|
If you've been reading the battle.net forums, you would know that Blizzard is surely up for something, and I'd bet my Starcraft CD if they're not extremely interested in making SC2 in a short time. Head on over to the www.battle.net forums and you will see tons of topics being made by the blizzard admin about suggestions for Starcraft 2. JosephH has asked us before if we prefered hard counter vs soft counter, whether or not autocast should be implemented. Now, he is taking many more suggestions. Remember the last time it was stated if Starcraft is to spawn an RTS sequel, many people thought it could be another RTS (W4, new series, etc.), but this time, he has stated specifically: in a future StarCraft RTS game
Show your support. Blizzard is asking for Starcraft 2 suggestions. These are just a few important ones:
We'd like to know what you think about the addition of 3D movement (moving units in 4 cardinal directions plus up and down as well) as an addition in a future StarCraft RTS game. If it were to be implemented, how would the game benefit? If you dislike the idea, why?
We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units/buildings that persist from map to map in the single-player campaign. Something we often hear from customers is a sense of frustration that all the units they built are suddently gone when the next map starts. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why?
We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units gaining experience to the StarCraft series. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why?
What platform do you most want to see the next RTS StarCraft game on? Which would you least like to see it on? Why? What advantages/disadvantages do you see to that platform compared to others?
NEW UPDATE #2. JosephH had just put on a few new questions.
We'd like to know what the community thinks of the idea of resource gathering in RTS games - some games in the genre have eliminated it completely. Should future RTS StarCraft games still force the player to have 'workers' who collect resources? What advantages/disadvantages does it have in terms of gameplay?
and:
We're curious what the forum community thinks about the idea of placing negative feedback functions on supply in future RTS StarCraft games. What advantages does this system have? What disadvantages? One of the more common criticisms of StarCraft is that the game depends on large groups of units and rewards turtling (I'm not arguing that that is the case or not; but it's certainly something we hear often from customers). The upkeep system in Warcraft III helps to eliminate this situation. Do you feel that something like this can be (or even needs to be) successfully integrated into future StarCraft titles? (To those confused: he's asking if upkeep should be implemented in SC2)
Don't let Starcraft 2 be like W3 with heroes, items, experience, autocast, 3d, upkeep, etc. Come and let Blizzard know what we want in a true Starcraft sequel
http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?fn=sc-general&pageno=1
To everyone: If you have something good to say, don't just post in this topic. Post it in the Blizzard forums. That is where your voice will be most heard. What you say will not have that much influence if you're just going to post within this topic.
|
|
what is "hard counter"/"soft counter" supposed to mean?
|
On September 10 2004 21:48 blackblood wrote: what is "hard counter"/"soft counter" supposed to mean?
Explanation: StarCraft was the game of 'hard' counters (unit x counters unit y in virtually every case), with Warcraft III having 'soft' counters (units a, b, and c or combinations thereof can be used to combat unit y effectively
Basically in Starcraft, one unit counters another. For example, firebat counters ling. Hydra counters firebat, and so forth. In W3, it takes multiple units to counter a unit. In theory, this encourages a mix of units. However in reality, this post sums it up pretty well:
Hard counter = extremely little room for mistakes. Takes a massive amount of skill to make sure your units are alive. Skill-intensive
Soft counter = TONS of rooms for mistakes. You have time to pull back your units and not be hurt so badly at all. You don't have to be attentive to your units. Newbie-friendly
It's basically comparing skill-intensive vs newbie friendly. Which is similar to comparing SC vs W3.
SC takes a massive amount of skill because the player has to be extremely attentive to their units. W3 allows lots of room for mistakes
|
Sweden33719 Posts
Units carrying over in anything but single player is absolutely ludicrous! Impossible to balance -- Experience as in giving 1+ damage, some small % dodge ability or something like that I guess could be balanced and make for a fun game o_O
3D no. It will simply be too slow to play that game when playing people across the globe --
Bleh I'll make a post tomorrow I think :O
|
actually i really like the idea of experience , but only 1 level eg when a marine get 5 kills he becomes a 'veteran' and has 1+ attack or something , but not level 1,2,3,4,5 etc just veteran status
|
On September 10 2004 21:50 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2004 21:48 blackblood wrote: what is "hard counter"/"soft counter" supposed to mean?
Hard Counter Hard Counter Hard Counter :D
|
Hard counter is something that is supposed to outright dominate and it's usually on a 1 to 1 basis. Soft counter is like a matchup vs matchup persay, where either side can win, but its favored in one direction.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
.. When I think about it, I don't want SC 2.. AT ALL.
Well I guess it would be okay if they just like.. updated it so to speak. More battle.net features and such.. Adding new units I guess could possibly be done without fucking things over.. Ugh..
I mean, I don't want it to play differently from BW at all.. So aggrevating.
|
United States12181 Posts
On September 10 2004 21:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Units carrying over in anything but single player is absolutely ludicrous! Impossible to balance -- Experience as in giving 1+ damage, some small % dodge ability or something like that I guess could be balanced and make for a fun game o_O
3D no. It will simply be too slow to play that game when playing people across the globe --
Bleh I'll make a post tomorrow I think :O
There are a lot of dumb replies being posted. Joseph even said FOR SINGLE PLAYER and people are saying "NO DON'T USE IT IN MULTIPLAYER!" Seriously people, use your fucking heads before you reply. For some reason this irritates me greatly.
|
On September 10 2004 21:35 tfeign wrote: If you've been reading the battle.net forums, you would know that Blizzard is surely up for something, and I'd bet my Starcraft CD if they're not extremely interested in making SC2 in a short time. Head on over to the www.battle.net forums and you will see tons of topics being made by the blizzard admin about suggestions for Starcraft 2. JosephH has asked us before if we prefered hard counter vs soft counter, whether or not autocast should be implemented. Now, he is taking many more suggestions. Remember the last time it was stated if Starcraft is to spawn an RTS sequel, many people thought it could be another RTS (W4, new series, etc.), but this time, he has stated specifically: in a future StarCraft RTS gameShow your support. Blizzard is asking for Starcraft 2 suggestions. These are just a few important ones: We'd like to know what you think about the addition of 3D movement (moving units in 4 cardinal directions plus up and down as well) as an addition in a future StarCraft RTS game. If it were to be implemented, how would the game benefit? If you dislike the idea, why?We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units/buildings that persist from map to map in the single-player campaign. Something we often hear from customers is a sense of frustration that all the units they built are suddently gone when the next map starts. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why? We'd like to know what the forum regulars think of the addition of units gaining experience to the StarCraft series. If it were added to a future RTS StarCraft game, what would you consider to be a good implementation? A poor one? Why?Don't let Starcraft 2 be like W3 with heroes, items, experience, autocast, 3d, etc. Come and let Blizzard know what we want in a true Starcraft sequel http://www.battle.net/forums/board.aspx?fn=sc-general&pageno=1
amen
|
|
BTW you guys, in the new post about 3D motion, I think he might have been implying motion like that in Homeworld- the game is set in space and has full 3d motion. It might be interesting to have SC actually in space- so air battles are in 3d and there are platforms for ground too. Someone who also thinks this is what he implied please tack it on the post... I don't know why no one's mentioned this.
|
|
|
I read the old thread fakesteve made... wow that wc3 faggot doesnt know what the fuck hes talkin about its pathetic..
|
|
MURICA15980 Posts
|
anyways start off with 3 new races!
|
My ideas.
3 new races, Or completely revamp the units and take all of them out and start again.
War3 bnet features such as ladder cool icons and shit
No fucking userfriendly shit that takes quite a bit of skill out of the game
Units should not have massive HP as in war3
No gay stores or hero's
Some new tilesets
a slightly larger unit amount than now
Observer mode
make the game with a slightly faster game speed
2D same perspecitve as sc TOP DOWN but improved graphics is good.
Some ideas, most have been said already but this is what i want
|
I think if it looked similar to War3 3D, it wouldn't be so bad at all. I'd like to see it 3d infact.
|
starcraft2... I'm worried it'll turn out like Starship Troopers 2 -_-;;;
|
On September 10 2004 21:50 tfeign wrote: Hard counter = extremely little room for mistakes. Takes a massive amount of skill to make sure your units are alive. Skill-intensive
Soft counter = TONS of rooms for mistakes. You have time to pull back your units and not be hurt so badly at all. You don't have to be attentive to your units. Newbie-friendly
It's basically comparing skill-intensive vs newbie friendly. Which is similar to comparing SC vs W3.
SC takes a massive amount of skill because the player has to be extremely attentive to their units. W3 allows lots of room for mistakes
Saying one has be more attentive to their units in SC than in War3 just shows the lack of knowledge of both games as a whole. The argument in place has nothing to do with having to be more attentive to units, or being newbie-friendly. If anything, under such logic hard counter would be newbie friendly because there is a clear counter, as opposed to having to intelligently coordinate combinations to counter the enemy most-effectively. There's arguments for both cases, but for the sake of everyone, leave out the "newb-friendly" and "more micro" arguments because they are irrelevant and are only fuel for the fire.
With that said I particularly prefer the hard counter style simply because things become much more clear and as a result, simpler. One can concentrate more on improving raw skill than worrying about whether or not a loss was caused by improper unit combinations.
|
On September 10 2004 23:39 ssidengi wrote: starcraft2... I'm worried it'll turn out like Starship Troopers 2 -_-;;;
cause sc2 will be so good starcraft one wouldnt be able to compare?
|
On September 10 2004 23:45 Orlandu wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2004 21:50 tfeign wrote: Hard counter = extremely little room for mistakes. Takes a massive amount of skill to make sure your units are alive. Skill-intensive
Soft counter = TONS of rooms for mistakes. You have time to pull back your units and not be hurt so badly at all. You don't have to be attentive to your units. Newbie-friendly
It's basically comparing skill-intensive vs newbie friendly. Which is similar to comparing SC vs W3.
SC takes a massive amount of skill because the player has to be extremely attentive to their units. W3 allows lots of room for mistakes Saying one has be more attentive to their units in SC than in War3 just shows the lack of knowledge of both games as a whole. The argument in place has nothing to do with having to be more attentive to units, or being newbie-friendly. If anything, under such logic hard counter would be newbie friendly because there is a clear counter, as opposed to having to intelligently coordinate combinations to counter the enemy most-effectively. There's arguments for both cases, but for the sake of everyone, leave out the "newb-friendly" and "more micro" arguments because they are irrelevant and are only fuel for the fire. With that said I particularly prefer the hard counter style simply because things become much more clear and as a result, simpler. One can concentrate more on improving raw skill than worrying about whether or not a loss was caused by improper unit combinations. Agreed. Has nothing to do with having more skill or being "noob friendly"
|
Man, I really really hope Blizzard doesnt completely fuck the dog on SC2. Think of how desasterous it would be. The community would be devided, websites and gamers would chose a side. The Korean progaming scene would completely crash and/or lose most of its fans. I'm so nervous. I worry that blizzard is going to really mess this up. And the fact that Blizzard gets all it's feed back from battle.net forums sickens me. I'm scared.....
|
i just hope they leave out the luck factor, random EMP missile drop in front of your lvl 5 jim raynor, anyone?
and for the love of god, please, keep the tempo
|
LOL... u guys should read some of the opinions of people who supports autocast for sc2...
"Since Starcraft was about large unit battles, autocast would be needed in a sequal. The game isn't about micromanagement. "
"If Starcraft 2 had autocast, it would also be balanced around that as well, like Warcraft 3 is."
