|
On July 19 2007 22:14 Ziel wrote:Photon cannons get a new facelift also it seems. Lol I cant believe terran getting a BAR! ahahahah. EDIT: unindentifid terran thing at 2 oclock in the pic above
Did they also fix up the mineral patch graphics? They seem to look way better now...
|
It's in pre-alpha, stop bitching.
|
United States7166 Posts
im glad finally everyone can shut the hell up about 'ZOMG THOR IS ANOTHER SUPERWEAPON BLIZZYOULIAR" now..christ have some faith in Blizzard over some Swedish mag writer who sounded like a complete idiot
wow im very happy, i especially like the addon idea makes things very interesting, and producing 2 marines at a time is hot
only thing that annoys me about addons is the space they take up, I really wish the addon would be like on top of the building so it didnt take more space or something -_-
cobra sounds cool, banshee sounds cool and sounds like much more of a pain to deal with than cloaked wraiths but that's ok .. i like how scvs can go with the command center but planetary fortresss does not sound as sweet but it should be fine as you have to spend money and time to upgrade to one
|
Thor seems a bit backwards from the progression of the game. The whole game is about mobility and moving up and down ledges and being able to hit and run
the thor is just a giant slow moving building, it looks like its severely handicapped by cliffs and ravines and rivers
Not to mention you PROBABLY cant fit one into a drop ship
However this really goes with the idea of a terran push, they set up tank and turrets and what not, and then they build the thor, all while you helplessly watch and prepare for the devastation that is to come
Second note, sensor dome? They said the missile turret was unchanged, which means it should still be a detector, so wtf is the sensor dome for?
|
United States40779 Posts
On July 19 2007 23:46 fuglyfrog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2007 23:30 naventus wrote:On July 19 2007 23:11 fuglyfrog wrote:On July 19 2007 23:10 naventus wrote: I DON'T think that a good design team needs to take feedback from users until the game is released/betaed. If you are really good at math/chess (for example), you aren't going to be asking everyone in the audience - oh hey what do you think my next step should be? You have the skill, experience, and taste to do it right and know how to do it. When the SC2 team is making calls like the Soul Hunter and relies on the community to tell them to shove it, there's something wrong with the strength and vision of the team. They've said that a big part of the process is testing units and that some of what we've seen could and will be changed and discarded and new things added. And how gamers react obviously should also be an important factor. My point is exactly this. We shouldn't be consulted right now if they had any taste. We don't know any statistics. We don't know all the units in the game. We've seen like 4 Zerg units and have no sense what the game dynamics will be. Yet you think it's a good idea to need our input on what they should do? I think it just means they are off their game or are very misled about what their secret to success is. There are two possibilities here - they schmooze with us to maintain image but really don't listen to too much of our input, or they are horribly incompetent and misled about what a community can do. Pick your poison. The point of my post is that the Soul Hunter got the boot because they weren't up to the standards after testing, not because people on internet forums were bitching. And if you think that feedback from gamers has no place in creating a game then... let's just say I'm glad you don't work for Blizzard. How exactly was the Soul Hunter not up to standard? It's their unit, they create its stats and therefore its role. The only thing established about it was the concept and the design, the rest was still entirely in Blizzards hands. Blizzard created both concept and design so I don't see why they'd suddenly U-turn on them unless an important outside input said they were sub-par. The only other explanation is Blizzard designing a unit without noticing they didn't like it.
|
On July 19 2007 23:58 caution.slip wrote: Thor seems a bit backwards from the progression of the game. The whole game is about mobility and moving up and down ledges and being able to hit and run
the thor is just a giant slow moving building, it looks like its severely handicapped by cliffs and ravines and rivers
Not to mention you PROBABLY cant fit one into a drop ship
However this really goes with the idea of a terran push, they set up tank and turrets and what not, and then they build the thor, all while you helplessly watch and prepare for the devastation that is to come
Second note, sensor dome? They said the missile turret was unchanged, which means it should still be a detector, so wtf is the sensor dome for? Its probably cheaper and used for early game to defend from cloaked shit only as opposed to relying on turrets which are actually designed for AA. It is sort of redundant though.
I actually agree with a lot of what DuffyBeer said, Why do they take all these ideas and concepts from other games and get rid of the SC1:BW concepts? If it ain't broke don't fix it.
|
Germany1297 Posts
I like (or at least willing to give a try) everything I saw about Starcraft II so far, but the Idea of the "Superweaons" (Mothershop, Tor, ?) just does not fit somehow. The Thor reminds me of the Krogoth from Total Annihilation (which was kinda cool game but not even close to balanced). The Mothership is not even different from the one in CnC.
I loved intense games that went on for nearly one hour, but i guess the superweapons will kinda limit this now. I'll give it a try .. but just because I have no other choice (:
|
T_T waah let's complain more about how CnC influences in SC2 sucks. Waah waah waah.
Seriously, stfu about all of that. If you don't like the game then don't get it. Don't try to push your biased opinions on those who are genuinely interested in the game.
Wanna know what was wrong with CnC 3? It was slow and thus encouraged macrofests and attack-moving armies into each other. You know what Starcraft 2 won't be? Slow. All other aspects aside, CnC was a great RTS that innovated a lot of things for the genre. It just didn't present it properly in the gameplay. If CnC hadn't introduced these things, would you honestly still be complaining? The Mothership is not infallible, Thors can be built en masse given the right funds if need be, etc.
Waah waah theorycrafting the worst possible scenario means that the game's going to suck
|
Wow, this stuff is all pretty sweet. This game is looking better and better if you ask me.
I *like* the fact that they're taking various influences from other games/properties as well as improving on pre-existing SC1 stuff. Just because they use one fun idea from another game doesn't mean that SC2 is going to turn into that game, just like how WC3 wasn't that much like SC even though a lot of the basic ideas are the same.
|
On July 20 2007 00:06 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2007 23:46 fuglyfrog wrote:On July 19 2007 23:30 naventus wrote:On July 19 2007 23:11 fuglyfrog wrote:On July 19 2007 23:10 naventus wrote: I DON'T think that a good design team needs to take feedback from users until the game is released/betaed. If you are really good at math/chess (for example), you aren't going to be asking everyone in the audience - oh hey what do you think my next step should be? You have the skill, experience, and taste to do it right and know how to do it. When the SC2 team is making calls like the Soul Hunter and relies on the community to tell them to shove it, there's something wrong with the strength and vision of the team. They've said that a big part of the process is testing units and that some of what we've seen could and will be changed and discarded and new things added. And how gamers react obviously should also be an important factor. My point is exactly this. We shouldn't be consulted right now if they had any taste. We don't know any statistics. We don't know all the units in the game. We've seen like 4 Zerg units and have no sense what the game dynamics will be. Yet you think it's a good idea to need our input on what they should do? I think it just means they are off their game or are very misled about what their secret to success is. There are two possibilities here - they schmooze with us to maintain image but really don't listen to too much of our input, or they are horribly incompetent and misled about what a community can do. Pick your poison. The point of my post is that the Soul Hunter got the boot because they weren't up to the standards after testing, not because people on internet forums were bitching. And if you think that feedback from gamers has no place in creating a game then... let's just say I'm glad you don't work for Blizzard. How exactly was the Soul Hunter not up to standard? It's their unit, they create its stats and therefore its role. The only thing established about it was the concept and the design, the rest was still entirely in Blizzards hands. Blizzard created both concept and design so I don't see why they'd suddenly U-turn on them unless an important outside input said they were sub-par. The only other explanation is Blizzard designing a unit without noticing they didn't like it.
Sigh..
From Blizzard:
We have a lot of units going into StarCraft 2 right now. Many of these units you have already seen, others you havent had a chance to hear about yet. We have a few rules for our units:
1) A unit should have a cool personality. A unit must be something that is fun to play with.
2) A unit should have their own very unique role on the battlefield.
3) A unit should be fun for the enemy to try to deal with. Generally this means good strengths and interesting weaknesses.
Theres a lot more to it of course (how intuitive it is, will it balance well, etc) but thats the basics. Right now we have a lot of units on the Protoss. Not every Protoss unit you have heard about is going to make the cut. They are in training camp. [b]We put them in the game and we see how they do.[b] We compare them to some other units and see how much overlap there is between various units in the game. We compare units that are similar and then we make the call. Which unit is cooler? Which unit has a more unique role? Which unit is more fun to fight against?
Sometimes units will get cut. For example, the Soul Hunter is not going to show at Blizzcon. He appears to have failed his training period. He was kind of cool, but not cool enough. Some other units that you have seen are going through some significant changes. They have adapted and may yet survive. Thats how we do it. Being able to try units out before we decide if they are going to be in the game or not is a huge advantage for our development process and its an opportunity that not every developer gets. Well give you more specific information on the Protoss as we figure it out. Even what you see at Blizzcon will be work-in-progress. After Blizzcon things will most definitely continue to evolve.
|
does that look like a point defense building from SupCom?
|
Overrall from what I've seen, SC2 looks quite good. Why complain about using/taking ideas from other RTS games? This is SC2, not CnC, so just because they add similar units, or ideas, doesn't make it the same. There isn't anything wrong with implementing ideas from other games, if anything it can be a big help in development. Until the game is playable in a beta....there isn't much use in whining about units and ideas you've seen in OTHER games when this is a totally different game. How do any of us know how the units are going to be in a real game, and not just from what we see/read about them? It isn't CnC, it isn't even Brood War, it's SC2.
|
ROFL what's up with that bar? Is it supposed to raise morale or something?
|
Burrow Depot is genius. The other ideas... well... I cannot say they're great.
Ghost summon marines? Wtf this isn't wc3 where you go HOLY SHIT SUMMON 2 WATER ELEMENTALS... LAME!
Marine with health upgrade? Jeez get some creativity, this isn't AOE3 where you go OMG HORSE UPG, add 50% health to calvery units...
Oh and CC with scv lift off is great idea.
Wtf is banshee? Some sort of bomber? Oh well...
Cobra... lawlz change the name plz, other than that if they manuver as well as vult no complaints
But I'll see if more special abilities come up, to see all the new options before passing judgement.
|
On July 20 2007 00:31 caution.slip wrote:does that look like a point defense building from SupCom?
The same cannon can be seen in this image, behind the Thor.
I don't really get what Terran need more static defense for with the bunker, turret and siege tank in their arsenal.
|
you already passed judgement on 6 things
they were "great", "lame", "uncreative", "great" "wtf", and "lawlznamesucks"
|
Blizzard has never been original in their entire existence. It's what they do. CnC's units ideas aren't shit, it's the game play that's slow and boring. Blizzard isn't about revolutionizing gaming genres. Blizzard is about taking ideas and improving upon them to perfection. I don't care if CnC has a bomber unit. SC isn't allowed to have bombers or mechs because CnC has them too? That's beyond ridiculous.
Guess what! CnC has units like that because *gasp* the factions in those games are human! Much how Terran are! If anything Blizzard is stealing ideas from the real world.
|
battletech series has a bomber named banshee (no real relevant point here)
|
LOL, they are taking units from other games and they have the same concepts, names and graphics, it's like "we're ripping you off and we're not even shy about it".
|
Thor is HUGE!!
The Reaper concept art looks cool.
Cobra looks fine, and so is the name, don't know why a couple of you have a problem with the name.
|
|
|
|