Poll: Which race will you play as your main in SC2?

@ Itza: Ok think of it this way, if your end of the spectrum is what unit is replacing what unit role-wise, then what is the other end? And that is the end I am talking about.
And as far as saying that role-wise is the only way to judge unit replacements, consider the fact that this is a new game. I should hope it isn't just Starcraft 1 with new models and textures. They are more than likely going to change up some actual gameplay aspects. Meaning that Air to Air, Ground to Air, etc. terms might be warped, or even removed completly.

 

Well they already announced a couple air to air dedicated units and some ground to ground dedicated units so I am pretty sure they are still going to be using the same terms for most things.

 

He still wouldn't regard it as the direct replacement. The fact that he considers them the same unit is irrelevant.
@ -Behemoth. There are still going to be Ground-to-Air, Air-to-Air, Ground-to-Ground, etc, etc. There are also going to be units that have a similar role to the old StarCraft1 units. The thing is that all this doesn't mean that it's going to be StarCraft1 with new models and textures. There are many units that aren't a replacement to anything, like the Colossus, Reapers, Warp Ray, etc. There are many units that were in StarCraft1 but have new abilities, like the Zealot, High Templar, Ghost, Battlecruiser, etc. It's going to be a completely new game, but that doesn't mean it's got to function completely differently to all other RTS's. In all RTS's there are specialized Ground-to-Ground fighters, Ground-to-Air fighters, etc, etc. Just saying that the Ground form of the Viking will be used for the same thing that the Firebat was used for, doesn't mean that the game aspects haven't changed.

 

You can't say that for sure. As Blizzard has stated many times anything can change.

 

All RTS's work off the same gameplay style, otherwise, they wouldn't be an RTS. There isn't anything that can be done to make it a brand-new, innovative RTS, apart from new mechanics like inter-tier units, etc. They still have to have the basic mechanics of certain units being more effective than others, which is where direct replacements come in.

 

We shall see about that...

 

So what do you think could be changed? What about it could be changed to make it a completely innovative game apart from unit mechanics and tactics (i.e. what we've seen so far)?

 

The medic and the marauder can do a bit of mixy-mixy flirty-flirty and make out, which causes the marine to be majorly jealous. Oooohhh, the drama!!~~

Which...reminds me, since the Protoss don't have mouths, they cannot kiss aye...let alone do the French pash. So sad for them...no wonder they are not a very prolific people... :upset:

 

They might not be able to kiss or pash, but some of the psychic stuff they'd be able to do that we can't would have to be pretty amazing.

 

What if they made a completly new AI system in which, your units have moral, etc. and will leave you if you suck too much and make a colony of their own, all during a single game!
Or what if they made a more in depth economy where you would have to get not only gas and minerals, but wood and metal and water, etc.--Then you could set up a trading system with allied forces, or embargos against unallied forces. There could be a central market center where people would trade back and forth and so on.
Or what if they made the Heroes (Zeratul, Raynor, etc.) more like characters in WoW?
Or they could have a point system online based on you scores in game and you could buy certain upgrades, etc. to improve a certain units functionality while playing.
I could go on....

 

Yep, but none of that affects the units themselves. Even if you implement all of those, there will still be direct replacements from StarCraft1. There will still be specialized Anti-Air, Anti-Infantry, etc. You can't replace that.

 

This is like Rome Total War, which provides you with all the experience of managing an empire. While it is fun in context, here it will just be a pain in the butt.
Marine: "GoGoGo! Give me something to shoot!"
Me: "Okay" [click]
Marine: "Nah stuff you, I feel depressed, wanna slit my wrists but the powersuit's in the way...I think I'll twaddle off in the other direction"
Another perspective to look at it is that SC1/SC2 is a strategy game like CHESS, which implies that there is no "luck" during the game / on the board; you don't see the Queen jumping off the board when you try to sacrifice it do you? Unless you are talking about Harry Potter chess...

