|
From Gamespy.com:
http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790195p1.html
According to Pardo the economy of the game will still be important, players will have spend time managing their resource gatherers and making cost/benefit trade-offs between units, but the actual units will require less player involvement to do their jobs. Armies are much larger (he specifically mentions the large number of Zerg and removal of the unit control limit) and individual soldiers have more direct control over their special abilities -- they call it the "mover and shooter" design philosophy.
[...]
One of the most surprising revelations in the team's presentation was that StarCraft II will have the same number of units as the original game. That means that for every new unit added to a sides' army, one had to come out. Apparently the team did this for both gameplay and design reasons. Limiting the number of units forced the team to focus on exactly what each unit was expected to do and why it should be there. There were some iconic units like the Zealots, Marines and Zerglings that no one could imagine the game without, but there were other calls that were apparently quite painful to make. Pardo seems to feel that forcing the team to make these painful choices will result in a better game by avoiding extraneous units that never get used.
"individual soldiers have more direct control over their special abilities" sounds like autocast to me. I also wonder if removal of the unit limit is a good thing. On the other hand I consider it as a good thing that they maintain the same number of units as in sc1.
|
Sounds good over all, the only thing I don't like is the "Autocast" shit, I got so tired of that on wc3. Seems to reduce micro by alot.
|
I cant wait to build 300 zerglings, select the whole lot and at once and select auto-attack enemy main base >:D
|
death of micro
it sounds too much like rock paper scissors
|
This doesn't sound good to me. I'll miss the old units.
|
"Pardo seems to feel that forcing the team to make these painful choices will result in a better game by avoiding extraneous units that never get used."
would this really happen? i dont know about that. Someone always comes up with a new strategy based on units that are not as popular at the time.
however i do agree that too many kinds of units would be a hindrance, but loss of units like high templar , dt or reavers would kind of suck
|
Coupled with the info gamespot article I'm inclined to believe that the statement that the units will require less player involvement to do their job is a differentiation between SC2 and WC3 rather than SC2 and SC.
The majority of units in starcraft were the referenced "movers and shooters" in contrast to the large number of casters and units with many abilities in wc3. Autocast certainly took away a great degree of the management but compared to SC, wc3 units overall have a significantly greater number of user activate-able abilities.
I think gamespy is just leaving out important context in these statements (again, see the gamespot article from the other thread) Gamespot article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171178.html
Micro can never die, don't be silly. Micro in games is predominantly tactical, with each player jockeying for the better position on the battlefield. As unit AI is not equipped to make such advanced decisions on its own, if you choose not to micro your opponent will crush you easily.
As for the removal of the unit selection cap - as Pillars mentioned in another thread, the team is very aware of the effect this could have on gameplay, and considering the current state of the games completion i sincerely doubt this is worth discussion at this point.
|
This is horrible news..... what are they trying to do? make units explode all the time to entertain the audience?
I just lost all the posetive thoughts ive had since the announcement.
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
On May 21 2007 05:02 dudel wrote: That means that for every new unit added to a sides' army, one had to come out.
Pardo seems to feel that forcing the team to make these painful choices will result in a better game by avoiding extraneous units that never get used. Goodbye scouts !
|
corsairs and carriers ............... =(
|
On the Zerg side, Queens may be sacrificed then? ... the only one i can actually live without ... or maybe the infested terran, though they are cute :> ... but dare not take out the hydra's and defilers
|
On May 21 2007 05:11 ShAsTa wrote: This doesn't sound good to me. I'll miss the old units. ditto i thought they were only going to drop maybe 2-3 units per race for ones that were like upgrades of them eg dark dragoon for dragoon
|
On May 21 2007 05:25 FatRine wrote: This is horrible news..... what are they trying to do? make units explode all the time to entertain the audience?
I just lost all the posetive thoughts ive had since the announcement.
What the fuck are you on about? All of the things mentioned sound fine to me.
|
dunno what to say... i think i'll just wait for the game, that'll make me a better idea.
|
On May 21 2007 05:56 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2007 05:25 FatRine wrote: This is horrible news..... what are they trying to do? make units explode all the time to entertain the audience?
I just lost all the posetive thoughts ive had since the announcement.
What the fuck are you on about? All of the things mentioned sound fine to me.
Autocast hints? Less micro hints?
I dont like the sound of that.
"what the fuck are you on about" okaaay.. chill out you douche.
|
a shame with the same amount of units.. I had hoped for some more actually. 2-3 more to each team wouldn't hurt.
|
|
I really hope you have to micro to some extent... auto cast with that many units will just turn into a game of massive macro and attack moving...
think about it, are you really going to bother microing that much (other then the obvious, moving away if your opponent has a high ground advantage or something) if all your units will do what u want them to anyway...
by the sounds of things, the armies are going to be HUGE. which, if they didn't have auto-cast, would improve the need for apm, the need for a more skillfull play speed/accuracy of clicking/micro etc. as well as more tactical macro sense, which sounds great, which is why i was so excited about sc2...
if they add in the ai of a unit to make its own smart decisions (no idea how large scale they're talking here, are they talking a reaver automatically building more scarabs and workers automatically mining if they're rally pointed to a mineral patch, or stuff much more game changing, tanks un-sieging themself if stuff is to close, templars automatically picking the most logical spot to storm, lurkers auto-burrowing etc.) then it takes away a massive part of that micro aspect, hence the skill of the player is not as important as just managing your economy and building units :O.
i've told everyone to shutup about balance changes etc. untill it comes out because we have no idea what it will be like, but making units that act as smart as players will take away from 50% of the fun from competitive sc matches =[
|
Bah, I would've loved to see Carriers in 3D. As much as I anticipate SC2, some units just weren't meant to leave the game.
The archon better be there...
|
Yup. It's not going to be the same for me if we don't have certain old units.
Defilers, Lurkers, Ultras (got 'em), High Templar (seen them), Dark Templar, Reavers, Vultures, Sci Vessels, Siege Tanks (got 'em), and ghosts (got 'em).
|
|
|
|