steady fight. Not only that, but by most of the information (actually, the entire concept the designers talk about) is to make Starcraft 2 faster than Starcraft, with shorter games.
I can also guarantee you that the actually really good players will not do this, they simply have better things going on. Pretty good players could get away with it, but if you put up token resistance and save the replay I'd bet you'd learn something.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
The disgusting part about this is that soon enough Star Craft will turn into a FPS. Real time first person shooter strategy. And these aren't even strategy games at this point. It's tactics.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Developed and dropped assuming they got past having placeholder models
But they've also shown that you can make your own units in the editor, to a degree, so I'm sure DotA will be covered.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream