|
Using their engine, Blizzard is hoping to have up to 300 units on screen at once.
Since Blizzard is thinking of removing the food cap, could this mean larger maps (such as 192x192) be as entertaining and perhaps, be emore strategic than 128x128 maps?
I might be wrong but I'm thinking that larger maps could mean more units have to be spread out for map control; so these spread out units could have small battles with other spread out units and there would be the possibility of having very large battles.
I'm not too sure where I'm going with this but.. whatever. A small thought.
|
Terran gonna have such a hard time defending all their bases like that. At least tosses can now warp around.
omg imagine lings attacking all your bases everywhere at once
|
Braavos36362 Posts
On May 22 2007 22:07 XCetron wrote: Terran gonna have such a hard time defending all their bases like that. At least tosses can now warp around.
omg imagine lings attacking all your bases everywhere at once it's easy to think it's imba when you havent really seen any new terran units or mechanics yet
there's probably some sick terran shit that we'll get to see later on
|
Well, I'm just giving my thoughts, with no additional information the best I couldve come up with was "toss can now D better by going around their bases by warping. Idk bout otherraces."
|
damn mothership kills whole crapload of terran units with a damn wormhole makes me feel like terran is useless >.<
|
More units doesnt mean itll need bigger maps; itll still take the same amount of time for one unit to travel a certain distance. The bigger cap will just lead to bigger build ups, bigger battles.
|
Cant barely tell anything right now since we knew little to none about the game. I'd like to see how Blizzard work out with map that has big space gap on them.
|
On May 22 2007 22:26 imBLIND wrote: damn mothership kills whole crapload of terran units with a damn wormhole makes me feel like terran is useless >.<
No matter how many times it's said, people just don't understand/choose to ignore it. That was a extremely controlled gameplay video. There is no evidence that it will be what the balance is even remotely like in the final version. The producers have even said that the balance is way off for video purposes.
|
On May 22 2007 22:09 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 22:07 XCetron wrote: Terran gonna have such a hard time defending all their bases like that. At least tosses can now warp around.
omg imagine lings attacking all your bases everywhere at once it's easy to think it's imba when you havent really seen any new terran units or mechanics yet there's probably some sick terran shit that we'll get to see later on
Haha I'd LOVE to see this:
<3
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
The limiting factor for pro maps in SC1 is the minimap. For anything larger than 128, it becomes nearly impossible to correctly interpret. If they rework the minimap, everything might be possible.
|
On May 22 2007 22:04 ShcShc wrote:Show nested quote + Using their engine, Blizzard is hoping to have up to 300 units on screen at once. Since Blizzard is thinking of removing the food cap, could this mean larger maps (such as 192x192) be as entertaining and perhaps, be emore strategic than 128x128 maps? I might be wrong but I'm thinking that larger maps could mean more units have to be spread out for map control; so these spread out units could have small battles with other spread out units and there would be the possibility of having very large battles. I'm not too sure where I'm going with this but.. whatever. A small thought. maybe 300 interceptors
|
United States20661 Posts
On May 22 2007 22:55 evanthebouncy~ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2007 22:09 Hot_Bid wrote:On May 22 2007 22:07 XCetron wrote: Terran gonna have such a hard time defending all their bases like that. At least tosses can now warp around.
omg imagine lings attacking all your bases everywhere at once it's easy to think it's imba when you havent really seen any new terran units or mechanics yet there's probably some sick terran shit that we'll get to see later on Haha I'd LOVE to see this: <3
LOL *spew water*
|
On May 22 2007 22:30 useless wrote: More units doesnt mean itll need bigger maps; itll still take the same amount of time for one unit to travel a certain distance. The bigger cap will just lead to bigger build ups, bigger battles.
I meant it more as in bigger maps are now a possibility; with no food cap, pro leagues could possibly have more maps that are varied in size.
|
there will be a suply cap for sure, probobly 200/200 as it is right now. Bigger maps would lead to longer games (longer travel distance and no rush possibilitys) and you can read that blizzard wants short games 15-20 min. but nice try tho!
The no limit psi cap will probobly only be an option but on a competitive level it wont be possible. The better players wont play it taht way!
|
If there no cap won't games be rather defensive? I mean why attack if u can just keep making more and more units. Seems like people would just split the map, mine out, and then have one huge battle lol.
|
I think one reason huge maps arent used on broodwar is because the minimap goes all shit when its scaled for >128, Those big maps have a lot of potential for different sorts of games by making high level tactics, scouting and troop positioning much more important and encouraging the use of more than one army at a time. I dont know how the balance is but i think its a shame that larger maps are never really used in SC
|
On May 22 2007 23:18 BluzMan wrote: The limiting factor for pro maps in SC1 is the minimap. For anything larger than 128, it becomes nearly impossible to correctly interpret. If they rework the minimap, everything might be possible.
Well seeing as BW resolution is 640x480 and most people will be using at least 1280x1024 a simple scaling down of the dots will make things perfectly usable i think. Anyway having a better colour palette and much higher resolutions makes improvements in interface hopeful.
|
that'd have advantage and disadvantage~
|
Removing the unit cap would be a bad idea. It forces people to act. I know a few games without unit caps in which pretty much youll split the map and just build uber defenses. Not very progame like
|
On May 22 2007 22:26 imBLIND wrote: damn mothership kills whole crapload of terran units with a damn wormhole makes me feel like terran is useless >.<
Um, it killed quite a few things, sure, how much do you think it costs, and how long do you think it requires to warp in? I bet you will never see these units outside of money maps and really long regular map games.
|
On May 23 2007 09:08 Fen wrote: Removing the unit cap would be a bad idea. It forces people to act. I know a few games without unit caps in which pretty much youll split the map and just build uber defenses. Not very progame like Thats exactly why it would be a good idea, it removes the turtle/passive aspect from matchups like tvp and forces you to do something because your opponent can keep growing without an 'artificial' limitation.
|
Germany / USA16648 Posts
Tell me where you got that Blizz wants to remove the food cap or stop talking garbage
|
So far in the demo, the maps aren't looking that huge...or at least looking very tight, not a ton of flanking room. I wonder how they are going to incorporate ledges that you can climp while still allowing for ample room for flanks.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On May 23 2007 10:31 Carnac wrote: Tell me where you got that Blizz wants to remove the food cap or stop talking garbage It was somewhere in the interview and probably in the ign report of WWI.
And please people, stop talking bullshit about larger map having larger rush distances. Rush distances are exactly what you make them, they're no way dependant on the map. See the difference between Paranoid Andoid and Hitchhiker.
|
Also I believe mainly the unit count on your screen is going to be bigger because in 1024x768 or whatever there's just so much more room. Imagine just 1280x960 is 4 times as large as original SC. Of course units are gonna take more space but even then you'll simply see a larger part of the map.
|
On May 23 2007 10:54 Konni wrote: Also I believe mainly the unit count on your screen is going to be bigger because in 1024x768 or whatever there's just so much more room. Imagine just 1280x960 is 4 times as large as original SC. Of course units are gonna take more space but even then you'll simply see a larger part of the map.
I don't know why having higher resolution would make us more able to see clearly the minimap... You may get a 2xxx x 1xxx resolution you won't see shit with a 15" screen so stop saying anything about resolution cauz it has NOTHING to do with "having bigger units". You have to get a bigger screen to see them bigger simple as that. I agree that you won't see units as clearly if you used a smaller resolution, but if we're talking about the minimap, you almost won't notice a difference.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Well, almost everyone has 17'' to 19'' now. In SC, you can see independent pixels with such resoultion. If the resolution is set higher, it allows for potentially more detail in the minimap which will be noticeable with a large screen nearly everyone now has.
14'' is the dark past, let us all forget about. SC2 should be aiming on newer machines.
|
I dont think theyre removing the unit cap, just making it bigger.
|
On May 23 2007 10:54 Konni wrote: Also I believe mainly the unit count on your screen is going to be bigger because in 1024x768 or whatever there's just so much more room. Imagine just 1280x960 is 4 times as large as original SC. Of course units are gonna take more space but even then you'll simply see a larger part of the map. Why would the resolution matter at all when it comes to how zoomed in the view will be? Blizzard could make the models 10x more detailed and increase the resolution by 10x and that would still change nothing. If blizzard want to zoom out the combatwindow so you can see more of the map then that will be a conscious choice by blizzard and not something that happends by misstake when they use higher resolution.
|
I know it's too early to talk about this stuff...I bet the IMPORTANCE of the Terrain won't be that great like in Brood War. We already saw so many Units which can make easy work of cliffs without using a choke. In BW the Terrain is extremely important and influences the gamers style heavily. So I'm a little bit frightened this point has been forgotten by Blizzard.
|
I wasn't talking about the minimap and just saying: More pixels = (probably) you can see a larger part of the map. That doesn't hold if you increase model detail according to resolution of course.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
caping food is good, leads to better lategame situations and more suspense.
|
larger map is not practical for fast pace sc.....
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 23 2007 10:37 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2007 10:31 Carnac wrote: Tell me where you got that Blizz wants to remove the food cap or stop talking garbage It was somewhere in the interview and probably in the ign report of WWI. And please people, stop talking bullshit about larger map having larger rush distances. Rush distances are exactly what you make them, they're no way dependant on the map. See the difference between Paranoid Andoid and Hitchhiker. No it wasn't, they said they would remove the cap on how many units you can SELECT.
|
|
|
|