STARCRAFT II in the WORKS!!!!

[SleepyD]

Well, who knows what they'll add in the time that's left until release. Maybe they'll probably add new features. But they can't make a lot of RADICAL changes, like removing mining and concentrating in just battles. Just imagine: Someone is developing a Warhammer: Mark of Chaos expansion and suddenly thinks "hey guyz! why don't we try something new? like mixing this game with features of...SimCity!" You would not like, right? even when they'd be doing something new (mixing a war game with a City-building game).

Any way, propose things that you'd like to see changed and then we would know what exactly you're talking about.

But still, It's just subjective

You may skip to my last sentences if you'd like, since that's really what I'm trying to say. all the other stuff is me rambling. XD;

if I may bring something up from another game series I like, Ace Combat--Namco, since the first game on the PS1, made small changes each time.  Right now I'm staring at the screens for the sixth (well, 7th... or would it be 11th? bah) installment on the X360. o-O amazing. I should get around to getting a X360. XD;;

anyhoo, I digress. my point is that they kept their fanbase and always put in something new.  They tend to never do anything radical, so few people really give the game high ratings... the developers at Namco seem to be going for an evolutionary kind of change... it's still good, but doesn't bring very many new people in.

however, i doubt blizzard is going to release as many sequels as namco and ace combat... so a revolutionary change might be necessary....

So in short, the challenge posed to the game developers is to bring the audience something new, without alienating their fanbase. ^^

[CaptBrenden]

Well, who knows what they'll add in the time that's left until release. Maybe they'll probably add new features. But they can't make a lot of RADICAL changes, like removing mining and concentrating in just battles. Just imagine: Someone is developing a Warhammer: Mark of Chaos expansion and suddenly thinks "hey guyz! why don't we try something new? like mixing this game with features of...SimCity!" You would not like, right? even when they'd be doing something new (mixing a war game with a City-building game).

...now your just being silly.  

We arnt talking about mixing game types here, we are talking about learning from the current RTS games that have improved the RTS format.  Taking a combat game and mixing it with a sim game is a totaly differnt  idea.    Seriosly, its like having a FPS these days where all you did was look left and right instead of aiming and being able to carry 200 bloody weapons and ammo at once.  Thats how doom was, its a classic, people still play it (I do) but if a new FPS came out like that id spit on it.  Some improvements just shouldnt be ignored even if it worked well "back in the day"

I already mentioned the sorts of improvements Im talking about.   Getting your production points for building new units by moving forward, capturing parts of the map, and then holding them.  Not only does it eliminat that troublesome crystal and gas collecting, but it also promotes more combat earlier in the game, spreads the action over more of the map, and prevents people from just turtling in somewhere like a lamer.  

Or the addition of squad combat.  Instead of producing one marine or soldier and having him run around on his own (which, on real soldier or marine would do, its just stupid) they move as a squad, fight as a squad, have a leader, can be upgraded with differnt weapons depending on your choice of tactics and their intended combat role.  Hell the new command and conquer did the same thing, its not just dawn of war.

or hell, one of my favorite inovations in RTS recently in mark of chaos.. no bloody building or producing units in battle at all.  Personaly I like RTS because it tests my tactical mind, not my ability to shoot up a production tree.  Eliminating mid battle producing of units and structures now forces you to think a heck of alot more about your tactical decisions.   Your units gain experience from battle to battle and loosing a unit to stupid arogant tactics WILL hurt.  You cant simply use the resorces you stock piled to make a new wave when your a tard.  You have to think about positioning, where and when to bring in your reserves, how to keep your combat ability up and prepare for counter attacks.  Its brings the strategy back into real time strategy.  


To that end, Ill stand by my statements.  Any sequal that comes out 10 years after its last edition and simply produces the same thing is doing nothing but cattering to the rabid fans and in my opinion, fails.  

I belive that if there are no changes from what Ive seen so far,  Starcraft II will be mediocer at best.

[Darknight_88]

I already mentioned the sorts of improvements Im talking about.   Getting your production points for building new units by moving forward, capturing parts of the map, and then holding them.  Not only does it eliminat that troublesome crystal and gas collecting, but it also promotes more combat earlier in the game, spreads the action over more of the map, and prevents people from just turtling in somewhere like a lamer.  

And turtling is a perfectly valid strategy, mind you. I don't see why everyone should be a rusher.
To be honest, I have never played a game that has no mining, so I have no real experience with that kind of gameplay. But i don't see mining as a problem. Instead, it makes you think strategies to damage the enemy economy without necessarily capturing their territory. Guerrilla war.

Or the addition of squad combat.  Instead of producing one marine or soldier and having him run around on his own (which, on real soldier or marine would do, its just stupid) they move as a squad, fight as a squad, have a leader, can be upgraded with differnt weapons depending on your choice of tactics and their intended combat role.  Hell the new command and conquer did the same thing, its not just dawn of war.