Arguments without basis...
|
That first quote makes me want to pull a Jay and Silent Bob on all the faggots who post there.
|
God damnit, I'm gonna go to bed now, but I dunno how im gonna be able to sleep tonight with this on my mind.
|
Well hmm when I see w3 and the battle begins well seriously I can't see anything ( dunno is this a 3D problem but it sucks though ^^) . Better graphic + no experience.
|
war 3 is messy also because of the layout, units size and mass spells. Not only 3d.
|
pb with war 3 is not skill lvl needed or 3d or heroes, it's just too simple and repetitive mainly because maps have no real influence on build orders and global strategy.
|
they should stop fucking around and just ask the koreans
|
it says alot that they need to ask at all
when they were making sc they just asked the war2 kali players for bw, they asked the top sc players
when it came time to make war3 they fucked it all up by not listening to the community which was damned near unanimous in saying "no heros, hard counters, fast-paced, rewards aggression, good looking, direct damage spells, strong skirmishing units"
we got "heros, soft counters, slow-paced, rewards not fighting your opponent, good looking, sluggish direct interface, billions of buffs, weak skirmishing units"
some stuff was good. maleable terrain, more clearly-defined tactical options, enhanced multi-unit interface. it looked good, but ran poorly. even on today's computers, war3 does not bench any better than 60fps, which speaks to the very cpu consumptive engine.
they brought zman in to fix it, and he did a pretty good job, but it's still broke
if they don't get alpha and early beta builds to korean progamers, or at the very least, the likes of maynard, rekrul and froz sc2 will be a disaster
|
On September 11 2004 03:06 Casper... wrote: they should stop fucking around and just ask the koreans he said it all, now someone with credibility on the bnet forums repost it :p
|
I don't think Blizzard has the skill anymore to make a Starcraft 2 that won't be mostly a disappointment. The people who left must have been all the ones who knew what they were doing when it comes to RTSes :/.
You could say that Starcraft is good because it's like a complex real-time boardgame. The chances of that being maintained in a sequel are virutally zero because the general public wants everything shiny, new, 3D, mistake-friendly, etc.
|
atleast im sure that i dont want units to be constant moving like mutalisks, keep the good ol turn of ure engines while u stand still thing (to bad it dsnt work irl).
I dont want them to add more races blizzard has proven that they cant balance 4 races.
most important of all, you should be able to select more than 12 units, so u dsnt have to group millions of units just to attack..
|
well travin i think that 16 is a good number of selections for sc 2 , go much higher than that and it starts to favour zerg.As for the game i'm not holding my breath like i did with Warcraft 3 , i'm expecting it to suck this time to avoid such disapointment again.
war2>war3
|
I'd rather have unlimited unit selection, and just tone down Zerg slightly if it turns out to favour them. I'd also like unlimited multiple building selection, with balance also adjusted if necessary.
|
Great! Finally a chance to show what we want.
Go write in that forum!
|
no upkeep, no heroes, no autocast, no 3d, lesser hp, stronger skirmishers, faster
|
|
United States32546 Posts
you're all people who hate war3, so you can all stop putting your personal bash in every post you make
|
I don't hate Warcraft 3, in fact I quite like it, but I still think SC2 shouldn't have heroes, or upkeep, or exessive autocast-minibuffs, etc.
|
Yeah...adding uppkeep makes you want to dont make too many units, and blizzards intension is probably to make it even more micro-intense. Good thought. Too bad it didnt work -_-
|
i want 1d, i mean everyone knows 3d is crap right and 2d is DA shizzzz cos like its 1 dimension less so can u imagine if there was 1 less dimension imagine the l33tttt micro that could ensue
seriously though id like to see sc2 to be more like w3 than bw with a strong focus on micro instead of macro because i think micro is more fun.
|
On September 11 2004 04:10 Art_Of_Rizzoni wrote: what's autocast?
Like heal in BW. Medics do it automatically. Imagine what this would mean in SC. Get 50 ghosts, get lockdown, lockdown fifty goons in 1 sec...
Or get templars and psy storm and see all your storms wasted on one scouting ling...
Or get MC and the DA, instead of MCing the shuttle, the DA MCs the Goon...
Or get consume and have your defiler consuming your ultras instead of your lings.
I'm not saying, it's generally a bad idea, but with the spells that SC has, it would just suck ass.
|
I dont think that SC2 is needed. Whatever Blizzard makes it will be disapoinment. I thin entirely new game should be made.
|
In wc3, i see more and more frequently ppl just killing off their own units when their opponent has a new tech (hunts vs ghoul/garg eg). This is crazy, and should not be allowed to happen. I was always against upkeep, But there may be a better way: If you are above some limit, a gold mine only gets you 7 gold per worker, BUT this peon only takes 7 out of the mine also, and the mine will last longer. So in order to support a larger army you would need more map control, which would then go hand in hand.
It'll be very hard to get it right. Autocast takes away the need for spells at all. Hard counters are great. (rvr drop vs lings^^). I hope blizz reads this thread^^.
|
they must make sc2 in very close conjunction with the top korean progamer teams like casper said. otherwise its going to suck
|
On September 11 2004 05:03 aseq wrote: In wc3, i see more and more frequently ppl just killing off their own units when their opponent has a new tech (hunts vs ghoul/garg eg). This is crazy, and should not be allowed to happen. this whole -) upkeep -) heros and item usage for heros -) town portals -) natural base defences are there for only one reason: to help the weaker player to prolong the game ... at least blizzard thought that would happen. what REALLY happened was -) orc turtly with towers -) militia fast exe -) hero only techs to wyvern or ancient of lore -) overall coward gameplay
i posted it on their forums 3 times now:
I WONT BUY SC2 IF IT HAS HEROS, NATURAL BASE DEFENCES OR ANYTHING THAT REWARDS PLAYER FOR ACTING LIKE SCARED KIDS.
this is the only thing that totally ruins war3.
|
God, with the shittiness of Blizzard's last two games, I'm starting to think that Starcraft was a complete accident. There's no way I'm going to register on those boards to say this, but...
Making a video game is like writing a book: trying to include the ideas of all the people who liked your previous book is ludicrous. Stop asking for fan input. Start with a vision, make it a reality, and hope the public embraces it.
|
warcraft 3 isn't shitty, it's just not made for 1v1 progaming entertainment in mind. It seems to cater very well to those people who like the 3v3 or 4v4 BGH type games.
Can get a bit boring watching people play 1v1s or replays though.
|
i hate to say it, but SC is going to be made for the average war3 player audience, not the average wgtour player audience. it is sad because i think you can make a game good underneath and keep it simple enough for everyone to like it on the surface, which is how war2 and sc and bw worked but lesser so with each blizz game and each blizz patch. if they try to control everything and not just tweak principles and fix major probs, if they try to understand their game completely before gamers get a chance to figure it out, you will have crap like war3 all over again
|
The fact is, as someone already stated, War3 was made for the BGH-playing masses, and SC2 will be made for the War3-playing masses. Seeing the direction they have taken recently (being totally unable to balance War3 TFT, or even make it somewhat enjoyable to play), I have no faith in Blizzard actually managing to make a worthy successor to the king of RTS games.
|
Best would be a remade StarCraft with new graphics (a really damn great uber 2D engine ) and new storyline, but the rest completely kept as it is (excluding known bugs). That way there would even be compatibility to the old SC stuff, like replays and maps! *dream* Who wants a new game anyway when he has StarCraft? Definitely not me!
|
I dont want SC2... They can make singleplayer only..
|
maybe the 3 games sc/war3/sc2 can become what quake/quake2/quake3 was. on the other hand ... q3 had the railgun and no bunnyhopping ... bleh fuck it
sc2 will fail ... if they start asking this early they obviosly have no clue what went wront with war3 ... and they wont find out since most of the best developers left ...
to quote metallica: sad but true
|
EVERYONE JUST POST THESE IDEAS on that Bnet SC2 form pls, so we can get what the people want (meaning us lol ^^)
USE your time to actually register there (if you haven't) and post these ideas to make sc2 better than bw (if not bw being alrdy the best balanced game)
|
I wonder how many more years i will say starcraft is the best pc game so far. If blizzard cant brake there old record...who can?
|
On September 11 2004 05:31 DJEtterStyle wrote: God, with the shittiness of Blizzard's last two games, I'm starting to think that Starcraft was a complete accident. There's no way I'm going to register on those boards to say this, but...
Making a video game is like writing a book: trying to include the ideas of all the people who liked your previous book is ludicrous. Stop asking for fan input. Start with a vision, make it a reality, and hope the public embraces it.
Actually it most probably was a complete accident, combined with the horrible feedback Blizzard got early on. People kept saying "lol their makin orcs in space!!1111". Afterwards almost the whole game was remade, or it'd have been a complete disaster.
IMO SC2 should keep the following SC features: - Fast pace - Large supply for units(200) - Hard counters - Distinct tech trees - Distinct units - Relatively weak units
And NOT include heroes, creeps, upkeep, extra resources, very flashy sfx and some other Wc3 stuff.
An interesting new feature would be real weather effects which influence the gameplay. Of course, an option to disable them or soften weather effects would be needed.
|
On September 11 2004 06:52 LasT[a2] wrote: EVERYONE JUST POST THESE IDEAS on that Bnet SC2 form pls, so we can get what the people want (meaning us lol ^^) i allready did
|
All this negativity/pessimism about a possible SC2 is depressing . I can't help but agree for the most part though. I wonder how Blizzard feels about it.
|
On September 11 2004 07:08 Locke-BH wrote: - Hard counters stop demanding hard counters war 3 HAS hard counters and it doesnt help any1
fortunally u added
On September 11 2004 07:08 Locke-BH wrote: - Distinct units which is what u really mean. every units needs its own dedication. firebats are good vs small units with low hp. ever tried bats vs lots? why not? yeah right they would only damage 1 or max 2 lots. same goes for lots/lings for goons/tanks for vultures/goons for ht/hydras
think about it .. starcraft dont have a hard damage counter system either ... its the unit design what counters other units
|
On September 11 2004 07:21 gravity wrote: I wonder how Blizzard feels about it. i hope the ppl in charge for war3 die og their guilt 8[
|
I guess its understandable but most of you guys just want sc with better graphics. Doesnt sc have any flaws for you? Imo sc lacks a random map generator ala AOE2. That is so much fun.
|
On September 10 2004 21:52 Pob wrote: actually i really like the idea of experience , but only 1 level eg when a marine get 5 kills he becomes a 'veteran' and has 1+ attack or something , but not level 1,2,3,4,5 etc just veteran status
Imagine how gay that would be for Z users where 3/4 of their units gets raped right away. Lings would automatically suck and then lurks would be super strong
Basically anything with splash rapes. A temp could get to like lvl 1000 in 2 storms.
I think the whole hero idea is alright. I could play a game wiht heros. What I hate the most about War3 soi that the units damage is like 20-25.
Imagine like this: Muta vs Muta (the deciding battles of ZvZ pretty much) Your mutas can do 5-10 damage. You hit him with 10 mutas, you do 5,6,7,10,5,5,5,5,5. He does all 10's. You lose horribly even though your force was the same size. I knwo it is unlikly to happen but it can happen. Most of us have played well over 1000 games of BW so think of how many games you would lose/win because of stupid things like that. When the luck factor is brought into an RTS, the game goes to hell. Also, random item drops are stupid. I played a game and I got boots of speed! w00t! My opponant got a Red Drake Egg. He got a super tough dragon thingy and I got gay ass boots. Wtf is that?