Firstly, personally, one of the greatest reasons why I don't like the AGE series more is exactly because there are too many times of resources to manage. Having so many resources is unnecessary imho. Again, unlike the Total War series, SC is NOT an empire-builing SIMULATION game. Thus realism - though important (depending on opinion) - is ultimately secondary to having superior gameplay. So embargo (if I take it correctly you want a embargo model like between realworld nations) is impractical too. On the other hand, SC already has a kind of embargo, in that you expand before your opponent and take all the resources for yourself. Trading with allied forces is good. But I'll talk about the "disadvantage" later...

You realize that when the Blizzard fans switch from WC to SC is like changing the cereals you eat in the morning. Which means that they will get very sick of it if SC also has heroes. Plus, this will once again goes against the basis of SC (and thus p*ss of its fans) since SC has always been about unit BALANCE and working your different units as a TEAM. On the other hand, a hero is just an up-himself kinda guy who will ruin the game by kidnapping all the attention and causing the game to revolve around units like him - just like WC - which is why Blizzard made WoW...*cringes".

Again, back to the chess perspective (sorry for constantly using this analogy but I play chess lots plus most strategy games have the same core ideas as chess), how would you feel if your opponent is allowed to move twice for his first move just because he wins more games and is rated higher than you? All these strategy games have one true goal: to totally annihilate the opponent from an equal beginning; and thus to prove that you are really better. In fact, most games have this as basis. You run the same distance in 100m, you have the same number of players on the field, you are given the same information in Survival *who watches this?!* etc etc Pretty much the only unfair games occur in the casino and that's because their priority is to make money.

Unfortunately, all your ideas (yes, and here's the "disadvantage" of the trading concenpt) have already been implemented in different strategy games with various degrees of success. You want an original game but I'm afraid based on our present technology it is pretty hard to be totally innovative. When a totally new innovative tech comes, then totally innovative games will appear - such as virtual realtiy - but basically this really the only way that allows the gaming industry to "progress".
So what is actually important at ANY point of time is that however advanced the game is, it is TOTALLY fair on all players. Thus balance is key, which is why even a thousand year (not sure about exact time) old game like chess is still being played by tens-of-thousands (if not millions) of people around the world instead of being sidelined as an antique.

"I could go on..."

 

I can't wait to play Terran! They have so many new awesome units.

 

@ L89: I notice you chose to pick out bad points about all of the possibilities, but not any good points.
-For the first possibility you talked about 1 instance in which the player wasn't doing well. The only way this would be a problem is if you really sucked, or the system was unbalanced. Other than that they wont leave. Personally I hate having to deal w/ some noob that allied the strongest guy in that current game like a little leach. This option would clearly show the skill of the player and weed out the skill-less. Plus w/ what I said, the unit would leave you and become a separate team. If it happened to be an scv that left, the it would be able to build a colony, etc. which would add a whole new type of diversity to the game.

-For the second possibility you said that a larger economic expanse would be pointless because it would be too difficult to manage. Again this feature would also show the skill of the player. It would diversify the game further and would only be unmanagable because either it was not balanced correctly or you suck. Separately, I meant an embargo as in stick some units infront of a player who is using an economic strategy's trade route to keep them from trading. Also I am trying to state why SC2 DOESN'T have to follow in the footsteps of SC1.

-With the third feature I didn't mean a whole game based off of heroes, just upgradeable units that would stick w/ you throughout the game, but not be so powerful that all you need is 1 of them to beat the game. They would be there to make the game more interesting.

-With the fourth feature, you asked "How would you feel if you played a guy who had a major advantage over you?" to which I respond "Like I should fight someone with less experience." This feature would force people to fight on their own level. This feature would also weed out the noobs from actual competitive gaming. A good player who just started online would have to work his way up the ladder.

-As for the last monolouge, sure each thing has it's own disadvantages, but so does every idea. Never has there been a completly flawless game. Ignoring this fact, each feature also has its advantages. The way to making a game is combining the features that are most compatible and have the least disadvantages. Sometimes combining 2 features will make up for a disadvantage of one of them.

