Terran preview in german magazine Gamestar - Page 3
Forum Index > SC2 General |
vicml21
Canada165 Posts
| ||
Krzycho
Poland442 Posts
I say NO to the medics. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
- there are neutral buildings ("observatories") that reveal the map around them when you have a unit nearby ........... -High plants hide the sight from all units. AWESOME! - Ramps can be blocked by destroyable rocks. This is a good addition, opens up many map making possibilities :O - With Radar Dome you can see all units with a red dot on the minimap and in the fog of war. But you can't which unit it is. Obviously I still hate this unit. -Ghost: In snipermode they can kill lonely soldiers or lesser zerg units with a single hit. They can also call for a marinedrop with 8 Marines. Once again, this ability (the marine strike) makes me want to vomit. Blizzard still debates if the medic is implented. Dustin Browder: "The Medic counts to the favoured features in Brood War. But we have to test if they fit to Starcraft 2 and don't mess up the balance." You god damn better well make it balanced if it does -.-;;.. what I mean is please don't remove the medic! 8[ (*the best way would be to make marines enter into a drop launch building, so it does'nt comes for "free" ) This is in reference to the ghost marine drop thing, I guess it could be non-horrible if done this way.. Anyway, thanks soooo much to everyone who translated stuff in this thread! And about the "Select all Warpgates by pressing W", considering how they are used, it might be the only way to make them viable as you have to place your units too.. We'll see. As long as it doesn't extend to regular buildings.. | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19124 Posts
^ What the man said, and the drop thing from ghosts sounds not SC like. Radar domes make me cringe and should just be changed into stand alone scanners with a high energy cost like 150 per scan so you'd have to build quite alot of them to get nonstop scanning power. | ||
Wizard
Poland5055 Posts
On July 20 2007 14:35 CTStalker wrote: for a german you're pretty jew-like Lolz! | ||
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
Cause if it just costs energy, ghosts can eventually replace barracks' as marine production lol | ||
Titanidis
Greece132 Posts
My first thought was: another strategic place in maps for which battles may take place like expos, hills, ramps and cliffs. Idk havent played an rts with these kinds of buildings though, what do you think? | ||
fuglyfrog
United States521 Posts
On July 21 2007 08:59 Titanidis wrote: Could someone present the arguments against the observatories? My first thought was: another strategic place in maps for which battles may take place like expos, hills, ramps and cliffs. Idk havent played an rts with these kinds of buildings though, what do you think? I love the idea, and even if it were complete shit it's still great that they are giving this option to map makers. I don't know what the squeamish reactions some have shown is all about. | ||
Evilmonkey.
United States1628 Posts
| ||
Ziel
Malaysia241 Posts
Using large doodad as view blockers is an excellent idea IMO. Perhaps they'll also implement it with large buildings so you cant shoot over them? So you can kinda defend critical buildings by surrounding it with less important buildings... Cobras look way better in game and zoomed out. Reaper timed-bombs sound too much like NOD shadow team's detonate ability (only works on buildings but does instant damage). IMO medics will be outta the game permanently. Makes marines' shield upgrade and stimpack micro more important. Perhaps thats why ghosts can call down marines also - further signify them as Terran's backbone. I've a feeling stimpacks may work abit differently though. Maybe it costs less health, or doesnt cost any health at all but a cooldown instead, or maybe after the short speed/rate burst, they become sluggish for abit. Thors look way too big for a dropship, so maybe BCs will transport them? | ||
Jayson X
Switzerland2431 Posts
| ||
Smoov
United States37 Posts
On July 21 2007 08:59 Titanidis wrote: Could someone present the arguments against the observatories? My first thought was: another strategic place in maps for which battles may take place like expos, hills, ramps and cliffs. Idk havent played an rts with these kinds of buildings though, what do you think? I dont like it. I don't like the idea of having to "capture" a neutral building. The only thing I wanna worry about are my enemies...If you can destroy it, it might work. Otherwise, having to rush out of my base just to make sure my enemy doesnt capture this ghetto sensor dome so he can constantly scout this area for free is weak. I don't need the help of some building to scout my enemy, thanks. | ||