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 10 2004 22:01 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2004 21:51 FrozenArbiter wrote: Units carrying over in anything but single player is absolutely ludicrous! Impossible to balance -- Experience as in giving 1+ damage, some small % dodge ability or something like that I guess could be balanced and make for a fun game o_O
3D no. It will simply be too slow to play that game when playing people across the globe --
Bleh I'll make a post tomorrow I think :O There are a lot of dumb replies being posted. Joseph even said FOR SINGLE PLAYER and people are saying "NO DON'T USE IT IN MULTIPLAYER!" Seriously people, use your fucking heads before you reply. For some reason this irritates me greatly. Sorry but it was 6 am my time XD
|
there is 1 good thing about war3. they designed it to coerce/introduce/force ppl into a truly competitive RTS, and they tried to make it squishier for those people. im not sure either of those things are necessarily bad. when they made it "easier to be good" (from that time's perspective), bw became more competitive simultaneously, which all the good players hated at the time, but maybe it turned out for the best.
what went wrong in war3? the economy is not interesting/dynamic/deep enough, too many units that lack any real distinction i.e. casters, upgrades that are totally uninteresting. units too hard to kill, u deal with less units = killing 1 unit helps a ton and too much room for error in micro = nothing ever happens. units turn in a weird and gay way that's much slower and less responsive than in bw. if they want examples of how to do all these things better, there are plenty of examples, probably created accidentally, throughout war2, sc, and bw.
|
Heroes may be a fun idea in SC though. If you think about it, each tiem you PvZ, your tech unit is your "hero" (Reaver, Temp, Arch, whatever) You always micro it the hardest and you really depend on it to win you the game (or keep you alive). Now after saying that I was thinking about the other races and I don't really see these hero-type of units (MAYBE a defiler for Zerg but they are still a pain in the ass to get). Just think now, wouldn't it be cool if you were a Z user and you had some bad ass hero? You would have to control your units and micro your hero at the same time. Personally, I think it would be much more fun than just microing your hydras or something. Imagine having your swarm with a kerrigan in there to storm~ It would be fun. People would say it is imbalanced but then they would ahve their own heroes too. It wouldn't be imbalanced, it would just make bigger fights and more killing which is what the fans want to see. Heroes could work in a game but don't put in the creeping; once you do that the game becomes one of those micro maps vs computers that most people beat without losing a life. No one wants to watch 1 marine kill 5 zealots for 10 hours.
In conclusion, IF they implement heroes, give them a chance. If they happen to suck, sorry
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 11 2004 03:40 Travin wrote: atleast im sure that i dont want units to be constant moving like mutalisks, keep the good ol turn of ure engines while u stand still thing (to bad it dsnt work irl).
I dont want them to add more races blizzard has proven that they cant balance 4 races.
most important of all, you should be able to select more than 12 units, so u dsnt have to group millions of units just to attack..
No, handling loads of keys of units is part of what makes really good zergs impressive :O
|
i dont think heros are a bad idea at all, they are just badly executed like everything in war3. when war3 was released it was just as unfinished as the betas everyone was pirating. tft reduced the gayness of the economy and upkeep which were just .. too much thats all, just like heros in war3. in sc a hero could be like a moving building, balanced to fit the role, u can research things for the unit at it, its harder to kill than a normal unit, but in war3 blah blah blah im just saying heros could be less crutial than they are in war3 and fit nicely into an RTS as much as anything else.
|
Here is my wish list: -BEAUTIFUL 2D rendering. Not only would it set it apart from the crowd, it would look cool too. -Flashier B.Net, like W3 -Maybe 1 more race(Xel'Naga?), but concentrate mostly on vastly expanding the arsenal of the races they have -Massive lengthy beta trials, to iron out ALL the kinks, maybe only make it avaliable to those who play SC1, and are familiar with perfection^^ -Concentrate on making it more "macro" based, to avoid turning into something like tiny W3. -No heros, agressive nuetral units, or anything like W3.
|
On September 11 2004 08:31 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 03:40 Travin wrote: atleast im sure that i dont want units to be constant moving like mutalisks, keep the good ol turn of ure engines while u stand still thing (to bad it dsnt work irl).
I dont want them to add more races blizzard has proven that they cant balance 4 races.
most important of all, you should be able to select more than 12 units, so u dsnt have to group millions of units just to attack..
No, handling loads of keys of units is part of what makes really good zergs impressive :O
Agreed ~_~
|
This is what I think should happen:
We need one representative or a few that are famous [ Progamers, rekrul, leg, someone famous in our community with cred ]
We need a list of what we ALL agree on. As impossible as it sounds, this list has already been started.
The true craft fans who've been playing since day one and visit this forum want: Keep the same 2D Graphics format.
An expansion will be just as great as another game if not BETTER because it's nearly impossible to re-create what happened with Starcraft and Broodwar. By just creating an expansion we will have a higher chance of remaking that glory.
Continue the story on the plot it's been going, don't put in bs twists and fuck up the godly single player.
No fucking heroes. Because we know they could work but I don't think any of us wanna give Blizzard chances after the heroes in WC3. We want the BEST chances possible to recreate BW.
No fucking items, and so many upgrades for EVERY unit, when I play wc3 it's like playing diablo with every fucking unit including peons, wtf is that.
One new race max assuming you create SC2, 3 new races or some other absurd number would make ZERO sense. The only considerable races are Xel'Naga or the new race implied by Duran. Xel'Naga would be hard as hell to make original though considering they are an advanced Protoss. They'd cost way too much and the ' ladder ' between the other races would be too wide. Think about it, Xel'Nagas first unit would probably only be defeated by 2 zeals or 6 rines or 7-8 lings. Duran's race seems most appropriate.
We DON'T want wc3, do not look at it or even look at the few succesess you had with wc3. Sc is sc, remember, not warcraft in space.
We all want an RTS. We do NOT want a fusion of RTS FPS MMORPG
Point out the sc scene in Korea, educate them, do you really think that by changing the game like you did to wc3 that sc will still continue to exist? People LIVE off sc, you're doing something right, keep it that way.
HARD COUNTERS, I cannot stress this enough, and I'm sure the majority of the community backs me. WE WANT A HARD GAME, DON'T PUSSIFY WITH SOFT COUNTERS.
Generic things like these I think we all agree on and we need to present it RIGHT and with AUTHORITY.
|
to sum it up, they should try to make a game that current sc players would want to play. as war3 has proven, the dumbasses will play anything, so dont worry about them.
|
Like most of you I lost all faith in Blizzard and thought they don't know what the hell they are doing. But reading most of the ideas makes me think they are very good.
|
Bah, if it sucks(it will), I guess people will eventually come back to bw(the hardcore players).
|
On September 11 2004 09:19 MannerLess_ wrote: Bah, if it sucks(it will), I guess people will eventually come back to bw(the hardcore players). the hardcore player wont even switch to sc2 if its not anywhere near sc1
|
On September 11 2004 09:25 jacen wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 09:19 MannerLess_ wrote: Bah, if it sucks(it will), I guess people will eventually come back to bw(the hardcore players). the hardcore player wont even switch to sc2 if its not anywhere near sc1 Oh well, I think everyone will at laest end up trying it, but unless SC2 is very good(which most likely is not gonna happen), I don't see BW's community dying anytime soon, dunno about progaming tho.
|
On September 11 2004 08:45 Abyss_Bahamut wrote: This is what I think should happen:
We need one representative or a few that are famous [ Progamers, rekrul, leg, someone famous in our community with cred ]
We need a list of what we ALL agree on. As impossible as it sounds, this list has already been started.
The true craft fans who've been playing since day one and visit this forum want: Keep the same 2D Graphics format.
An expansion will be just as great as another game if not BETTER because it's nearly impossible to re-create what happened with Starcraft and Broodwar. By just creating an expansion we will have a higher chance of remaking that glory.
Continue the story on the plot it's been going, don't put in bs twists and fuck up the godly single player.
No fucking heroes. Because we know they could work but I don't think any of us wanna give Blizzard chances after the heroes in WC3. We want the BEST chances possible to recreate BW.
No fucking items, and so many upgrades for EVERY unit, when I play wc3 it's like playing diablo with every fucking unit including peons, wtf is that.
One new race max assuming you create SC2, 3 new races or some other absurd number would make ZERO sense. The only considerable races are Xel'Naga or the new race implied by Duran. Xel'Naga would be hard as hell to make original though considering they are an advanced Protoss. They'd cost way too much and the ' ladder ' between the other races would be too wide. Think about it, Xel'Nagas first unit would probably only be defeated by 2 zeals or 6 rines or 7-8 lings. Duran's race seems most appropriate.
We DON'T want wc3, do not look at it or even look at the few succesess you had with wc3. Sc is sc, remember, not warcraft in space.
We all want an RTS. We do NOT want a fusion of RTS FPS MMORPG
Point out the sc scene in Korea, educate them, do you really think that by changing the game like you did to wc3 that sc will still continue to exist? People LIVE off sc, you're doing something right, keep it that way.
HARD COUNTERS, I cannot stress this enough, and I'm sure the majority of the community backs me. WE WANT A HARD GAME, DON'T PUSSIFY WITH SOFT COUNTERS.
Generic things like these I think we all agree on and we need to present it RIGHT and with AUTHORITY.
You make an online petition, and I'll sign it... not that it worked when that shitty patch came out on April fools day.
|
i just wanna ask you war3 haters something, if the game is so dumbed down and newbified, what seperates the good players from the best players?
it's not racial imbalance, that's actually pretty good (within about 2-3% differences)
it's not luck, anyone says you can win war3 on 'item luck' is stupid and hasn't played the game since they changed the drop tables (over a year ago)
=/
for the record, i don't want heroes, upkeep, smaller armies, creeps, shops, mercenaries in SC2
but to call war3 a newbie game at all is quite ignorant, why dont' you just go to korea and become a pro-war3 gamer and make tons of money then? =p
|
|
On September 11 2004 08:14 Jim wrote: I guess its understandable but most of you guys just want sc with better graphics. Doesnt sc have any flaws for you? Imo sc lacks a random map generator ala AOE2. That is so much fun.
i wouldn't call that a flaw. it'd be cool, but a flaw is something else.
|
There are a few key things that I think makes BW great:
1.) Interesting, and difficult, but doable micro tasks. 2.) Building a large eco is a strategy. 3.) Every match has the potential to spawn some cute, situational strategy. 4.) Each race has a significantly different strategy when facing the other races. 5.) Depth of ability to harass. 6.) Fast pace.
|
If they make a Mega-Patch then they are cohessively losing out on millions of dollars, yes it sounds best to the majority of the gamers, but seriously...would a corporation that is constantly losing respect from its own gamers even run the risk of not making the money while its there..?
More than 9 out of 10 brood war players with extensive knowledge of the game would tell you they want pretty much the same things... Now lets think, I'm sure Blizzard are not 9 year olds sitting around thinking "Lets make ORCS IN SPACE", they must have a general idea of why starcraft was much more supported tournament wise and have the longevity to last as long as it has..
I guess what I'm trying to say is stop bashing something that hasn't even had a platform chosen for itself yet, get on the forums, be productive and give positive, well rounded answers, and refrain from making yourselves look like jackasses by bashing people who play video games for fun and entertainment *war3 players*, its not, and wheter you believe it or not, will not help your arguement at all.
God forbid they don't make it exactly how YOU want it...your life is now over, shoot yourself.
|
I remember when I first baught WC3 the 3rd day it was released. Got bored of it in 3 weeks and havent played it since then. However, a month ago, I was at a friends house who had WC3, but no starcraft, so i played a game for fun. I was orc he was undead, and level 6. With my micro/macro I overpowered him, killing his entire army numerous times. Everytime he countered me he would say "No way are u noob, look how fast u rebuild ur army".( I was MACROING!!! :O ) In the end his giant beatle hero thing killed my entire army, cause it was like level 9. He had gone a "creeped" the entire map, something I hadnt done. I had also expoed a couple of times, but there was nothing I could do against his gay hero. My orcs and shit were even upped to the max. But the conclusion is, I nearly beat a lvl 6 player cause I knew the concept of macro (U cant really micro in wc3). WC3 is just an easier and crappier version of starcraft.
The only micro u can do in wc3, is like zealot vrs zealot micro.
|
UPDATE!!JosephH has just posted yet ANOTHER suggestion question: What platform do you most want to see the next RTS StarCraft game on? Which would you least like to see it on? Why? What advantages/disadvantages do you see to that platform compared to others?
I'll put this into the original post as well. I think this is a question that has an answer we all can agree on.
|
With my luck, SC2 will be XBOX only with heroes, creeping and a 100 food limit.
|
Not to be an ass to ownage, but level 6 guy =[. Pretty much everyone from level 1 to level 10 have the same skills. An average played right now is about level 27. Level 6 is nothing =[. But I get your point.
|
ROFL, an strategy game without a mouse isn't doable, especially if it involves so much speed like Starcraft. The online community requires an pc too. There's like only 1 million ppl playing on xbox online servers ... :S.
iirc starcraft 64 wasn't exactly a hit too. A pc is just capable of sooooooooooo much more then a console.
|
Hmm, im looking forward if they manage to discover new race
|
Wow this is amazing I can't believe it, it's finally official. But I don't really care about it unless they manage to make it better than starcraft. I'll try before I buy and if I like it more than starcraft I'll play that part of the time, but sc:bw forever.
