Starcraft 2 - worth buying?

[Mavfin]

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

I'm going to have to say that I'm pretty much with Frag on this. The game runs beautifully at high settings on my 18-month old computer, it has replayability, and choices on what you can do. I'm currently re-playing the campaign on hard, mixing in some multiplayer, and dabbling with the AI to refine my builds for multiplayer, and peeking at custom games when I have time. Of course, I'm back to work now, so I don't have the time I had for a while. For $60, I'm going to get a LOT of entertainment out of this. Far more than dumping $60 on a movie, a meal, or drinks at the bar. (It's easy to dump $60 on something when you have 4 kids to take along to said movie or restaurant. What $60 is to you may not be the same, I understand.)

The internet-registration issue? To me, it's not even an issue. I have 12 Mbit internet+wireless in the house, and I don't like laptops for gaming. Since I play WoW, too, I'm hooked to the 'net all the time, and my ISP is reliable as they can be. YMMV. I've worked in IT for 10 years, and I've seen similar schemes before for business software, so I guess it's not so 'far-out' for me.

[Zippyy]

Unfortunately, the effort of the company to widen the player base was painfully successful, at the expense of originality and legacy.

I like your insights. Stuff I hadn't considered, especially the pros and cons of broadening player base. I would like to point out, though, that we shouldn't expect a sequel to be revolutionary.

[Thecla]

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.

You may well be right that the same changes in policies that led to the closure of Blizzard North also led to changes in the Starcraft franchise. If so, they have a common cause but one did not effect the other. Just sayin'.

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

Ah, that should be interesting --- too bad it's the old Blizcon '09 demo so no new info, but still nice.

Just to go ot, since --- very sensibly --- there is no D3 forum here yet, I actually don't have any opinion about SC (never having played the original) but I am interested to see what Bliz does with D3. Personally, I don't mind the art-style at all, but some stuff makes me wonder about how much it might be watered down (e.g. automatic stat distribution, non-random surface levels, no weapon switch because it's "too confusing" and "only useful as an exploit",...). Hard to say how other stuff will work out, like greatly reduced potion-dependence or the resource system with barbs depending on "fury" instead of mana etc. On the other hand, I really like some of the comments the lead designer Jay Wilson has made about the game's design philosophy e.g. in making combat simple but interesting and requiring more thought and tactics than was the case in D2.

If they think through the arpg formula well, and adapt in an approriate way what works in other games (even including WoW) they could produce a great game. Or it's possible they'll produce some best-selling pile of dreck. I hope it's the former.

[eppie]

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.

Hi!
I installed the C&C 4 yesterday and played 2 tutorial levels....I am not sure what graphical settings it is on (I just played it after installing without changing any settings).

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?

[Jester]

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.

Shorter: Starcraft 2 would be worth buying, except Starcraft was excellent, so therefore it's not.

???

-Jester

[LennyLen]

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

Since I can't play via the internet, I guess I won't bother then.

[Frag]

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.

Not particularly pleased with their customer service so far either.

Blech,
~Frag

[Zippyy]

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.

So that's why I haven't seen you on. Sucks. I hope it gets resolved soon.

I was experiencing a lot of SC2 crashiness, but eventually traced it to a stick of ram gone sour.

[Archon_Wing]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmess..._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.

[PizzaSHARK!]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmess..._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.

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.

[Zippyy]

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.

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).
  

[Concillian]

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?

I don't think this got answered. Graphics scale very well in SC2, should play well on medium, perhaps need to drop to low. Low is graphics almost at the same level as SC1 and basically any graphics hardware will be able to run it.

CPU wise that should be fine.

[PizzaSHARK!]

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).
  

- I thought the writing was trash. The Matt Horner death-to-the-dominion bits were good (I loved the theme behind the train robbery mission and the media blitz and its ensuing secret mission), but the rest was crap.

We encounter a Protoss faction we never actually get told anything about - other than they hate us and want us to die for desecrating their sacred relics, of course.

Gabriel Tosh (one of the few interesting characters newly introduced) gets shelved the second you bust his Spectre buddies out; maybe they're planning on giving him a bigger role in the ensuing expansions, but why give the player a choice if you're going to arbitrarily make one of those choices canon?

Jim Raynor becomes the Drunk White Space Knight in Shining Black Skull Armor, a complete reversal of his character in Brood War. In Brood War, he quite plainly states that he despises Kerrigan, realizes she can't be redeemed, and tells her straight up that he's going to kill her. Yet in SC2, he's a drunkard and he's moping about his girlfriend that got eated by the Zergs! I guess Fenix didn't mean that much to him after all, huh?

And even if you want to accept the story as kosher (I can't because I actually played Brood War and noticed how they basically ignore all events that took place in it), the writing was terrible... full of overly dramatic one-liners that were being delivered seriously rather than as parodies of themselves.

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

- It's around. It can be hard to differentiate between good gamesense and maphacking if you aren't experienced, though. Obvious maphacking is obvious, of course - if they don't scout at all the entire game and yet always know what you're doing and where, they're cheating. Blizzard says they're getting a handle on it, and I actually trust them about coming down on cheaters with both boots.

- I haven't messed with the AI since phase 2 of the Beta, and it wasn't terribly difficult to beat once you understood how it "thinks." Maybe we'll see if it's changed any when I get the inclination to farm up those achievements.