fig_newbie
749 Posts
On July 21 2007 09:18 Ziel wrote: Thors look way too big for a dropship, so maybe BCs will transport them? thors look like they can carry a BC on each arm O_o. btw I DON'T understand why theres so much hatred for the ghost marine drops. How is it not consistent with Starcraft? Its certainly consistent with the friggin unit. Its appropriate that a recon type unit like a ghost (and dont say hes not, cloak and snipe) would be able to call down a dropship "strike" in the same manner as a nuclear missile. If anything id say the nuclear missiles are LESS "starcraft" than the marine drops. | ||
Smoov
United States37 Posts
On July 21 2007 04:23 XythOs wrote: - Star Relics got a "Detonate" ability: If a unit is aimned by a blue ray for several seconds, it explodes. The unit has to flee or to destroy the star relic. since thor has no anti air implemented at the moment...these things would 1 hit kill a thor :D ...i'm pretty sure it'd be too big and slow to get away... | ||
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
Everything else sounds good, still can't wait to see more on how T soldiers will be used. | ||
Titanidis
Greece132 Posts
On July 21 2007 10:17 Smoov wrote: I kinda think the the ghost call down ability is an idea they had from sc:ghost they didnt get to use and now they just wanna throw it in there. If it works, thats cool. But I hope they're not trying to force it in there.... I dont like it. I don't like the idea of having to "capture" a neutral building. The only thing I wanna worry about are my enemies...If you can destroy it, it might work. Otherwise, having to rush out of my base just to make sure my enemy doesnt capture this ghetto sensor dome so he can constantly scout this area for free is weak. I don't need the help of some building to scout my enemy, thanks. Well in certain maps (peaks of baekdu?) (if not every map) in sc1 this is already happening for certain strategical places as hills, this is just another one. I agree with you it should be destroyable like " We cant keep it!Retreat! but you ll not have it either!" | ||
quasi -QS-
United States109 Posts
- With Radar Dome you can see all units with a red dot on the minimap and in the fog of war. But you can't which unit it is. This is something we actually need to bitch about. A lot. | ||
XythOs
Germany520 Posts
On July 21 2007 10:52 quasi -QS- wrote: This is something we actually need to bitch about. A lot. QFT gogo tl.net assault on bnet forums | ||
Smoov
United States37 Posts
For the most part, I try not to complain when I see something I dont like. Everything sounds good on paper. | ||
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
On July 21 2007 08:28 Nyovne wrote: ^ What the man said, and the drop thing from ghosts sounds not SC like. Radar domes make me cringe and should just be changed into stand alone scanners with a high energy cost like 150 per scan so you'd have to build quite alot of them to get nonstop scanning power. Who cares if it isnt SC like? If we only added things you have seen in SC then whats the point of making a sequel? Whats important is if the effect of of adding it into the game on the gameplay will be good or bad. We cant know for sure if it is yet but we could speculate. Can you tell me how ghosts being able to drop marines will make the SC2 a shittier game? About observertories, isnt it a good thing to enable more features for the map makers? If observertorys suck then no one will make maps with them. If they are a fun addition to the game and add strategical depth by creating more factors changing the value of different parts of the map other than minerals then they might be used. I dont see how you can whine about a feature like this since it cant be enforced the way changing a unit can. And just because neutral buildings were boring in wc3 doesnt mean that they have to be implemented the same way in SC2. Imo any addition to the game that makes the maps more interesting by adding more strategical points you will want to keep makes the game more interesting. Unlike many RTS games you need to control the map in BW if you want a chance to win. If both players just stay in their bases turtling and then finaly send out their armys to battle in the end then it doesnt realy matter what the map looks like. If there are constant skirmishes over the map and constant small battles for controll of smaller areas then the layout of the map will be much more important. Like someone said this will be the same thing as on peaks of baekdu where you would rather possition your army on a cliff than in a valley and conquering the next valley isnt that important but the next cliff is a strategical victory... only in a more extreme version. Also unlike cliffs you dont get a bonus for fightin from higher ground. | ||
| ||