Actually a nice feature would be to play sc:bw with sc2 in either original format or sc2 format with original sc:bw players so you wouldn't have to switch games to play each one.
|
United States10774 Posts
I wish it stayed as 2D, I like it as it is right now. No heroes, This once-popular game called Kingdom Under Fire got fucked because of heroes. No experiences stuff, easier observer settings
Hmm..Units?Maybe zerg can have more useful/effecitve magic unit?That would be awesome. I hope races stay as Z P T thow. =]
|
United States10774 Posts
I remember when I called everybody who said SC2 was coming out stupid.x.X
|
umm, i cant call wc3 crappy, instead of macroing you creep, and in battles its all about the same but in sc you move couple of units at the time and in wc3 you command single units
|
On September 11 2004 12:35 suxN wrote: umm, i cant call wc3 crappy, instead of macroing you creep, and in battles its all about the same but in sc you move couple of units at the time and in wc3 you command single units
How good are you at both games?
|
On September 11 2004 12:02 0wNaG3- wrote: I remember when I first baught WC3 the 3rd day it was released. Got bored of it in 3 weeks and havent played it since then. However, a month ago, I was at a friends house who had WC3, but no starcraft, so i played a game for fun. I was orc he was undead, and level 6. With my micro/macro I overpowered him, killing his entire army numerous times. Everytime he countered me he would say "No way are u noob, look how fast u rebuild ur army".( I was MACROING!!! :O ) In the end his giant beatle hero thing killed my entire army, cause it was like level 9. He had gone a "creeped" the entire map, something I hadnt done. I had also expoed a couple of times, but there was nothing I could do against his gay hero. My orcs and shit were even upped to the max. But the conclusion is, I nearly beat a lvl 6 player cause I knew the concept of macro (U cant really micro in wc3). WC3 is just an easier and crappier version of starcraft.
The only micro u can do in wc3, is like zealot vrs zealot micro.
you can't level a hero past level 5 from creeping, so he got to level 9 from killing your units =/
|
I saw this a couple of days ago, in SCLEGacy.com, I hope they make Sc2. But a True Sequel not a stupid copy of SC with Heros and that crap.
|
I'll bet anything, their will be a new bad race, and the 3 original ones will unite themselves to fight this fourth one...
|
On September 11 2004 13:30 Orome wrote: I'll bet anything, their will be a new bad race, and the 3 original ones will unite themselves to fight this fourth one...
...you might wanna add that will ruin the game's balance as well.
|
This looks like a job for Hovz
-sets up hovz signal set them straight!-
|
On September 11 2004 12:21 Frits wrote: ROFL, an strategy game without a mouse isn't doable, especially if it involves so much speed like Starcraft.
There will be auto-clicking.
|
in regards to the 3d movment aspect, i think the only thing this would effect is map-balancing. also on the map aspect: blizzard should make every map "LT level" and nothing bigger than 192x192, if that.
|
I don't want a SC2. SC: BW is awesome.
|
Just sharing my sc visions:
-Obviously it's gonna be 3d. But i REALLY hope the height differences are gonna be the same like cliffs in lt etc... In wc3 height serves like almost no strategic value at all. And the overal height system sucks ass.
-New unique race, ok in wc3 human and orc aren't different enough at all, but this was just the same in wc2. They should add a new race, it'll take A LOT of thinking through etc, but it would be sooo much cooler, i mean if they would only do just new graphics in sc2 and nothing more. Starcraft WILL get boring eventually. Refreshment would be nice, especially for the non-progamers who are obviously a minority. Look at wc3, it's pretty balanced, and blizzard won't stop working until it reaches total balance, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. There isn't like 1 race that is used by everyone much more, and if you've seen the story line of sc, you know a new race is coming.
-System specs, look we obviously can't be using a pentium 1 or something forever. The specs should be a little higher then wc3. You don't want sc2 to score a 4 for graphics in every magazine? And i won't mind buying a good comp, you can't let that go for quality of the game. Good graphics but being able to see a lot of units at the same time is essential. 200 limit at least, 300 or 400 would be nice.
-For gods sake, keep the pace. And unit physics. 2 lurker shots should kill a marine, but a marine should run very fast when it's stimmed. Vulture's should be fast. Keep everything fast and low on hp. Big army's is what's sc is about.
-no heroes, no experience, no autocasting on super-awesome spells, duh. Heal is autocast, the rest not, and i like how if you cast storm with 12 temps selected, they all cast the storm. But in wc3 only 1 would cast that spell. I mean, the 1 second 8 lockdowns wouldn't mean shit anymore then. =[
-platform, there's no need to even start about this, you can't even get on the site or know about starcraft with an pc. The speed and graphics just suck on consoles. (ok the xbox graphics are nice tho)
OK i think i covered the things important to make sc2 awesome.
|
heal is not the only autocast, Frits. infest command center is as well ^__-
|
is awesome32251 Posts
Frits w3 is not totally well balanced...they could get a new race in... but if the have a balanced game through years why not take that balance and implement it in the new game? ;D
|
On September 11 2004 13:20 SoleSteeler wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 12:02 0wNaG3- wrote: I remember when I first baught WC3 the 3rd day it was released. Got bored of it in 3 weeks and havent played it since then. However, a month ago, I was at a friends house who had WC3, but no starcraft, so i played a game for fun. I was orc he was undead, and level 6. With my micro/macro I overpowered him, killing his entire army numerous times. Everytime he countered me he would say "No way are u noob, look how fast u rebuild ur army".( I was MACROING!!! :O ) In the end his giant beatle hero thing killed my entire army, cause it was like level 9. He had gone a "creeped" the entire map, something I hadnt done. I had also expoed a couple of times, but there was nothing I could do against his gay hero. My orcs and shit were even upped to the max. But the conclusion is, I nearly beat a lvl 6 player cause I knew the concept of macro (U cant really micro in wc3). WC3 is just an easier and crappier version of starcraft.
The only micro u can do in wc3, is like zealot vrs zealot micro. you can't level a hero past level 5 from creeping, so he got to level 9 from killing your units =/ Wasn't that added in TFT?
|
frits please dont compare war3's struggle to become balanced with sc's or bw's. the situation is not parallel. bw has made 1 severely major patch (by sc standards), which pales in comparison to the regular patches of war3 and tft. they aren't just patching war3/tft; by sc standards, they are completely overhauling it, REGULARLY exceeding the MOST SEVERE PATCH IN BW HISTORY and they still are left with an inferior game time and time again. sc was better out of the box (barring bug abuses) than bw was (bw needed a major patch and major changes in which maps people played), and sc+bw+war2 all are more playable out of the box than war3 and tft have EVER been at this point after handfulls of massive overhauls.
|
On September 11 2004 09:33 pooper-scooper wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 08:45 Abyss_Bahamut wrote: This is what I think should happen:
We need one representative or a few that are famous [ Progamers, rekrul, leg, someone famous in our community with cred ]
We need a list of what we ALL agree on. As impossible as it sounds, this list has already been started.
The true craft fans who've been playing since day one and visit this forum want: Keep the same 2D Graphics format.
An expansion will be just as great as another game if not BETTER because it's nearly impossible to re-create what happened with Starcraft and Broodwar. By just creating an expansion we will have a higher chance of remaking that glory.
Continue the story on the plot it's been going, don't put in bs twists and fuck up the godly single player.
No fucking heroes. Because we know they could work but I don't think any of us wanna give Blizzard chances after the heroes in WC3. We want the BEST chances possible to recreate BW.
No fucking items, and so many upgrades for EVERY unit, when I play wc3 it's like playing diablo with every fucking unit including peons, wtf is that.
One new race max assuming you create SC2, 3 new races or some other absurd number would make ZERO sense. The only considerable races are Xel'Naga or the new race implied by Duran. Xel'Naga would be hard as hell to make original though considering they are an advanced Protoss. They'd cost way too much and the ' ladder ' between the other races would be too wide. Think about it, Xel'Nagas first unit would probably only be defeated by 2 zeals or 6 rines or 7-8 lings. Duran's race seems most appropriate.
We DON'T want wc3, do not look at it or even look at the few succesess you had with wc3. Sc is sc, remember, not warcraft in space.
We all want an RTS. We do NOT want a fusion of RTS FPS MMORPG
Point out the sc scene in Korea, educate them, do you really think that by changing the game like you did to wc3 that sc will still continue to exist? People LIVE off sc, you're doing something right, keep it that way.
HARD COUNTERS, I cannot stress this enough, and I'm sure the majority of the community backs me. WE WANT A HARD GAME, DON'T PUSSIFY WITH SOFT COUNTERS.
Generic things like these I think we all agree on and we need to present it RIGHT and with AUTHORITY. You make an online petition, and I'll sign it... not that it worked when that shitty patch came out on April fools day.
At least one person agrees with me - _-;
Petition is not a bad idea though.
|
On September 11 2004 14:45 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: frits please dont compare war3's struggle to become balanced with sc's or bw's. the situation is not parallel. bw has made 1 severely major patch (by sc standards), which pales in comparison to the regular patches of war3 and tft. they aren't just patching war3/tft; by sc standards, they are completely overhauling it, REGULARLY exceeding the MOST SEVERE PATCH IN BW HISTORY and they still are left with an inferior game time and time again. sc was better out of the box (barring bug abuses) than bw was (bw needed a major patch and major changes in which maps people played), and sc+bw+war2 all are more playable out of the box than war3 and tft have EVER been at this point after handfulls of massive overhauls.
Yeah, obviously it's much harder to balance. But what else do you want. Blizzard WILL include a new race, and blizzard WILL patch it a lot, nothing really much to do about this. Eventually it will be ok. I don't see any MAJOR imbalances @ wc3. I wouldn't call the patches massive overhauls. Blizzard is doing a great job, they should've released the game a little later for balancing, but now they are letting the community balance it which will go much faster, and this way we can make the game balanced. And just look at blizzard's last patch and upcoming, 3 new heroes and balance changes. If there's 1 company that can do it it's blizzard. I just hope the game is gonna be great.
|
On September 11 2004 14:44 Ebenol wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 13:20 SoleSteeler wrote: On September 11 2004 12:02 0wNaG3- wrote: I remember when I first baught WC3 the 3rd day it was released. Got bored of it in 3 weeks and havent played it since then. However, a month ago, I was at a friends house who had WC3, but no starcraft, so i played a game for fun. I was orc he was undead, and level 6. With my micro/macro I overpowered him, killing his entire army numerous times. Everytime he countered me he would say "No way are u noob, look how fast u rebuild ur army".( I was MACROING!!! :O ) In the end his giant beatle hero thing killed my entire army, cause it was like level 9. He had gone a "creeped" the entire map, something I hadnt done. I had also expoed a couple of times, but there was nothing I could do against his gay hero. My orcs and shit were even upped to the max. But the conclusion is, I nearly beat a lvl 6 player cause I knew the concept of macro (U cant really micro in wc3). WC3 is just an easier and crappier version of starcraft.
The only micro u can do in wc3, is like zealot vrs zealot micro. you can't level a hero past level 5 from creeping, so he got to level 9 from killing your units =/ Wasn't that added in TFT?
It sure was. :-)
|
I personally don't really want SC2, I don't think they could do as good a job, they will probably throw it into 3d with cartoon graphics which will also make mass unit control nearly impossible. Then again if anyone could find a perfect mix, it is Blizzard, we will just have to wait and see in 5years....
|
I think every single one of you should emphasize in ALL of your posts that above all, we do not want a game like WC3 and they should not accept advice from WC3 fans regarding Starcraft.