It all depends on the player. You CAN send a soldier alone, but that doesn't mean you should. If someone wants to be stupid, then let them be. Again, don't really know how this "squad" system works, but if it lets me position every single soldier as I like in order to attack more effectively, then it's all good. AI tends to suck  when it comes to micromanagement.

or hell, one of my favorite inovations in RTS recently in mark of chaos.. no bloody building or producing units in battle at all.  Personaly I like RTS because it tests my tactical mind, not my ability to shoot up a production tree.  Eliminating mid battle producing of units and structures now forces you to think a heck of alot more about your tactical decisions.   Your units gain experience from battle to battle and loosing a unit to stupid arogant tactics WILL hurt.  You cant simply use the resorces you stock piled to make a new wave when your a tard.  You have to think about positioning, where and when to bring in your reserves, how to keep your combat ability up and prepare for counter attacks.  Its brings the strategy back into real time strategy.  

Perfectly valid, but I doubt it would work on Starcraft. You'd be eliminating the main strength of the Zerg race, as they rely more on numbers and constant reinforcements than in quality. Could work on Terrans and Protoss, but then they'd be at a huge disadvantage when playing against Zergs.

...

I still think that Starcraft II can allow some updates to its game system, but not RADICAL changes. I believe economy and reinforcements are an important part of war, so I don't see any problem If they still appear on Starcraft II.

In the end its all a moot point, since everyone has a different opinion about what makes a great game.

[CaptBrenden]

And turtling is a perfectly valid strategy, mind you. I don't see why everyone should be a rusher.
To be honest, I have never played a game that has no mining, so I have no real experience with that kind of gameplay. But i don't see mining as a problem. Instead, it makes you think strategies to damage the enemy economy without necessarily capturing their territory. Guerrilla war.

Guerrilla war still works in the system I talked about.   Heck, it works better.   The larger the map, the further the enemy has to spread his forces to protect the points he has captured, sometimes too much space, or he leaves points behind his main battle line un protected, and then the smaller scout or fast attack units can slip in and cause general chaos amongst his resorces, and he has to  take people off the front line to recapture these points, but leave his lines weaker to attacks.  Then there is the small matter of finding the rapid attack force thats moving from defilade to deffilate launching these guerrlla attacks.   On top of that, your best units can only be produced if you capture rare points, and if you take out or deny your enemy these points he cant match you in your tech level.   You can also go the economic victory route, if you can hold more points then the enemy, even if your engagements are at a stalemate, youll out last them.  

Turtleing is a valid strategy as much as spawn camping is in FPS.  You ccan do it, but your not much fun to play against.  

It all depends on the player. You CAN send a soldier alone, but that doesn't mean you should. If someone wants to be stupid, then let them be. Again, don't really know how this "squad" system works, but if it lets me position every single soldier as I like in order to attack more effectively, then it's all good. AI tends to suck when it comes to micromanagement.

I see you missed the point of that as well.  I dont mean sending individual marines against the enemy, of course your going to mass some before they go in, with support vehicals, i mean that you produce individual marines.  when used in a battle force it causes congestion as the ai for 20 individual marines tries to figure out what the path to their target location is, plus they take up alot of space in your battle force window that way.  

Instead, with the squad method, when you produce "marines" you get a basic squad of 4 marines, that moves, is selected and is esentualy 1 unit. you click on one squad member, you get the whole squad. they move in formation when possible. they take just one slot in the battle force window.  you can renforce them to increase the squad size, give it a leader, upgrade members of the squad with heavy weapons tailoring its use to cirtain combat roles..   the more live members and upgrades to a squad the more effective it is and the more damage it does.  as it takes damage individual marines die decreasing its damage causing capabilities, you loose your heavy weapons and can no longer peirce armor or cut down heavy infantry, and eventually are destoyed.  More thought, more tactical options, easier to control,  actually mildly usefull right out of the production point, and generaly one of the best inovations to RTS to come along (which is why alot of other sequals to older games have included it..)

Oh while Im thinking about it, since i mentioned adding leaders.  MORAL.  IRL its the single most effective tool in war.  Troops in moral will fight against unsermountable odds, and often win.  In WWI US marines charged uphill outnumbered 3 to 1 againts fortified german machinegun nests and not only were they sucsessful, but they sent the germans into a full rout and had the germans beliving they were possed.  an outnumbered inferiorly equiped force sent the most advanced army in the war packing due to moral.   Many games include this aspect now too.  

Units in high moral will fight on, but as they are butchered or face terrifying weapons or odds their moral lowers and they may just run even if you dont want them too (no commander knows whats its truly like to lead untill he had had to deal with that).  Things like Artillary, snipers, flame throwers, massive caualties or losses, targets they cant harm.. are all things that would make a real or sane soldier think twice or run even if their commander says fight on.  To leave that aspect out of an RTS is leaving out a very real and major part of war from a game type that is all about war.  

