(08-16-2010, 02:03 AM)Frag Wrote: I have to respectfully disagree, Valhauros. Given the lack of time so far, the custom maps are alone worth the admission price, and they've been getting better by the day. There's RPG's, Tower Defenses, Arenas, Movies(!), Card Games and more are being made, all without having to pay a monthly fee.

Diggin it,
~Frag

(08-16-2010, 01:12 AM)Valhauros Wrote: Unfortunately, the effort of the company to widen the player base was painfully successful, at the expense of originality and legacy.

(08-16-2010, 05:59 AM)Valhauros Wrote: although it's true that most of Blizzard North's personnel had nothing to do with Starcraft's development, it is easily recognizable the change that the company made when they left.

Quote:Regarding the effect on D3... I'm going to Gamescon next Thursday to play the demo, so I'll share what I see.

(08-08-2010, 11:25 PM)LennyLen Wrote: If you do get the game, I'd be interested in knowing it's performance on your system. I can just play C&C 4 if I turn all the graphical settings off or put them on minimum.

(08-16-2010, 01:12 AM)Valhauros Wrote: I feel that the exodus of Blizzard North happened for a reason, and that its effects are greater than most want to believe. Starcraft II is a very cool game: the graphics, the story, the experience and whatever, but it becomes almost a B-grade game if you compare it to what the first installment was in its time and it lacks, in a very subtle way, the basic elements that made the replayability an epic experience. Unfortunately, the effort of the company to widen the player base was painfully successful, at the expense of originality and legacy.

I'd suggest you to borrow the copy from a friend if you can, and play the single player campaign. Although SC2 is a good game, I wouldn't pay $60 to own it.

Quote:Whoever, as Frag and Mavfin said, the multiplayer experience & user-made content is more than enough reason to buy it

(08-22-2010, 09:12 PM)Frag Wrote: Well, apparently Blizzard really dropped a ball somewhere. I downloaded a patch on Tuesday, and from then to right now I still can't play.

(09-08-2010, 09:44 PM)Archon_Wing Wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151132

There have been quite a few hacks reported on teamliquid.net and battle.net, some even allowing ridiculous things like warping in immortals. Apparently, Blizzard simply removed the buttons for certain features that were in earlier phases of the game, but they are still there.

Well, this is Blizzard's first test. Have they found a way to actively combat cheats with their new system? We'll just have to see.

(09-11-2010, 02:42 AM)PizzaSHARK! Wrote: I can definitely report that there's some issues with maphacking going on, especially in the 1v1 bracket, even at the high leagues. Oddly enough, they seem to be Terran players more often than not. I can accept the excuse of having good gamesense, but it gets to the point where gamesense no longer covers it. Routinely knowing exactly what I'm building, where it's going, and how many there are, without any sort of scouting (not a single SCV scout, no scans, not even Factory scouting) stretches belief. It's pretty ridiculous to proxy a Spire, build the Mutalisks, and find that in the intervening two minutes, he's built an Engineering Bay and has turrets all over his bases - without any scouting or scanning.

Likewise, it's dumb to fake Mutalisks, build Roaches, and run into a solid wall of Marauders when all he had was Marines previously. You can go back through these replays, watch only his view, and see that there was no possible way he could know what was happening, and yet... boom, counter units, and those units are in place. Lucky, perhaps, but luck only goes so far.

Until Blizzard gets the glitching and outright hacking under control, I'd strongly recommend not picking up SC2. The campaign was terrible (the gameplay was fun, everything else about it was trash), the AI isn't even close to being a challenge (will have to wait for AI mods), and hacking is becoming more commonplace in multiplayer. Additionally, the multiplayer balance itself is in a pretty sad state, and Blizzard seems to be glacially slow in addressing it.

• I loved the campaign, even the parts that weren't gameplay.
  
• I haven't run into any maphacking in leagues. Not saying it isn't out there, but it certainly isn't a reason to avoid the game.
  
• Insane AI is incredibly difficult to beat unless you 6 pool it, or are already really good at SC2.
  
• Balance is NOT that bad, and patch 1.1 is a step in the right direction (and isn't glacial; it comes out this month).
  

(08-16-2010, 08:01 AM)eppie Wrote: Anyway it runs without problems it seems......very weird though, to have to be always online.
(I have a Dell Studio with an intel core duo P8400 (2.26GHz,1066MHz,3MB), 3GB memory, and a 256 MB ATI Mobility RADEON HD 3450)

Do you think if I can run C&C4 also SC2 should not be a problem?

(09-12-2010, 07:18 AM)Zippyy Wrote: Counterpoints:

• I loved the campaign, even the parts that weren't gameplay.
  
• I haven't run into any maphacking in leagues. Not saying it isn't out there, but it certainly isn't a reason to avoid the game.
  
• Insane AI is incredibly difficult to beat unless you 6 pool it, or are already really good at SC2.
  
• Balance is NOT that bad, and patch 1.1 is a step in the right direction (and isn't glacial; it comes out this month).
  

Quote:The gameplay was fun and engaging, but the story and writing were trash.

Quote:- Balance is a farce at high levels of play.

(09-13-2010, 05:55 AM)Zippyy Wrote:

Quote:- Balance is a farce at high levels of play.

At high levels, that's true; MLG Raleigh made that pretty clear. None of us are playing at that level, though, so it's no reason to advise people not to buy the game. Buy game; play zerg; rotate between 6 pool, baneling bust, and 5 roach rush; win; a lot. We aren't playing vs. Flash, here.

(09-13-2010, 05:55 AM)Zippyy Wrote: Good points about Raynor. It has been so long (10 years?) since I played through SC and SC:BW that I'd forgotten. I also loved Tosh and Tychus.

Quote:

Quote:The gameplay was fun and engaging, but the story and writing were trash.

