Stealthshark Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 That being said, there was an article online, I forgot where, that stated there is a 4th race. I doubt Blizzard would not include a 4th race into the mix. I don't think it would deter the game and instead improve it as it did with the warcraft series. Just thought I'd chime in here and post a link to an interview 1UP did with a couple of the developers for SC2 that I found interesting. At about 9:35 the question about a 4th race is brought up and the response is that it was something they decided against fairly early in the development cycle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf Posted September 1, 2007 Author Share Posted September 1, 2007 They bettah not have gotten rid of goliaths for the viking unit. Oh HELL no. I agree wholeheartedly. But... if they wanna get rid of Goliaths for these bitches, I'm game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 /cast Resurrection (Level 7) Casting.... 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Shadowolf resurrected the Starcraft 2 thread. So maybe there isn't a lot of new stuff right now. I'm still excited about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoboKa Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 It'd be nice if the blizz crew got started on displaying the zerg section...ug x_x Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 I'm thinking that they either have really kick-ass ideas and new units for the Zerg, and don't want to spoil it for everyone... or they haven't finished working on the Zerg side yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_C Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 The latter is more likely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf Posted January 24, 2008 Author Share Posted January 24, 2008 I might be setting myself up for a flamewar here, but I think the Zerg might be taking longer because, out of all 3 races in Starcraft, they were arguably the least balanced. Whenever I played Zerg, battle strategy came down to one of two things: A 48 Hydralisk Zergrush with a bunch of Zerglings thrown in, or an extremely expensive 12 Guardian map wipe with Mutalisks on backup. I never felt like I had the options with the Zerg that I had with the Terrans or the 'Toss. The more expensive Zerg units like Ultralisks were basically never used, at least by me, due to time and expense. But granted I'm not amazingly good at Starcraft either. At any rate, Blizzard has already shown that they're making HUGE changes to balancing and units for all the races. I just hope the Zerg get the treatment, because conceptually they were far and away my favorite race, but strategically I didn't like them much at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BardicKnowledge Posted January 24, 2008 Share Posted January 24, 2008 ^ Don't forget about defilers and queens. They seem useless at first, but parasite and spawn broodlings make for good spying and anti ground defense. Defilers Dark Swarm ability lets hydras fight carriers effectively, and if you can get them in, Plague is basically a longer-lasting psi storm that hits buildings. Great for a group of supply depots... With all that said, I do agree that the Zerg ultimately have to swarm to win, which wasn't the case with the other two races where you have more options on the covert side of things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalcyonSpirit Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 With all that said, I do agree that the Zerg ultimately have to swarm to win, which wasn't the case with the other two races where you have more options on the covert side of things... Which, of course, makes sense from a story point of view. The Zerg were never a species to be subtle. They always just gathered their strength and threw themselves at the enemy. At least until Kerrigan took control. But even then, the only subtlety came from Kerrigan herself, and then afterwards she'd still just throw down the hammer on the enemy. It's always been a "overwhelm and destroy" philosophy with the Zerg. "FOR THE SWARM!" and all that, y'know? However, with Kerrigan at the helm for some time now, there may be more options within the Zerg for this game. We shall see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoboKa Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Which, of course, makes sense from a story point of view. The Zerg were never a species to be subtle. They always just gathered their strength and threw themselves at the enemy. At least until Kerrigan took control. But even then, the only subtlety came from Kerrigan herself, and then afterwards she'd still just throw down the hammer on the enemy. It's always been a "overwhelm and destroy" philosophy with the Zerg. "FOR THE SWARM!" and all that, y'know?However, with Kerrigan at the helm for some time now, there may be more options within the Zerg for this game. We shall see. Eh, lurkers do allow for SOME subtlety, pretty cheap assed units if your enemies lack detectors ...but they usually becomes useless in longer games, except for helping with base defense and fast-strike ops or w/e. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf Posted January 25, 2008 Author Share Posted January 25, 2008 if your enemies lack detectors This was another senseless weakness of the original Starcraft. NO race EVER lacked detectors by the dozens when being played by the computer, and no human being who'd been playing SC for for than 5 minutes would be without them either. And once a covert unit is detected, they have about 50 health unless they're a hero like Zeratul. For example, in 4 years of playing Starcraft, I have successfully completed ONE covert nuke strike because it's so hard to get the Ghosts in undetected to paint targets. I can assemble and execute a 12 tank plant n' pound siege crawl and obliterate the Protoss from one side of the map to the other in 1/10th the time it takes to paint up a base for nuke strikes. So in Starcraft 2, I would like to see covert units with MUCH more health, and I would like to see detector scramblers of some kind, although I'm not sure how that would be implemented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Prower Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 This was another senseless weakness of the original Starcraft. NO race EVER lacked detectors by the dozens when being played by the computer, and no human being who'd been playing SC for for than 5 minutes would be without them either. And once a covert unit is detected, they have about 50 health unless they're a hero like Zeratul. For example, in 4 years of playing Starcraft, I have successfully completed ONE covert nuke strike because it's so hard to get the Ghosts in undetected to paint targets. I can assemble and execute a 12 tank plant n' pound siege crawl and obliterate the Protoss from one side of the map to the other in 1/10th the time it takes to paint up a base for nuke strikes.So in Starcraft 2, I would like to see covert units with MUCH more health, and I would like to see detector scramblers of some kind, although I'm not sure how that would be implemented. No offense. But either your opponents were either really good or you really sucked. I did several nuke strikes when I used to play starcraft before the 21st century (some one stole my CD and haven't bothered going back since ). Usually what I do is set up a force to go in and destroy structures/vehicles that were used to detect my ghosts. While the enemy would be fighting my forces that would be slaughtering their cloak detection, my ghosts would sneak in the blind spot, point a nuke and bye bye enemy base. It can be quite difficult at times, I know my ghosts have been detected time to time and killed off. But it is not impossible if you know what to do and when to strike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalcyonSpirit Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 (some one stole my CD and haven't bothered going back since ) Just so you're aware, the latest patch to the game allows you to play the games without the CDs. So if you still have it installed, you'll be good to go! Usually what I do is set up a force to go in and destroy structures/vehicles that were used to detect my ghosts. While the enemy would be fighting my forces that would be slaughtering their cloak detection, my ghosts would sneak in the blind spot, point a nuke and bye bye enemy base. It can be quite difficult at times, I know my ghosts have been detected time to time and killed off. But it is not impossible if you know what to do and when to strike. The trick is doing it without alerting the enemy to your plans. If you focus too much on the detectors, a good enemy will realize that you've got something you want to bring in undetected, and take steps to prevent their detectors' destruction as well as beef up their defenses in such a way to intercept the cloaked units. So you need to play your hand without showing it. Double-pronged strikes work fairly well in this regard, though other strategies often work better but are harder to execute. You send in one wave from one direction that draws mainly a certain group of enemy units, and then bring in the second wave from a different vector to make a quick strike against the detectors and other targets of opportunity before quickly retreating or joining the first wave in battle. In this way, your enemy is far less likely to realize what was actually your target before you are ready to deploy your cloaked units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BardicKnowledge Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 ^Even less complicated than that, you could always use a Ghost to nuke a photon cannon wall etc -- because the nuke range is larger than that of the detection, you could create a hole inside an enemy base through which to strike with more direct means (I'm a Goliath/Tank mix when I go Terran, personally -- sending in 24 Goliaths with 6-8 tanks gives you massive destruction if you can get them inside the base). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azure Prower Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Just so you're aware, the latest patch to the game allows you to play the games without the CDs. So if you still have it installed, you'll be good to go! You'd think I'd have the same computer I used in 1998? xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalcyonSpirit Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 ^Even less complicated than that, you could always use a Ghost to nuke a photon cannon wall etc -- because the nuke range is larger than that of the detection, you could create a hole inside an enemy base through which to strike with more direct means (I'm a Goliath/Tank mix when I go Terran, personally -- sending in 24 Goliaths with 6-8 tanks gives you massive destruction if you can get them inside the base). Effective? Yes. The problem with that approach, however, is that it relies on your opponent making two very big mistakes: not moving his defensive units away from the line (they shouldn't even be there in the first place; keeping them behind the first defenses is better in general), and wasting money on a "wall" of photon cannons (or any other defense). Except in rare circumstances (or very abundant resources), the backbone of a base's defense should lie in units, not static defenses. They are vulnerable to attacks that they cannot defend against (as you pointed out), and are ultimately a big target for your opponent to destroy. It's like putting up a big sign that says "Here's a big pile of my hard-earned resources! Blow it up for me!" Static defenses have their uses, and if you can reasonably get the extra resources, putting extra defenses up doesn't hurt. But usually the money is better spent on units. You'd think I'd have the same computer I used in 1998? xD Hey, it's possible. My parents do (it's been in storage, but it's still around). A computer from that era would probably still be able to play the game, so if you still had it, you'd be all set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf Posted January 29, 2008 Author Share Posted January 29, 2008 Hey, new stuff! Interesting character bio on Jim Raynor, as well as a screenshot of what he looks like in all his StarCraft II glory. They mention a new character, his second in command Matt Horner, and also link him directly to Tychus Findlay. Interesting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoboKa Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 Effective? Static defenses have their uses, and if you can reasonably get the extra resources, putting extra defenses up doesn't hurt. But usually the money is better spent on units. it's best to use defenses in tandem with protective units...i.e. reavers or lurkers/tanks and as for a nuke strike, just be sure to have obs patrolling the map and always have a few units ready to counter the ghost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BardicKnowledge Posted January 29, 2008 Share Posted January 29, 2008 I agree with both of you -- static defenses are best placed in the middle of bases as detectors backing units (a spore tower backed by a few lurkers and hydras makes a better defense than a combo of spore / sunken, for instance). Back on topic, Raynor's new bio is sweet. I love that they have given him problems -- it makes him much more believable. I can't wait to hear more about the plot! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 The Zerg section is finally live! It's only two units, but by God, it's UP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friendlyHunter Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The Zerg stuff is all well and good, but look at those new screenshots!! They're worlds better than the old ones - all thanks to colour! Thanks Blizzard, you guys had me worried there Desert: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss72-hires.jpg(NEW) The Terran Battlecruisers and Barracks' have their sexy shine back!!! http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss71-hires.jpg(NEW) The environment here looks simply stunning O_O http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss53-hires.jpg(OLD) It's Warcraft 3 in space! http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss58-hires.jpg(OLD) MY EYEEES!!! Space Platform: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss74-hires.jpg (NEW) mmmm, Pylons... http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss68-hires.jpg (NEW) http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss39-hires.jpg (OLD) Blech! Jungle: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss73-hires.jpg (NEW) Zealots look pretty sweet now... http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss70-hires.jpg (NEW) ZOMG it's creep! And some interesting looking Zerg units... http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss24-hires.jpg (OLD) RAINBOW ZERGS!!! And I can't wait to see what they'll do with the Twilight planet: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/screenshots/ss25-hires.jpg (OLD) EXTREME COLOR WARNING, DO NOT OPEN IF YOU HAVE SENSITIVE EYES OR ARE HOMOPHOBIC So there you have it; anyone who said StarCraft II was NOT too colourful before was plainly wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I-n-j-i-n Posted March 18, 2008 Share Posted March 18, 2008 The Zerg looks pretty disgusting in StarCraft 2. I mean that as a compliment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Wolf Posted March 19, 2008 Author Share Posted March 19, 2008 I was looking through screenshots of StarCraft 2, and found further proof that Blizzard just kicks ass right here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clefairy Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Wasn't sure which thread to necro, settled on this one. http://kotaku.com/5304113/no-lan-play-for-starcraft-ii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 i have to admit that, after recently playing through starcraft 1 some more, i fear the release of this game. i'll be dead, totally dead in my chair, if it looks even half as good as these screens look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.