Try not to be too malicious, though. We all know WC3 players are fucking clueless and retarded when it comes to competitive RTS but it's really difficult to make somebody else understand this fact, and you'll just come off in a very bad way to the Blizzard staff.
|
there is one thing from warcraft3 that HAS to be implemented in SC:2.
alt+G.
|
On September 11 2004 15:39 radiaL wrote: there is one thing from warcraft3 that HAS to be implemented in SC:2.
alt+G.
Yes. That just HAS to be implemented in SC2. And Abyss_Bahamut pretty much summed it up well.
|
WC3 is of course mostly balanced cos all 4 races are very similar. All have the same type of units, only different stats, names, etc. 1 basic melee, 1 basic ranges, 2 casters, 1 anticaster, 1 heavy melee, 1 support ranged, 2 towers, 2 flyers.
It of course has to come out on PC. one idea i had for awhile is to make it run from bootable CD, so there is no windows, it loads all the drivers for hardware, so you can have an uber-beatiful game. Not sure if everybody would like to reboot tho, i'd like to see how much it matters.
I really don't see why it has to be 3d. To be honest, i prefer sc gfx over w3 gfx, since 2d is just so much clearer. They could use some 3d stuff tho, but mainly use top-down sprites (maybe a bit like ikaruga?).
|
On September 11 2004 10:53 SoleSteeler wrote: i just wanna ask you war3 haters something, if the game is so dumbed down and newbified, what seperates the good players from the best players?
it's not racial imbalance, that's actually pretty good (within about 2-3% differences)
it's not luck, anyone says you can win war3 on 'item luck' is stupid and hasn't played the game since they changed the drop tables (over a year ago)
=/
for the record, i don't want heroes, upkeep, smaller armies, creeps, shops, mercenaries in SC2
but to call war3 a newbie game at all is quite ignorant, why dont' you just go to korea and become a pro-war3 gamer and make tons of money then? =p
It's like anything in life, when you don't know about something, often times ignorance and prejudice is formed. It's very easy to see who has played WarCraft 3 for real, and who hasn't, just by simple statements made. It's frustrating, but shouldn't be taken too seriously as those that DO share their ignorance and prejudice for the game really aren't having any effect on the community so there's no harm done to anyone but themselves. But I'm sure you know that, I'm just discussing it with you.
But I too would much rather see SC2 more like SC and without War3 elements. Sure, I defend War3 all the time, but it's not because I feel the game is better than SC. I just defend it because some of the things that are said about it are just down-right ignorant and people to this day still don't understand how complex and different the two games really are. War3 is a great game, well fit for high-level competition, but I still enjoy SC more, and would much rather see a true StarCraft sequel than a game that Blizzard thinks would be cool or fun.
Even if most of you are incredibly biased and uneducated on the subject of War3, for this purpose I hope your hatred is taken into consideration, because if it isn't, theres a very good chance Blizzard will try to merge the best of both worlds, and instead of seeing a true sequel, we'll see yet again a totally different game, and while the game may be great in it's own ways, I think it's quite clear that everyone wants a true SC sequel, not a new game.
|
On September 11 2004 15:49 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 15:39 radiaL wrote: there is one thing from warcraft3 that HAS to be implemented in SC:2.
alt+G. Yes. That just HAS to be implemented in SC2. And Abyss_Bahamut pretty much summed it up well.
Yesssss thank you, need to rally more people, otherwise they will take opinions from dumbasses spread around everywhere through the internet.
|
is awesome32251 Posts
PLease someone kill That w3 supporter OvjdsfjbFrio Sth kill him asap plz -.-
|
On September 11 2004 18:02 IntoTheWow wrote: PLease someone kill That w3 supporter OvjdsfjbFrio Sth kill him asap plz -.-
i second that, had i great hacking skills his internet connection would be dead for a loooong time..
on a related note nice to see all the tl.net people representing the true view of what we like to see in an eventual sequel. keep on preaching the good word highpriest Fakesteve
|
On September 11 2004 15:14 Frits wrote: Show nested quote +On September 11 2004 14:44 Ebenol wrote: On September 11 2004 13:20 SoleSteeler wrote: On September 11 2004 12:02 0wNaG3- wrote: I remember when I first baught WC3 the 3rd day it was released. Got bored of it in 3 weeks and havent played it since then. However, a month ago, I was at a friends house who had WC3, but no starcraft, so i played a game for fun. I was orc he was undead, and level 6. With my micro/macro I overpowered him, killing his entire army numerous times. Everytime he countered me he would say "No way are u noob, look how fast u rebuild ur army".( I was MACROING!!! :O ) In the end his giant beatle hero thing killed my entire army, cause it was like level 9. He had gone a "creeped" the entire map, something I hadnt done. I had also expoed a couple of times, but there was nothing I could do against his gay hero. My orcs and shit were even upped to the max. But the conclusion is, I nearly beat a lvl 6 player cause I knew the concept of macro (U cant really micro in wc3). WC3 is just an easier and crappier version of starcraft.
The only micro u can do in wc3, is like zealot vrs zealot micro. you can't level a hero past level 5 from creeping, so he got to level 9 from killing your units =/ Wasn't that added in TFT? It sure was. :-)
sure was indeed
|
Starcraft is great now because it has evolved. It started great because it had A) Three cardinally different races, which was never before seen B) Balance which was never before seen C) Original graphical approach and a lot of variety
Starcraft is great now because of how its true variety ( not pseudo variety ) and balance allowed it to capture people's attention indefinitely and the game to evolve infinitely. It's impossible to make a game that will compare in greatness to SC off the bat. The game's experience and gamer-influenced changes after creation, the invention of micro, macro and tactics are its jewels.
If a game attempts to mimic the best parts of starcraft right now, and introduce improvements at the same time, it will sport a short user attention span
|
Dune II was actually the first game to incorporate 3 unique races in an RTS game. SC is the first to make it famous.
|
Not as unique I believe harvesters were the same and all races had similar tanks etc...
|
On September 11 2004 08:17 MiniRoman wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2004 21:52 Pob wrote: actually i really like the idea of experience , but only 1 level eg when a marine get 5 kills he becomes a 'veteran' and has 1+ attack or something , but not level 1,2,3,4,5 etc just veteran status Imagine how gay that would be for Z users where 3/4 of their units gets raped right away. Lings would automatically suck and then lurks would be super strong Basically anything with splash rapes. A temp could get to like lvl 1000 in 2 storms. I think the whole hero idea is alright. I could play a game wiht heros. What I hate the most about War3 soi that the units damage is like 20-25.
did you read my post? i said there is only 1 upgrade and that is to veteran status , there is no level 1000 temps or anything , havent you ever played the original command and conquer? sheez!
I have thought about this whole starcraft2 thing for a while , while not exactly the best comparison i know but imagine starcraft is warcraft 1 and starcraft 2 is warcraft 2 , that is the sort of improvement i would be happy with , atm i can think of nothing i liked more in warcraft 1 (ok except wolfriders) than in warcraft2
|
I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so).
|
the thing that makes warcraft 3 attractive is that god damn sexy icon thing and the tournaments in the bnet channel.... aww man, and also how there are no gay ppl that bot themselves/map hack and ruin the ladder.. in WC3 the ladder actually give u a rewarding feeling.
id be soo happy if blizzard could just make some patch that gave starcraft some sexy update with icons and level and stuff
|
On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so).
Ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.
|
On September 12 2004 01:56 Chris307 wrote: Show nested quote +On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so). Ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.
|
On September 12 2004 01:56 Chris307 wrote: Show nested quote +On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so). Ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban ban.
Well, the WC3 engine (note: ENGINE, not game) is the best 3D RTS engine ever made, and I have no faith in Blizzard managing to top that with anything they can come up with for SC2.
My fear is, they'll make one with a true 3D camera and true 3D movement, which alone is enough to horribly screw over the game (*cough*Ground Control II*cough*).
|
On September 12 2004 01:49 UniversalMoron wrote: I wouldn't mind to see the Warcraft III graphics engine in SC2. It has actually the only GOOD 3D-RTS camera i've ever seen, since it's basically static (though you can zoom in, but there's no point in doing so).
|
Oh come on people, face the facts. It's 2004, there is no way they'll make another 2D game anymore. I have never seen a 3D RTS with a decent camera system besides War3, and if i had to choose between it and something "new" Blizzard might be coming up with, i'd choose the one i know does the job.
|
|
3D just for the sake of 3D is retarded. There is NO reason whatsoever in a RTS-game to have a 3D engine when the camera mode is fixed. Does it need to be said that all RTS-games with a moving POV are unplayable?
2D runs faster, looks MUCH better, it's much easier to spot differences between units etc. If SC2 is anything like WC3 I for one will NEVER play it. I tried WC3 for one game, and completely hated it because of how it looked and felt.
Much too slow, weird camera, units looked to similar (hard to distinguish them in battles)...
Nah a SC2 should be in 2D with locked resolution at 1024/768 so that no advantages/disadvantages can come from playing the game in 1600/1200.
Oh and no more than 3 Races, hard counters as before, very little static defences and no such from start. Unit experience.. well maybe veteran status but no other than that. Absolutely no heroes or creeps.
|
wow, check out the thread fakesteve made. This ovarizo guy is the biggest ignorant moron i've seen online so far
|
On September 12 2004 03:34 Luhh wrote: Nah a SC2 should be in 2D with locked resolution at 1024/768 so that no advantages/disadvantages can come from playing the game in 1600/1200.
It should be, but it won't be. Trust me. The fact that they're inquiring about true 3-dimensinal movement proves that the engine is 3D.
A company like Blizzard would not make a 2D game anymore, unless it was for GBA exclusively.
|
btw, all your points were valid fakesteve and indeed expressed the views of the majority. gw
<3
|
On September 12 2004 03:34 Luhh wrote:
Nah a SC2 should be in 2D with locked resolution at 1024/768 so that no advantages/disadvantages can come from playing the game in 1600/1200.
SC2 won't be out for at least another 4 years , you think people will still use 1024/768 then? rofl 1600/1200 will be the minimum res
|
At the start I've had the problem too of not distinguishing units in war3 because of it being 3d, but I think it's partly because the units are similar anyway... 90% of the units are women, man and animals wearing colorful clothes and carrying sticks or swords. That won't be such a big problem in sc2, considering how different all the units are. They said it's gonna be 3d and there's nothing that can be done about it, since they'll have a hard time selling a 2d game, no matter that it is probably better. I just hope there are not that much huge special effects because I can't see shit when a big battle happens in war3.
|
On September 12 2004 03:34 Luhh wrote: There is NO reason whatsoever in a RTS-game to have a 3D engine when the camera mode is fixed. while you might be right with something you said, you are definitely wrong on this one. only in 3d you can add stuff like pixel and vertex shaders to add effects that REALLY blow your eyes out but dont affect the ui or the gameplay. e.g.: -) siege tank shock waves on impact -) more realistic fire from firebats -) real pixel shaded psi storm lightning forks that look different EVERY time -) real great transparency effects for invisible units -) better rocket smoke -) real fog effects for dark swarm clouds
there are MANY things that could look MUCH better without changing the overall look and the ui. edit: 3d also gives the ability to let the users change the resolution and maintain the same pov.
|
The 3d engine is needed but not that way as it is used in war3, there are to many colours. And that's right the game, if ever, will be ready in min 2 years and the graphic and res will be better, higher etc.
|
Yes the colors hurt! I bet everyone noticed War3 was way too colorfull right from the first published beta shots... a more techy and dark/desaturated look like broodwar might own with a similar (and better) engine, plus as Nuttie says the resolution/antialiasing will be better, and the models more complex and smooth
|
I think sc2 will be alot quicker than 4 years, since the foundations are already set and they shouldnt really chnage with the core of the game.
|
goodluck blizzard. steve, klogon, tkwl and I put in a big effort a little while ago, and i _hope_ the admins saw it. anyway well done steve, tl.net fighting~!!
|
Belgium8305 Posts
Oh God, I just read around a bit there.. That OvazioFrio guy.. wow...
Head... exploding...
*cries*
|
I dont understand why some of you guys dont like the SC graphics. I really think it's great for because of it's simplicity and clarity.
|
I dunno what's already been posted but here's what i think...