Welcome to videogames.

Quote:

Quote:- Balance is a farce at high levels of play.

At high levels, that's true; MLG Raleigh made that pretty clear. None of us are playing at that level, though, so it's no reason to advise people not to buy the game. Buy game; play zerg; rotate between 6 pool, baneling bust, and 5 roach rush; win; a lot. We aren't playing vs. Flash, here.

(09-13-2010, 06:27 AM)Chesspiece_face Wrote: I think it's still too early to declare imbalance when it comes to zerg. At least on a technical level. The imbalance that is present in the game at the moment is less unit issues etc. and more an issue of learning curve and the required micro to play any race other than Terran.

Compared to the other races Terran is ridiculously easy to learn, especially the core of their playstyle MMM. Part of the way they balanced Zerg's versatility is by adding in an extra level of required micro with the Queen mechanics. Utilizing them properly is absolutely required for Zerg to be competitive and it's not a very easy mechanic to get down. Especially for players that aren't absolutely top tier and that can't multitask between multiple bases and ongoing battles. This creates two issues at this point in the game. First that the number of players that can really manage the micro needed for Zerg is relatively small. Second that the amount of people that actually try to learn Zerg is also relatively small. Unfortunately it's an issue of mechanics that is pretty much required as Zerg is also the only race that can macro up massive armies of counters off of single buildings at the drop of a hat.

(09-14-2010, 05:36 AM)PizzaSHARK! Wrote:

(09-13-2010, 05:55 AM)Zippyy Wrote: Good points about Raynor. It has been so long (10 years?) since I played through SC and SC:BW that I'd forgotten. I also loved Tosh and Tychus.

Tosh was a pretty nifty idea. I'll probably side with him again on my second playthrough, even if it means missing the Nova achievements. What do I care about some Dominion tart, anyway?

Quote:

Quote:The gameplay was fun and engaging, but the story and writing were trash.

Welcome to videogames.

No. You can make a game that features both excellent, varied gameplay and stellar storytelling and writing. See: Half-Life series (especially HL2 Episodes One and Two); later Halo games (I mock console gamers constantly but they've really made the Halo series compelling when you ignore how it all got started); Baldur's Gate series; Planescape: Torment.

Blizzard is getting consistently lazier and lazier, at least from my admittedly jaded viewpoint. They seem to lack the dynamism and drive that they had when WoW was first launched, when working on the Diablo games, and when working on the Warcraft strategy games. Maybe it's just a symptom of them getting bigger and bigger, but it sure as hell seems like they're cutting corners and letting things get shipped with a lot of dings and rust lately. Their latest releases lack that Blizzard polish that made their earlier titles so distinctive.

I refuse to allow them to continue being lazy. Even if it brings world-changing balance fixes, I won't be buying Heart of the Swarm until it hits its first price drop. I'll probably hold off on picking up WoW's Cataclysm expansion for a month or two, just like I did with the Wrath of the Lich King expansion - and I might not have even played the WotLK expansion if a friend didn't give me an extra copy of his for free. There was absolutely no excuse for the sheer laziness that resulted in the arena season 5 balance debacle.

Quote:

Quote:- Balance is a farce at high levels of play.

At high levels, that's true; MLG Raleigh made that pretty clear. None of us are playing at that level, though, so it's no reason to advise people not to buy the game. Buy game; play zerg; rotate between 6 pool, baneling bust, and 5 roach rush; win; a lot. We aren't playing vs. Flash, here.

It's noticeable at upper Diamond, which is the level I play at. There's worlds of difference between us and the professionals, but the balance issues that become absurdly obvious in professional games (seriously, just watch MorroW make IdrA his personal rhymes-with-witch in the IEM finals) are apparent at our level as well. It's particularly obvious just how much of a disadvantage Zerg is against both Terran and Protoss. They have tiny windows of opportunity to make it work, while Protoss and especially Terran can lolligag about and win almost by default.

(09-13-2010, 06:27 AM)Chesspiece_face Wrote: I think it's still too early to declare imbalance when it comes to zerg. At least on a technical level. The imbalance that is present in the game at the moment is less unit issues etc. and more an issue of learning curve and the required micro to play any race other than Terran.

Compared to the other races Terran is ridiculously easy to learn, especially the core of their playstyle MMM. Part of the way they balanced Zerg's versatility is by adding in an extra level of required micro with the Queen mechanics. Utilizing them properly is absolutely required for Zerg to be competitive and it's not a very easy mechanic to get down. Especially for players that aren't absolutely top tier and that can't multitask between multiple bases and ongoing battles. This creates two issues at this point in the game. First that the number of players that can really manage the micro needed for Zerg is relatively small. Second that the amount of people that actually try to learn Zerg is also relatively small. Unfortunately it's an issue of mechanics that is pretty much required as Zerg is also the only race that can macro up massive armies of counters off of single buildings at the drop of a hat.

This touches on another issue plaguing Zerg, and it's the fact that nearly every league map (I think Xel'naga Caverns is one of the very few maps that doesn't run around blinding everyone with Zerg-hate) is a constant series of chokes and ramps, which greatly limits Zerg's ability to use their mobility to their advantage. Fighting in a chokepoint, Zerg is trash. Fighting in the open, even the humble Zergling can become devastating - but really, just how many maps even have that kind of open space for Zerg to utilize? I can name the number of maps like that on one hand (Metalopolis, Xel'naga Caverns, maybe Blistering Sands.) There's an ICCUP remake of Metalopolis that changes nothing about the layout of the map, save all bases are now on open ground: no ramps, no chokes. The results? Zerg's chances of winning are dramatically increased, and Protoss and Terran's chances of winning are still pretty close to being equal - it just means they have to use intelligent building placement instead of just plugging up the ramp.