- Balance is a farce at high levels of play. You can watch numerous professional-level ZvT games and see an obvious discrepancy in balance there, and ZvP isn't much better. I think the major balance issues are more than Zerg is underpowered than Protoss or Terran are overpowered. Terran is how every race should be and how it should play: all of their units work wonderfully together, the tech trees are tight and refined, and they have absolutely no "useless" units. Every unit has a time and a place. Protoss is close to that, but runs into balance problems in PvT (Ghosts and Vikings together completely neutralize any hope Protoss has of handling large infantry formations and a pure Gateway army will lose to Barracks army supported by Medivacs.) They said the announced notes were just a sampling, so maybe they have some surprises in store for us. If not, the patch will change absolutely nothing about ZvT, though the Siege Tank nerf will shake up PvT.

[Zippyy]

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.

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

Welcome to videogames. Fun missions, excellent gameplay, a cool RPG-ish upgrade system, and two interesting characters (Tosh and Tychus) made the campaign a blast for me.

- 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.

[Chesspiece_face]

- 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.

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.

[PizzaSHARK!]

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?

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.

- 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.

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.

It's more than that. I play Random, and greatly prefer Zerg. I play all three races (Terran is most definitely my worst), so I understand the game from all three viewpoints. I lean towards being biased for Zerg, but since I have to play as and win as all three races, I like to think it gives me perspective "pickers" don't have.

Zerg has the absolute worst cost-efficiency of any army in the game. All of their units are absolutely, completely inferior to Terran and Protoss units, and yet don't often cost much less. A Roach is 75/25/2 versus a Marauder's 100/25/2, often absorbs less damage than the Marauder, and quite certainly does a great deal less damage; a Hydralisk is 100/50/2 to a Stalker's 125/50/2, and while it does much more damage, it has pitiful mobility and literally half of the Stalker's combined HP. You see similar parallels in the Mutalisk as compared to the Viking and especially the Phoenix (cheaper than Phoenixes, and it's much easier to hit ground with, but has much less durability and a great deal less damage potential than either.) Zerg has the ability to produce large amounts of units almost at will, which helps justify how weak their units are, but when their units cost almost as much as Terran and Protoss equivalents, it results in Zerg being at an almost constant economic disadvantage right from the get-go.

It's what spawns the "Zerg has to expand or die" mentality that you see in virtually every American and European Zerg player and a very large percentage of Korean Zerg players. Zerg has to expand constantly just to keep up with Terran and Protoss. It's not a simple equation of who has more income (a Terran will always have superior income to Zerg if number of controlled bases are the same), but who has better efficiency with that income. You can wave your hands and come up with 24 Zerglings (for 600 minerals), but those 24 Zerglings will do nowhere near as much damage as 12 Marines (600 minerals) or 6 Zealots (600 minerals) in nearly every situation.

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.

The idea that Zerg can produce a varied army at the drop of a hat is a farce. Zerg's tech trees are more convoluted than Terran's, and are at least as bad as Protoss's (who, honestly, get completely jobbed on hitting tier 2.) More, while we can produce a large number of units at will, this is completely limited by available larva. You can only realistically expect to have 6 larva per Hatchery, assuming your Spawn Larva timing is absolutely perfect - and no one, not even IdrA, plays a game without missing a Spawn Larva. Even assuming you have 5 Hatcheries (which is a stretch, especially if you're following the Zerg imperative of expand-expand-expand) and 5 Queens, that's only 30 larva to be split among fighting units, overlords, and workers. In a late game situation, Terran can easily be pumping 20 Marines per cycle out of Reactor'd Barracks. Protoss can snap their fingers and produce a sizable force of Gateway units anywhere on the map (in the late game, that Protoss player will be crapping pylons everywhere.) Terran can similarly mass-produce Hellions, Medivacs, and Vikings through the use of Reactors. Protoss gets a bit jobbed with their "Factory" and "Starport" units, but given how strong those units are, I think it's a fair exchange (besides, you have to use that Chrono Boost energy on something.) When you couple this with the absolute fact that a 200/200 Zerg army is miles apart from a 200/200 Protoss or especially 200/200 Terran army, Zerg's vaunted "mass production" ability is overstated to say the least.

[Archon_Wing]

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?

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.

- 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.

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.

That is indeed a severe issue. It's very disappointing that with so much access to the pro scene, that Blizzard's maps are absolutely atrocious from a balance standpoint, and even a amateur could easily tell you they're bad.

Impossible to guard natural expansions (Terrible for zerg to hold) and the obsession with cliffs (Once again, overuse of cliffs turns it into Terran heaven) do not help. Not to mention the asymmetry problems in some cases which might sound novel but are terrible in a competitive situation.

We can only hope that the custom map makers will come up with something better (and they will)

[PizzaSHARK!]

The custom map makers already have, but the problem is that Blizzard shows no inclination to adopt their maps and make them official league maps, so it won't matter how good custom maps are - they won't be played in leagues, and if you're like me, league games are the ONLY games you play.

Adding to the issue is that the custom map system in Battle.net 2.0 is handled horribly, which makes it even harder for aspiring mapmakers to get their product played and popular.

Honestly, Blizzard has ruined so much in SC2 that was great about the original. I especially despise Battle.net 2.0 - I have to give out personally identifying information (email address and real name) in order to communicate with a friend across games, and yet I could do that just fine with Battle.net 1.0 and its Friends system. We have no chat rooms, no clan support, no real support for custom maps... it's ridiculous.

I honestly feel a little guilty for buying SC2. I really feel like I should have spoken with my wallet and not bought it if Blizzard's going to continue to treat their playerbase like this.

[Zippyy]

Roach's range was increased in the last patch, terran was nerfed, and nobody's saying Zerg is underpowered anymore. Maps weren't changed at all.

[wail]

so I hear each game come with a guest pass. Are these one time use, or can someone share the number on their guest pass to multiple people?