The game should be clear and simple by the means of control and visual effects and not weird and hard to comprehend like WC3. Lack of replays at first might make the game more competitive for a period of time too. So no 3D crap, or at least not by the means of really adding the up-down dimensions. Game should also be highly intensive.
And I think a blend of soft and hard counters is what should be implemented, but I'd prefer hard counters more to make the game easier to comprehend and more playable. I also think that spells shouldn't be in as high position as they're in WC3.
I don't think building units & such that disappear for the next map is frustrating at all. By the means of balancing the game and making it follow the plot, I think it's all better to have new units for each mission.. excluding possible story things that might want to include the same units there.
I've never really liked units gaining experience because it takes away some of the "clearness" of the game. While battling vs a group of units with every unit with a different experiencelevel, makes the fight pretty hard to control since there should be a very good and simple way of showing the unit levels. Of course units somehow transforming into something else along the gain of experience might be an art solution.
I think PCs (Windows + Linux(!!)) and macs are the best platforms for RTS games since the controller devices are absolutely the best we have for such purposes. Playing rts's on consoles is a pain in the ass without mouse and keyboard. Seeing a release on linux would also give the game more players and it'd be good to support it too - especially because it's getting more and more popular all the time.
Yup and i'm too lazy to post this in the forums but most of the stuff has probably been said already
|
That's true I like them too... but it is going to be 3d no matter what anyone of us wants, so we should better find something positive about it than just getting all crabby and grumpy
|
FuDDx
United States4999 Posts
maybe we all should move this topic to the battlenst forums so they can see what we all think if u have thank you if not do so now plz ^_^
|
Great Idea. Any post after this one should have it's copy on the battlenet forum. Go go Blizzard
|
"The Battle.net Forums Are Currently Down Please try again later."
You guys are doing a good job
|
What is sooooo wrong with 3D? with todays computers u could make starcraft in 3d and it would still be the same but more flashy and blizzard could lock the perspective and there would be no difference.
|
On September 12 2004 11:28 Geval wrote: "The Battle.net Forums Are Currently Down Please try again later." You guys are doing a good job Wow.. the past two weeks, the bnet forums have been in the worst shape ever. ;(
up and down every couple of days..
|
I'd like to see a 2D engine with 3D graphics. It would allow the game to move much like BW, but allow it to be much sharper and well better looking. I think a key element for the game is to make sure the units all are the right size, to allow microing and understanding the units quickly easy to do.
Two things that make starcraft what it is are how spells work. Almost all spells in the game have the potential to completely shift the outcome of the battle. War3 players make much more spell casters and the spells have much less effect on the battle. This is not to say that spell casters aren't important in war3, they essentially in many games seem to be MORE important because of how many of them are created. Second, the amount of macro and the importance on it in bw is simply huge. Maybe my lack of skill on war3 is why I found this to be weird, but it seemed like macro just wasn't important on war3. You could rebuild and army relatively quickly, and thus being fast with hotkeys didn't seem to have nearly the same effect. I don't mind being able to hotkey groups of buildings though, this can actually add to the skill of macro instead of diminishing it. It all depends on how it is done. If blizzard does it right, then the macro in sc2 could make bw look like nothing. Increasing supply liminites ect.
Also they have to decide if the game it more about team play or 1v1. War3 seems to be better for team play, and bw better for 1v1.
|
United States12181 Posts
On September 12 2004 12:03 Bizkit wrote: What is sooooo wrong with 3D? with todays computers u could make starcraft in 3d and it would still be the same but more flashy and blizzard could lock the perspective and there would be no difference.
The flashiness is precisely the problem. Look at War3. There are so many flashy spell effects: Bloodlust, Blizzard, Flame Strike, Lightning Shield, Slow, Dispel, Starfall, Shadow Strike, Fan of Knives, Cripple, Raise Dead, Disease Cloud, Chill (slow effect), Cloud, Unstable Concoction, Sleep, Carrion Swarm, Death Coil, Impale, Frost Nova, Frost Armor, Faerie Fire, Roar, Cyclone, Rejuvenation, Heal, Inner Fire, Dizzy (slow effect), all Aura effects. Even siege explosion effects are distracting. The list goes on and on and those were just the ones off the top of my head. The result is you have tons of units with all different kinds of icons and spell graphics surrounding them and it becomes hard to keep track of what you're doing. It's even worse if you're an observer. It becomes hard to tell which units belong to which player. It's not like that at all in Starcraft, where the units are plainly marked and there are no confusing or overly flashy spell effects.
|
i wouldn't get my hopes up of SC2 coming out any time soon..
|
I know it is not 3D, it is much more sophisticaded! -Artanis
Think about this, SC units do not want a 3D SC2 too
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 12 2004 06:49 Breeze wrote: Yes the colors hurt! I bet everyone noticed War3 was way too colorfull right from the first published beta shots... a more techy and dark/desaturated look like broodwar might own with a similar (and better) engine, plus as Nuttie says the resolution/antialiasing will be better, and the models more complex and smooth No the actual colours would have been awesome as long as the game was REALLY fast paced, it would be really fucking cool :O Just the game is way slow with all that HP --
|
On September 10 2004 21:50 tfeign wrote: Show nested quote +On September 10 2004 21:48 blackblood wrote: what is "hard counter"/"soft counter" supposed to mean? Explanation: StarCraft was the game of 'hard' counters (unit x counters unit y in virtually every case), with Warcraft III having 'soft' counters (units a, b, and c or combinations thereof can be used to combat unit y effectivelyBasically in Starcraft, one unit counters another. For example, firebat counters ling. Hydra counters firebat, and so forth. In W3, it takes multiple units to counter a unit. In theory, this encourages a mix of units. However in reality, this post sums it up pretty well: Hard counter = extremely little room for mistakes. Takes a massive amount of skill to make sure your units are alive. Skill-intensive
Soft counter = TONS of rooms for mistakes. You have time to pull back your units and not be hurt so badly at all. You don't have to be attentive to your units. Newbie-friendly
It's basically comparing skill-intensive vs newbie friendly. Which is similar to comparing SC vs W3.
SC takes a massive amount of skill because the player has to be extremely attentive to their units. W3 allows lots of room for mistakes
us starcraft pros are so biased
|
Someone said to add ALT+G. I agree, but i'd like to add some w3 features that would be nice in sc2:
-the ability to chat while the drop players window is counting down -bnet system (already mentioned) - icons, tourneys, quick finding of games vs players of same level etc.
For the following i'm not sure: -more than 12 units selection (i know, this is not from w3) -subgroups (ex. u have marines and medics in a group and u can hit tab to select only the marines, so the stim icon appears... in bw this is done by ctrl+click or double click) -multiple buildings in one control group (would make macro easier)
I think multiple spelling is a big NO. The 8 lockdown thing was already mentioned, but imagine 5 templars casting 10 perfect storms.... scary. And resource sharing in 2v2 is also a big NO. It's so funny to win 1v2 by killing the nexus of an opponent
|
Overlord, the last two things would decrease the importance of multitasking; which is one of the things that seperates good players from decent ones. Besides, imainge how much lower Nada's APM would be if he just had to hit "3t" ( :
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I don't like any of the ones you are unsure about
|
I agree with too colorful and distracting effects in W3.. Graph needs to be nice but simple .
|
fuck 3d wtf go 2d u roxxxx hehe :D
|
United States32546 Posts
it would be fun if they could introduce all the micro conveniences in war3 while putting in a factor very important to the game to do in that saved time
|
disclaimer I don't think warcraft 3 is a good game so that give me a right to express myself in this forum. Yet I wanted to think about what make me enjoy a RTS and why. That's a personal opinion. I doubt you would find it interesting, but I had fun trying to think it through. If you think I'm dead wrong I'd be glad to hear your articulate and documented reasons, because I'm at work and I desesperately try not to do my job...
What I like about warcraft 3:
-much improved teamplay (ping, ressources sharing, and the ability to buff and complement your allies)
-the upkeep system. That actually rewards agressivity if you think of it, and it makes sens.
-the great diversity of spells, units, races.
-the improved battle.net. anonymous matchmaking, in particular, is really really great when you want to play someone more or less your skill anytime.
-the editor, making it possible to create complete new games within the game engine.
-the control group management, tabbed browsing, multiple building selection, etc. And if I was a generaI and ordered a control group of ghost to lock that goon, I would expect them to understand: "get that goon locked", not "simultaneously launch 12 lockdowns on that unit". I know, that legendary boxer move wouldnt have been so impressive then. Well he just would have been legendary for something else.
-autocast minor buffs: I don't care if you flame me, and here is why: autocast is implemented in starcraft too, and I've never seen anyone say : "hey autocast heal is for noobs ! Takes away the skill ! Manual heal all the way !... Why not make it so that you have to stim each marine manually ? Wait ! Come to think of it, almost EVERY UNIT IN STARCRAFT HAS AUTOCAST FIRE ! NOOB GAME ! Make it so you have to manually click on each unit, press a (noob shortcut ! less skill !), click on an enemy ! Talk about skill !" Nothing has to be newbie-friendly, of course I'm not advocating everything autocast. Auto cast storm or feedback is obviously stupid. But heal, for instance, that would be just weird without autocast. If you are old enough, please remember how much fun it was (not) to bloodlust manually your 30 ogres in WC2 during the battle. That was just plain boring.
What I dislike about warcraft 3:
- heroes: They are quite harmless if you just consider them as better, more expensive units, but the actual disadvantage is that they are much much too versatile, thus being the great strategic equalizer. Not good
-the randomness: randomness is ok in a RTS only if the event will occur a sufficient number of times to be treated statistically, but it sucks when you deal 3 critical strikes killing the hero, or when those 4 goons cant kill that tank uphill in 6 volleys...
-the experience system: that could have been interesting, but in war3, the problem is that experience = more power = more kills = more xp -> exponential gain. That makes comebacks hardly ever seen in WC3, which sucks. Maybe if totally rebalanced...
-the cartoony graphics and the over-the-top fireworks light effects that look so pretty in the eye of a twelve year old but makes trying to know what's happening during that big 2vs2 battle absolutely illusory.
-the creeps: it sure is a tactical element of WC3, but I dislike spending time compstomping when I could actually be playing against the guy... Note that the idea was probably to prevent you from camping, which is good.
-all the things I like in broodwar that werent implemented (see below)
What I like about broodwar:
-the fast pace
-the totally separate tech trees. That really was a masterwork in RTS balancing.
-the subtle balance you have to find in each game beetween rush/tech/economics and the very little room for mistake allowed (which is mainly negated by heroes in WC3)
What I dislike about broodwar:
not much, actually. I was gonna bitch about turtling, that is so predominant in PvT or PvZ games, but in fact I think it's ok. The ability to turtle has also interesting tactic implications...
What I may enjoy in SC2
aside from the good points I stressed below, some new features might be interesting, depending of course of their implementation:
-different scales of play, like : 1) planets, ressources, fleets management, trade, warfare, treasons, etc... A bit like civilization in space but not shitty multiplayer... 2) spatial tactical battles, in full 3D, like homeworld but not boring... 3) planet ground tactical operations, like our beloved broodwar 4) small guerrilla warfare, like the commando missions in single player, or micromaps on battle.net 5) even a bit of tactical first person view might be enjoyable if it did blend smoothly into the rest of the game...
|
On September 13 2004 07:31 GosuAce wrote: I agree with too colorful and distracting effects in W3.. Graph needs to be nice but simple .
Graph in SC is already nice and simple... we dont need SC2 SC is already perfect (well they might still upgrade the battlenet options like those in W3)
|
I don't want them to make a StarCraft 2. Because no matter how good it is, we'll be disappointed and the SC community will get split.
If they do one however, I think the main purposes of the game (balance between massing-teching-exing and Macro-Micro) should be kept, though I'd like to go a tiny bit more to the micro side (Macro is a bit more important in SC imo, and I'd like it to be the other way round).
