Complete Starcraft II Q&A Batch 51 Released!

Personally I have to agree the above. Only the last question was new information. So we know to map editor (initially) or single player in the beta. Maybe they are just wanting to test out the AI in multiplayer for the beta.

 

Ahh you mean Dota, the worst community every created by mankind? Lets let the mulitpayer and real maps be the important part of the game, and the custom maps be fun, but nothing more. MOst playres play dota these days, and dota brings out the worst parts of people, I know it from myself.

Nothing i fear...
perhaps when you observe you cant whisper to the players playing? Then you at least have to be in the same room as your mate.

 

If I were president of Blizzard, I would ban the DotA creators from the editor and ban anything with game play similar to it.

 

There's no way Blizzard can completely stop friends from talking to each other. There's still IMs, voice chatting, phone calls, text messages, being in the same room, and who knows what.

But, really, if you can enjoy StarCraft on Battle.net where 95% of public games hack then friends helping friends with a few comments is nothing. I've been in several UMS 1v1 games where a player would have their ally chat off and would say "OMFG!! RED IS GOING FOR MUTALISKS!!" or something similar.

Granted, that is a small tip but, in the end, it doesn't mean anything because I was already considering the option that that person would go Mutalisks. The only time knowing what your enemy is doing is entirely game breaking is when you know things like when a drop is coming or when they expand.

In the end, it will all still come down to skill and skill will always beat a friend helping a friend.

 

You could block observers from talking to the players through in-game chat and battle.net whispers. I think this would make a significant difference at least, but ya there isn't jack they can do to stop people from using VOIP, IRC, IMs, or even good old fashioned talking out loud (if they happen to be in the same room) to spy on other players using observers.

 

About the death animations, I have some opinions.
Cons: The carrier just disappears after the explosion... boring. I prefer it to fall to the ground in pieces.
How come the hydras keep exploding? I mean, why can't they make the hydras like kneel down and die like the marines?
Also, does Blizzard plan to make every ground unit have a special dieing animation just for the hellion attack? Seems a waste of time... why not do it AFTER they release SC2?
Pros: I love the small explosions from the carrier before it blows up.
Great flamed or moving corpses (gruel, yet wicked)
Zerglings models are great.

 

"Also, does Blizzard plan to make every ground unit have a special dieing animation just for the hellion attack? Seems a waste of time... why not do it AFTER they release SC2?"

In Warcraft III, when a frost wyrm attacks a building, it bursts into flame. That is stupid. Blizzard is looking to make a "perfect" game and having a hydralisk explode when its set on fire doesn't make a whole lot of sense. (Evolving explosive chemicals inside a hydralisk would be a curious design decision by the zerg, to say the least.) I think the art team has the least amount of work to do anyway; it's not like the game balance is taking longer to develop because of them "slacking".

 

Actually, Colossii are supposed to set Marines on fire. Though I think the Colossus and Hellion are the only units that set certain other units on fire.

 

Explosions are great for buildings yet doesn't make much sense for units dieing to gunfire. I mean, no other game has units exploding after death (other than the boomer in L4D, yet it was called boomer, so that makes sense, in a way). If death animations were to be perfected, then a lot more things would need more work, like units would have different death animations when set on fire(withering), punctured to death by enemies(curl up and die), and when slaughtered by splash damaged (explosion and separation of limbs).