 

Sooo, how did you know the player wasn't doing very well at that moment? More to the point, how would the AI differentiate whether the player was really a n00b or sacrificing a group of units for the greater good? You see, SC2 is not real life; which means that suiciding units for a greater cause does not matter. Then you'll say "Duh, of course it won't matter in SC2" Then I'll say, "Ok when then? When will a unit leave? When will the SCV decide that it is actually being used for building an secret expansion or that it's being used as a suicide scout, or being blundered away by a n00b? If the computer can decide this, then IRobot will not be such a sci-fi movie after all. The AI cannot read minds so random units leaving due the computer deciding that you are a n00b again brings back to my point stated in the previous point: this creates LUCK. If I want to play alongside with luck, I might as well go and play cards. Let the n00b PROVE that he is a n00b is my motto.

I don't really get this. You yourself suggested some sort of allying right? And I didn't disagree with it...all I said was that allying or not, this still will NOT be an original feature. So it seems that you are now contradicting with yourself?!

No it is pointless because it's only result is to complexify a game that is already complex enough to differentiate between n00bs and experts. This is why I disagree with it. When I played Age of Kings intensively years ago, I coped well enough with the four resources. The game in regards to resources was balanced and manageable. But this doesn't stop me from preferring having only two types instead. Coz resources in a game is only an abstract representation of what happens in real life. In fact, their MAIN goal is NOT to simulate real life BUT to limit the number of units that a player can build at any certain time - instead of trying to create unecessary "trip-ups-for-n00bs" as you implied. Plus I'm sure even n00bs will get a hang of using four resources after a while. So in the end, what it "merely" creates for everyone is a silly diversion when two resources were already quite ok. I am quite sure that I am among the majority here when it comes to preferring two resources. Btw I'm not trying to outnumber you but just stating the fact that when people disagree with a part of the game even if it is pretty balanced, it doesn't mean straight away they suck - as you implied, which seems arrogant even if you did not mean it this way.

Like you mean a marine that starts off as a basic one and after a certain number of kills become promoted? If so, yep, I don't see why not. Like a medal system aye. Rome Total War had this, and I reckon implementing it here in SC2 will not cause much of a hassle.

No a good player is only good when he constantly proves that he can beat anyone in an equal fight. Your way will change the ladder to become a sorta gang hierarchy in which the big guy has all the resources...comparable to the chief of a tribe. I bet you, if this is implemented, SC2 will NOT attain the status as a respected Esport. Coz in no modern sport can one guy brings along his hoard from the last battle, except experience (ie insight to the game, not artificial experience points).

Sure, I'm a person for change. But my overall personal conclusion from all your ideas has more positives than negatives.

 

Ok first off, I'm trying to explain why SC2 DOES NOT have to be like SC1, and you keep reffering to Blizzard keeping the traditional "StarCraft" theme.

1. I mean a moral system based on how well you are doing compared to the other in-game players. Ex: How many min. you have, how many units you have, how many enemies you have killed, how many units you have lost, etc. If you tweaked the system so that it is not extremely dramatic then only when you do bad for a while will units GRADUALLY start to leave (not all at once). This is not luck, it is skill.

2. Lol I was reffering to how the game works a ATM. You can ally w/ other ppl so that you won't auto attack them. A noob will often beg a better player to ally them, and then hide behind them and build their economy until everyone is gone but him and the good player and then attack with his fully built tech tree. Also I didn't say they were COMPLETLY original, just new to SC.

3. At this point you started reffering to SC1, which is exactly what I'm trying not to do. Other than that, everyone is entitled to their own opinion; you think it would be complicated and pointless, I think it would be interesting and make the game more immersable.