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
www.sclegacy.com Blizzard just shut down the C&C generals total conversion. omgogmogm
|
I think that 3D is NOT a good idea at all. Starcraft 2 should be exactly that - a sequel to the greatest game ever devised. To be honest I'm not getting my hopes up though. They have a tough job ahead of them to make another game that is even 1% as good as the original.
|
Good inputs so far from a lot of people.
I will put together a big post, collecting from the ideas from many of the posts in this thread in which I feel are intelligent and contribute it to the Blizzard forums once it is up and running again.
Again, I encourage that if anyone feels that they have a valid statement to speak out, post in the blizzard forums. That is where your voice will be heard and matter most.
|
nice post gricha, you should repost it in the blizzard forums
|
On September 14 2004 01:18 SoL.Origin wrote: nice post gricha, you should repost it in the blizzard forums
Well thank you, Origin.
I wouldn't post it there had it been my intention, since I can't access blizzard forum at work. If you really think it's worth something go ahed and post it, I sure don't mind...
But I am pretty sure you guys could come up with other things, and find other ideas, other must-haves of the RTS of your dreams... That's pretty fun to fancy: you got to think outside the starcraft box...
|
What I'd like to see in SC2:
No terran. I'm fond of them, you guys say it's a balanced game, but see replay pages and guess who's ruling the world, with tons of terran mediochre players beating the best protoss or zergs. Or at least a way to autowin vs terran >
Obs games. Imagine if you could see the pros totally online while playing, but without interferring their game. So connect to the game, let's say 10000 people watching that game, and if you see it jumping, or you fall... bad luck.
Little 3D effects, but not the engine. In fact, the best games ever don't have good graphics. Chess, tetris, mario bros, starcraft, anybody tried angband?
No heroes.
No 1 million units selected. Neither multibuilding selection.
No autocast.
I had seen a starcraft remake. I second that.
|
Norway10161 Posts
|
About the grapichs issue...
I think all we "har-core" bw-players who REALLY REALLY love the game as it is would love to see a sequal with 2D grapichs because we like the simplicity and clearness of bw. Tho one must understand that blizz intends to sell this game to a larger public in europe/usa also and you have no idea (or mby u have?) how many kids that would choose "Tanks Battle Super 3D Mega!" instead of starcraft 2 if it was in 3d, so I think that's basically an issue of making money or not...
Personally, I hope blizz won't let wc3 influence sc2, only to a certain extent. However, if u look on how much sc/bw influenced wc3 u realise that if sc2 will be different, it will prolly be different from wc3 as well.
I'd like a combination of soft and hard couters, which I think bw has. And if another race is added, the most important thing (cept making the game actually balanced) would be originality as many of u already have mentioned.
Also, what makes sc/bw so good is how so much can depend on the map u r playing. I mean, in wc3 all maps seems to ply on the same basis, not like sc/bw where u have to play totally different PvZ on for example Korhal then u do on LT.
Don't know what else to say, u guys pretty much said it Fakesteves post was awesome, I really hope blizz reads that... And I hope someone realises the importance of actually contacting pros in Korea for their feedback, that should be one of their main priorities because I doubt anyone knows more about the game itself than them and even tho they are not game designers, we should remember that neither are we... Think about how it would be with yellow, boxer, reach, rA, july and oov in the same room brainstorming
Peace
|
damn I am so tired of all this noobs on that forum. Some guy said that "in starcraft u can win the game by outmacroing the enemny while he is better batteling" naa it's not that simple! and alot of other ppl! now I really start to debut this will be a very good game when ppl like them is deciding what it should be like... I really hope blizzard to go out and ask some good koerans, the top players in europe/asia/america/africa, all around the world to collect information about what they should add/take away... 50% of the noobs on that forum is war3players or like some how have just played starcraft for a couple of games...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 13 2004 08:44 gricha wrote: disclaimer I don't think warcraft 3 is a good game so that give me a right to express myself in this forum. Yet I wanted to think about what make me enjoy a RTS and why. That's a personal opinion. I doubt you would find it interesting, but I had fun trying to think it through. If you think I'm dead wrong I'd be glad to hear your articulate and documented reasons, because I'm at work and I desesperately try not to do my job...
What I like about warcraft 3:
-much improved teamplay (ping, ressources sharing, and the ability to buff and complement your allies)
-the upkeep system. That actually rewards agressivity if you think of it, and it makes sens.
-the great diversity of spells, units, races.
-the improved battle.net. anonymous matchmaking, in particular, is really really great when you want to play someone more or less your skill anytime.
-the editor, making it possible to create complete new games within the game engine.
-the control group management, tabbed browsing, multiple building selection, etc. And if I was a generaI and ordered a control group of ghost to lock that goon, I would expect them to understand: "get that goon locked", not "simultaneously launch 12 lockdowns on that unit". I know, that legendary boxer move wouldnt have been so impressive then. Well he just would have been legendary for something else.
-autocast minor buffs: I don't care if you flame me, and here is why: autocast is implemented in starcraft too, and I've never seen anyone say : "hey autocast heal is for noobs ! Takes away the skill ! Manual heal all the way !... Why not make it so that you have to stim each marine manually ? Wait ! Come to think of it, almost EVERY UNIT IN STARCRAFT HAS AUTOCAST FIRE ! NOOB GAME ! Make it so you have to manually click on each unit, press a (noob shortcut ! less skill !), click on an enemy ! Talk about skill !" Nothing has to be newbie-friendly, of course I'm not advocating everything autocast. Auto cast storm or feedback is obviously stupid. But heal, for instance, that would be just weird without autocast. If you are old enough, please remember how much fun it was (not) to bloodlust manually your 30 ogres in WC2 during the battle. That was just plain boring.
What I dislike about warcraft 3:
- heroes: They are quite harmless if you just consider them as better, more expensive units, but the actual disadvantage is that they are much much too versatile, thus being the great strategic equalizer. Not good
-the randomness: randomness is ok in a RTS only if the event will occur a sufficient number of times to be treated statistically, but it sucks when you deal 3 critical strikes killing the hero, or when those 4 goons cant kill that tank uphill in 6 volleys...
-the experience system: that could have been interesting, but in war3, the problem is that experience = more power = more kills = more xp -> exponential gain. That makes comebacks hardly ever seen in WC3, which sucks. Maybe if totally rebalanced...
-the cartoony graphics and the over-the-top fireworks light effects that look so pretty in the eye of a twelve year old but makes trying to know what's happening during that big 2vs2 battle absolutely illusory.
-the creeps: it sure is a tactical element of WC3, but I dislike spending time compstomping when I could actually be playing against the guy... Note that the idea was probably to prevent you from camping, which is good.
-all the things I like in broodwar that werent implemented (see below)
What I like about broodwar:
-the fast pace
-the totally separate tech trees. That really was a masterwork in RTS balancing.
-the subtle balance you have to find in each game beetween rush/tech/economics and the very little room for mistake allowed (which is mainly negated by heroes in WC3)
What I dislike about broodwar:
not much, actually. I was gonna bitch about turtling, that is so predominant in PvT or PvZ games, but in fact I think it's ok. The ability to turtle has also interesting tactic implications...
What I may enjoy in SC2
aside from the good points I stressed below, some new features might be interesting, depending of course of their implementation:
-different scales of play, like : 1) planets, ressources, fleets management, trade, warfare, treasons, etc... A bit like civilization in space but not shitty multiplayer... 2) spatial tactical battles, in full 3D, like homeworld but not boring... 3) planet ground tactical operations, like our beloved broodwar 4) small guerrilla warfare, like the commando missions in single player, or micromaps on battle.net 5) even a bit of tactical first person view might be enjoyable if it did blend smoothly into the rest of the game...
Selecting multiple buildings means there will be no such thing as macro..
Especially with unlimited groups --
"Okay lets double tap this gateway, nice 50 gateways selected.. Press Z."
Neat, 5000 minerals gone and I'm maxed again~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~! !~ !
I really hate the war 3 spells (most) because, I think, don't do shit on their own instead they stack together with another 50 spells (because every unit has spells..) and that's when it starts taking effect.. While that may be fun, and does justify autocast I really hope they wont put it in SC 2.
I seriously have a hard time taking your post seriously after you argue for being able to order 10 ghosts to lockdown only 1 unit etc you know what I mean --
You say 'in real war they'd to that!!'
Well then we could just say 'what if they are isolated from eachother!! What if their comlink is dead! Wouldn't their squad commander decide who takes the shot?' and so on and so forth..
+ It would make the game less spectacular --
Upkeep is annoying and boring and forces a player to be aggressive. It removes an entire element, I mean you'd never see nada or oov style..
|
upkeep in sc would be like marines in wc3...
damn wc3 has marines... nm :S
But upkeep would still suck ass.
|
I'd like sc to be updated to have lots of the bnet features that wc3 takes for granted, like the ability to create their own tournaments etc. It would also be neat to model all the units in 3d while still giving everyone the option to play in 2d if they have a slower pc. Other then that, sc is like chess, don't mess with a classic.
For a real sc2, I'd like a completely diferent game. New races, new mechanics, bring it on. Wc3 is fun, but it's a completely diferent game when compared to sc which is why I always hang my head in shame when I see people compare the 2. I don't want an sc2 designed to replace sc, because sc is impossible to replace, unless you stay true to it's principles and just add new units/race. To tell you the truth I'd love sc2 to be like homeworld, which is an absolutely brilliant and incredibly fun game.
|
On September 15 2004 09:52 FrozenArbiter wrote: Selecting multiple buildings means there will be no such thing as macro..
Wrong. Being able to select multiple buildings, would not really have an impact on how to macro optimally. You still need to build your unit as soon as possible, thus selecting the unit producing buildings one at the time is the most efficient way. Saving lots of minerals up doesn't have any use, anyway.
|
Dunno about that one, it took me quite some time to hone down my hotkey system for TvP so that I could macro and micro at the same time. If i could just have all my facts binded on 6 and press T every once in a while and it will hand me tanks, then press 7 for my vult facts and it will build vults in all those is muuuuuch easier than going through your facts, making sure they are all producing equally while setting up push or whatever. toss would be even easier, esp later game, just bind 12 gates, press DZ once in a while, go storm raiding, dt dropping, all sorts of harass while you have the macro of nal_ra... It's much more impressive if you can do both those things at the same time without the multiple building binds.
anyway all this auto-cast bullshit talk is making me quote this:
I hope they have auto-cast, auto army and unit build, and even auto movement.
I mean...having to move the mouse and click in a RTS is BS...
|
omfg this Ovazio dude pissed me off.
" me: you realize that a lot of people in europe still play on like 500mhz comps?
ovazio: then they shouldn't be playing games, now should they?"
his msn is pascalid@hotmail.com
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 15 2004 17:18 Oxygen wrote: omfg this Ovazio dude pissed me off.
" me: you realize that a lot of people in europe still play on like 500mhz comps?
ovazio: then they shouldn't be playing games, now should they?"
his msn is pascalid@hotmail.com People with IQ below 50 shouldn't be posting on forums, doesn't seem to be stopping him
|
UPDATE. JosephH had just put on a few new questions.
We'd like to know what the community thinks of the idea of resource gathering in RTS games - some games in the genre have eliminated it completely. Should future RTS StarCraft games still force the player to have 'workers' who collect resources? What advantages/disadvantages does it have in terms of gameplay?
and:
We're curious what the forum community thinks about the idea of placing negative feedback functions on supply in future RTS StarCraft games. What advantages does this system have? What disadvantages? One of the more common criticisms of StarCraft is that the game depends on large groups of units and rewards turtling (I'm not arguing that that is the case or not; but it's certainly something we hear often from customers). The upkeep system in Warcraft III helps to eliminate this situation. Do you feel that something like this can be (or even needs to be) successfully integrated into future StarCraft titles?
I will update this in the topic.
|
My thoughts:
Personally I think having workers to collect resources is a definite plus. It leads to a host of new strategies as well as putting more emphasis on macro. In W3, the game is focused too much on micro. With workers, there will be a good, balanced mix of micro and macro to offer the best gaming experience.