4. Personally that is the way I like it. I love the clan wars, etc.

5. So w8, you like my ideas?

 

Haha, what can I say... I meant to say more negatives than positives...damnit where's the embarrased emoticon...ah there we go :-[. That said, I'm not totally against your ideas and I'm sure if Blizzard wants to implement anything, they'll always be able to make it work in the end without making the game imba. Like I said before, your idea of having "heroes" can be quite good (like a promotion system except unlike in SC1, this actually makes an ingame difference) as long as the heroes won't be like WC style. :good:
But I'm still totally against the idea of people with more wins / higher rating having all the advantages. This reminds me of good ol' Counter Strike where the winning team is able to keep on buying the best equipment; after a few rounds it becomes so imbalanced that the winning team doesn't need any skill to maintain the winning streak. No, a game is still best if it starts each time with both on equal grounds. Then the better/higher rated player proves that he is king and worthy of his superiority and the respect others give him. In addition, personally, it's the outmanoeuvring phase that is the most exciting...when the balance between the two players starts to tip. The why, what, when, who, where and how of this happening is very intriguing, no matter what game is being played.

But yeah, you're definitely right. Everyone has their own perspective. That's what makes life so exciitng eh. ^_^

 

Firstly, I'd like to state that this all came from me and -Behemoth arguing over unit replacements. After arguing that the Viking will fill the Firebat's role and that the Marauder wouldn't, -Behemoth said that StarCraft2 could be so much more than StarCraft1 with new models and skins, yet none of his examples have altered how the units themselves would work, except for maybe his hero idea. The point is that units in StarCraft2 will have distinct roles, just like units in StarCraft1 had. Many new units will take over the role of an old unit, but that doesn't mean that they're just new models and skins.

In this was initiated, then the winners would keep winning and the losers would keep losing. That would lead to the winners getting bored because it's all getting too easy for them, and the losers to lose interest because despite already being a bad player, they now have a handicap.

Fancy new mechanics were not what made StarCraft1 so popular. It was the unique teams, plot, graphics and strategies that made it so popular. StarCraft2 doesn't need any more than to stick with these principles, and it'll easily outshine any game that tries to incorporate the suggested mechanics.

So if you're running low on supplies and you're finding it harder to buy more units, some will start leaving. If you've sent in a distraction/suicide raid, units from your main force will leave. If you a large portion of your army is ambushed, not only do you have to make more, but some of your remaining units leave. If you've gotten off to a bad start, yet you're managing to recover, your units will leave. I think I've made my point.
Just like you did previously, you've suggested something that will benefit the people in who're in a dominant position, and hindering the people in a bad position. Also, if a Terran soldier was attempting to flee the army, he'd get shot. Fullstop. Now it might just be me, but if I wanted to flee from an army that would kill me if I left it, I'd stay. A similar thing happened with the Russians in World War II. Any fleeing soldiers were shot, which strongly discouraged others.
Lastly, I can't imagine a Zergling thinking, "Maybe I should get out of here, the statistical chances of being victorious are insignificant compared to that of our adversaries...".

EDIT: Grammar.

 

Okay maybe the point system online had a few too many holes, or one big one, but they could at least have the skilled players more distictive. Like a little star by their name or something. Maybe you could buy stuff to make yourself LOOK cooler.

@ Itza: Yes, a moral system would mean that a few strategies would be partially hurtful, but that is only if you do something like waste minerals or use suicide units on a LARGE scale. Keep it small and you are fine. Plus I would love it if one of my scv's left and made another base, then I could go in and kill all his units and take over his base (this introducing a new feature with which you can take someone's building so long as they have no units in the immediate vicinity). Or if an scv left and killed my enemy (not exactly balanced, but funny for me none the less).
I also realize that SC2 doesn't have to do more than just change the models/textures to be a huge success, I am just saying what else it could do.
*Yeah I kind of lost track of what I was going for w/ the units lol.

 

So uhh back to the topic of this thread... I am not loyal to any race, and merely find the race that fits my style of play. this means that as my style of play improves i change races. I think terrans look quite good right now, and i like the units they have for raiding such as the banshee. But in the end its really a matter of what suits me.