For those who are confused by the second question, he is basically asking whether or not upkeep should be implemented in the game. I think most would agree that upkeep is a terrible idea.
|
First off resources are crittical to macro. War3 essentially doesn't have this aspect of the game. This is takes a large part of the stratagy out of the game. That said war3 was about micro and starcraft simply is not only about micro.
Second, starcraft only has turtling on money maps to a high degree. If blizzard makes Starcraft 2 for money mappers there is no way I'd even consider buying it. Yes, terran in general just turtles every freaking game. Zerg kinda turtles vs tos, but this level of turtling is stratagy and it's not like it prolongs games that are unwinnable for hours on end. It may add 10-20 minutes to a lost game, maybe. But resources die out and eventually you have to beat the enamy if you want to win.
|
For the most part, I think turtling is overrated and just too often bitched about by people who just don't know how to deal with it properly. Sure it can be annoying and incredibly hard to defeat... if you play into the turtler's hands. I just don't understand... turtling has its strengths but most definitely has weaknesses as well. If an opponent is turtling, there are definitely ways to exploit the situation and still end the game relatively quickly. It is all relatively dependant on skill levels, but either way, if your adversary is up to par, you probably would have had a long, more intense match anyway regardless of whether he chose to turtle or not.
|
It would make me sad to see them not have workers collect minerals just as they did in BW. Managing your economy/army is one of the main reasons I enjoy BW so much more than WC3. You have to wisely balance the ammount of time you spend on micro/macro and esp for zerg what your are hatching from your larvae (military units or drones)
I truely hope that they at least leave that alone, and don't try to change the dynamics of the game too horribly much
|
|
|
I support most the ideas here, but to everyone posting these lengthy analyses, please realize that it is very likely noone from blizzard is reading these posts meaning: if you want to have any actual impact on the making of starcraft 2, get your ass into those forums and post your ideas there where people will actually care. Just saying in here that "they should ask progamers and not put upkeep in etc. etc. etc." will have practically 0 effect on SC2. Instead of making posts to complain about newbs on the b.net forums go there and explain why they're wrong.
|
Thanks Bumponalog for the time to make the wonderful post at the forum. I hope others will do so as well.
|
I would love to see multiple building selection, etc, because it would make it easier for the average player like me to think about what they're doing in the late game rather than spending all their mental energy just try to spend as fast as possible, which would make the game more interesting. Sure, it would take away one skill aspect, but I think it would add more back in another, better, area. As for progamers and strong amateurs, I think they would still like to control their macro more precisely than just selecting all gateways and pressing Z or D every so often, though in the late game that could be good for them too, and for progamers would give them more time for spectatulcar micro, making games more fun to watch.
|
United States12181 Posts
On September 15 2004 21:46 gravity wrote: I would love to see multiple building selection, etc, because it would make it easier for the average player like me to think about what they're doing in the late game rather than spending all their mental energy just try to spend as fast as possible, which would make the game more interesting. Sure, it would take away one skill aspect, but I think it would add more back in another, better, area. As for progamers and strong amateurs, I think they would still like to control their macro more precisely than just selecting all gateways and pressing Z or D every so often, though in the late game that could be good for them too, and for progamers would give them more time for spectatulcar micro, making games more fun to watch.
I think your logic is a little off here. The reason micro is so impressive is because players are still executing the more mundane tasks at the same time. When you simplify the mundane tasks, that makes micro easier and therefore less impressive since everyone is doing it.
|
On September 15 2004 22:00 Excalibur_Z wrote: Show nested quote +On September 15 2004 21:46 gravity wrote: I would love to see multiple building selection, etc, because it would make it easier for the average player like me to think about what they're doing in the late game rather than spending all their mental energy just try to spend as fast as possible, which would make the game more interesting. Sure, it would take away one skill aspect, but I think it would add more back in another, better, area. As for progamers and strong amateurs, I think they would still like to control their macro more precisely than just selecting all gateways and pressing Z or D every so often, though in the late game that could be good for them too, and for progamers would give them more time for spectatulcar micro, making games more fun to watch. I think your logic is a little off here. The reason micro is so impressive is because players are still executing the more mundane tasks at the same time. When you simplify the mundane tasks, that makes micro easier and therefore less impressive since everyone is doing it. I don't think it'd make any difference, since in the late game when the macro benefits would be most useful, you usually have a lot more units, so you can just micro more units at once instead of microing some and also macroing. It would be awesome to see more 3-way attacks and the like in late-game.
|
I don't think multiple building selecion is good for the same reasons already given above. I am just an average gamer but I don't think it would be fair cause this change would benefit me way more than any skilled gamer, that is the gap would decrease just because I don't have to do the same amount of tasks in a certain time like before.
|
On September 16 2004 00:52 ParasitJonte wrote: I don't think multiple building selecion is good for the same reasons already given above. I am just an average gamer but I don't think it would be fair cause this change would benefit me way more than any skilled gamer, that is the gap would decrease just because I don't have to do the same amount of tasks in a certain time like before. I think it would actually increase the skill, as most people can click gateways fast with enough practice (not as fast as Nada or whatever, but fast enough), but not everyone can have the great sense of timing or creativity or anticipation of the opponent that the best players have, and with multiple building selection these qualities would have more room to shine through, at least in the late game.
|
plz dont change the graphik into 3d mode, dont make w3 with sc units . that's all !!!
|
and plz stay at this speed level or make it faster !! w3 is for old people !!
|
i would prefer if it was not starcraft 2 but like another expantion that would take the pressure off blizzard to make some really good graphics game and just add to the game like brood war did without fucking it up
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 16 2004 04:35 gravity wrote: Show nested quote +On September 16 2004 00:52 ParasitJonte wrote: I don't think multiple building selecion is good for the same reasons already given above. I am just an average gamer but I don't think it would be fair cause this change would benefit me way more than any skilled gamer, that is the gap would decrease just because I don't have to do the same amount of tasks in a certain time like before. I think it would actually increase the skill, as most people can click gateways fast with enough practice (not as fast as Nada or whatever, but fast enough), but not everyone can have the great sense of timing or creativity or anticipation of the opponent that the best players have, and with multiple building selection these qualities would have more room to shine through, at least in the late game. AREDASD*atf13yt74
No you can't macro like reach or nada. Not even close, I mean seriously. Lightyears apart.
Reach can control 3 groups of units while setting rally points to his army and making units out of his gateways.
If all you had to do was click 4 z 5 d 6 t and you'd get 5 of each unit would you find that impressive??
No? SEE?
It would be ARTIFICAL SHINE! As it is now, only the great players can shine --
|
On September 16 2004 04:35 gravity wrote: Show nested quote +On September 16 2004 00:52 ParasitJonte wrote: I don't think multiple building selecion is good for the same reasons already given above. I am just an average gamer but I don't think it would be fair cause this change would benefit me way more than any skilled gamer, that is the gap would decrease just because I don't have to do the same amount of tasks in a certain time like before. I think it would actually increase the skill, as most people can click gateways fast with enough practice (not as fast as Nada or whatever, but fast enough), but not everyone can have the great sense of timing or creativity or anticipation of the opponent that the best players have, and with multiple building selection these qualities would have more room to shine through, at least in the late game.
I dont think that make sense either. Bc right now you have to focus on "click gateways fast" AND "the great sense of timing or creativity or anticipation of the opponent". Not just "click gateways fast"
|
On September 16 2004 04:35 gravity wrote: Show nested quote +On September 16 2004 00:52 ParasitJonte wrote: I don't think multiple building selecion is good for the same reasons already given above. I am just an average gamer but I don't think it would be fair cause this change would benefit me way more than any skilled gamer, that is the gap would decrease just because I don't have to do the same amount of tasks in a certain time like before. I think it would actually increase the skill, as most people can click gateways fast with enough practice (not as fast as Nada or whatever, but fast enough), but not everyone can have the great sense of timing or creativity or anticipation of the opponent that the best players have, and with multiple building selection these qualities would have more room to shine through, at least in the late game.
The point of any game is for skill to decide the outcome. What you're talking about, the top pros can do. Why give that ability to every player, it would be boring.
When you (meaning everybody) think of a suggestion that diminishes what the top players can accomplish, it's not a good suggestion.
|
On September 16 2004 08:55 FrozenArbiter wrote: Show nested quote +On September 16 2004 04:35 gravity wrote: On September 16 2004 00:52 ParasitJonte wrote: I don't think multiple building selecion is good for the same reasons already given above. I am just an average gamer but I don't think it would be fair cause this change would benefit me way more than any skilled gamer, that is the gap would decrease just because I don't have to do the same amount of tasks in a certain time like before. I think it would actually increase the skill, as most people can click gateways fast with enough practice (not as fast as Nada or whatever, but fast enough), but not everyone can have the great sense of timing or creativity or anticipation of the opponent that the best players have, and with multiple building selection these qualities would have more room to shine through, at least in the late game. AREDASD*atf13yt74 No you can't macro like reach or nada. Not even close, I mean seriously. Lightyears apart. Reach can control 3 groups of units while setting rally points to his army and making units out of his gateways. If all you had to do was click 4 z 5 d 6 t and you'd get 5 of each unit would you find that impressive?? No? SEE? It would be ARTIFICAL SHINE! As it is now, only the great players can shine -- I never said I was anywhere near Nada's macro, just that it's easier to approach high levels players in terms of macro than it is to do it in the more subtle aspects of the game.
As for impressiveness, would have more time for even more impressive stuff. The overall level would be moved up. I seriously fail to see how artificially worsening the interface makes an RTS game better. After all, if there was no unit queueing or production hotkeys then good macro would be even more impressive, but that doesn't mean that taking away unit queueing or hotkeys would make the game better. Sure, fast-clicking is important, but this won't change that, it will just result in clicks being redirected, since even with easy macro you can't be doing too many things at once in SC, in the late game (unlike WC3).
|
On September 16 2004 09:55 A3iL3r0n wrote: Show nested quote +On September 16 2004 04:35 gravity wrote: On September 16 2004 00:52 ParasitJonte wrote: I don't think multiple building selecion is good for the same reasons already given above. I am just an average gamer but I don't think it would be fair cause this change would benefit me way more than any skilled gamer, that is the gap would decrease just because I don't have to do the same amount of tasks in a certain time like before. I think it would actually increase the skill, as most people can click gateways fast with enough practice (not as fast as Nada or whatever, but fast enough), but not everyone can have the great sense of timing or creativity or anticipation of the opponent that the best players have, and with multiple building selection these qualities would have more room to shine through, at least in the late game. The point of any game is for skill to decide the outcome. What you're talking about, the top pros can do. Why give that ability to every player, it would be boring. When you (meaning everybody) think of a suggestion that diminishes what the top players can accomplish, it's not a good suggestion. The game should be about fast-thinking more than fast clicking in my opinion, at least as far as possible while still giving people full control (ie not making the unit AI too autonomous). If that means some current pros will stop being good and others will rise up, then so be it; I think the game will be better for it, in the long term. After all, most people love Boxer's creativity, and that style of play would be more effective in modern times if it was a bit easier for him to keep up with macro (which iirc is his main weakness), so we would see creative players succeed more and the game become more interesting.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I'm gonna use this Denis Leary (I think) quote: "It's not stupid, it's advaaaaaaaaanceeeeed" said in a semi highpitched voice
You seriously don't see how this would impact brood war??? You would remove half of all playstyles out there.. You'd ONLY see players like boxer, yellow, gundam. Not a single nada, xellos, oov, junwi or starcraft_side. SERIOUSLY IT IS DUMB AS FUCK, it makes the skill cap MUCH LOWER.
Doing the stuff the pros do now 'but better and even more impressive' wouldn't be impressive at all because they have all the time in the world!!
I can't explain it to you if you don't see why this would be awful..
And btw you do realize that you just said the game would be easier for boxer? Hello? It's like we'd add in a trampoline for all short people in the high jump.
"It would make for more spectacular jumps, sorry the tall people can't use it".
Btw, it is not fast clicking that makes macro good (then you wouldn't see all these 100 apm tosses with awesome macro!)
It is the ability to MULTITASK.
|
|
|
|