Plus, again it adds another aspect to your tactical thinking... "if i cant beat them physicly.. how can I hurt their moral?"  In dawn of war, a well placed sniper team can keep a far more powerful squad at bay for some time by causing moral damage with sniper rifles (trust me, snipers are terrifying when your an infantry man)

Perfectly valid, but I doubt it would work on Starcraft. You'd be eliminating the main strength of the Zerg race, as they rely more on numbers and constant reinforcements than in quality. Could work on Terrans and Protoss, but then they'd be at a huge disadvantage when playing against Zergs.

True, Ill give you that one. I cant see starcraft like that either.  I soppose that system is best for formation war fighting anyways.  Still I was pointing out recent inovations to the game type that should not be totaly ignored. tho I have to say, I really hate the whole, collect crystals, wait 30 seconds and a marine magics himself into existance.   At least with some games they make an effort for it to makes sence now (like in dawn of war, new troops and such are dropped from orbit and the buildings are just the landing points, and even the buildings are shown as being flown in in a prefabricated form that needs soom assembly.

[Exa]

Hm, this conversation is interesting - changing the old system to a completely new one...

Even though the ideas CaptBrenden mentioned are not bad, but I think these radical changes would made a lot of the older Starcraft fans to miss the game. The capture territory system, unit groups instead of individual units, morale... I don't know - it wouldn't be feel like a Starcraft game. Instead of completely changing the whole gameplay, smaller but useful changes would be better. Changes are neccessary, but huge changes aren't needed, in my opinion.

[Darknight_88]

Guerrilla war still works in the system I talked about.   Heck, it works better.   The larger the map, the further the enemy has to spread his forces to protect the points he has captured, sometimes too much space, or he leaves points behind his main battle line un protected, and then the smaller scout or fast attack units can slip in and cause general chaos amongst his resorces, and he has to  take people off the front line to recapture these points, but leave his lines weaker to attacks.  Then there is the small matter of finding the rapid attack force thats moving from defilade to deffilate launching these guerrlla attacks.   On top of that, your best units can only be produced if you capture rare points, and if you take out or deny your enemy these points he cant match you in your tech level.   You can also go the economic victory route, if you can hold more points then the enemy, even if your engagements are at a stalemate, youll out last them.  

Well, protecting resources, be it minerals or points, has always been a difficult task in large maps. Personally, I like more the mineral way because you're not only denying valuable resources to the enemy, but you're also forcing him to waste resources in replacing the lost workers

Also, economic victories will never work in Starcraft. The game is about war between races, so they don't want to just be more economically powerful, but erase their enemies from the map.
And about the rare resources points, this also makes the game too complicated.

One thing I would like to have implemented in Starcraft II is that when you destroy an enemy C.C/Nexus/Hive, you receive an small ammount of the enemy resources (afterall, all the resources he was mining must be stored somewhere...).

I see you missed the point of that as well.  I dont mean sending individual marines against the enemy, of course your going to mass some before they go in, with support vehicals, i mean that you produce individual marines.  when used in a battle force it causes congestion as the ai for 20 individual marines tries to figure out what the path to their target location is, plus they take up alot of space in your battle force window that way.  

Instead, with the squad method, when you produce "marines" you get a basic squad of 4 marines, that moves, is selected and is esentualy 1 unit. you click on one squad member, you get the whole squad. they move in formation when possible. they take just one slot in the battle force window.  you can renforce them to increase the squad size, give it a leader, upgrade members of the squad with heavy weapons tailoring its use to cirtain combat roles..   the more live members and upgrades to a squad the more effective it is and the more damage it does.  as it takes damage individual marines die decreasing its damage causing capabilities, you loose your heavy weapons and can no longer peirce armor or cut down heavy infantry, and eventually are destoyed.  More thought, more tactical options, easier to control,  actually mildly usefull right out of the production point, and generaly one of the best inovations to RTS to come along (which is why alot of other sequals to older games have included it..)

I think I have played something similar: in Rise of Nations you produce 1 soldier and receive 3, and you control the whole group by clicking any of them. Would feel weird, but could work well. Don't really like the idea of infantry using heavy weapons on Starcraft II, as It'd make the game more complicated and slow, and it doesn't make a big difference.

Oh while Im thinking about it, since i mentioned adding leaders.  MORAL.  IRL its the single most effective tool in war.  Troops in moral will fight against unsermountable odds, and often win.  In WWI US marines charged uphill outnumbered 3 to 1 againts fortified german machinegun nests and not only were they sucsessful, but they sent the germans into a full rout and had the germans beliving they were possed.  an outnumbered inferiorly equiped force sent the most advanced army in the war packing due to moral.   Many games include this aspect now too.  

Units in high moral will fight on, but as they are butchered or face terrifying weapons or odds their moral lowers and they may just run even if you dont want them too (no commander knows whats its truly like to lead untill he had had to deal with that).  Things like Artillary, snipers, flame throwers, massive caualties or losses, targets they cant harm.. are all things that would make a real or sane soldier think twice or run even if their commander says fight on.  To leave that aspect out of an RTS is leaving out a very real and major part of war from a game type that is all about war.  

Plus, again it adds another aspect to your tactical thinking... "if i cant beat them physicly.. how can I hurt their moral?"  In dawn of war, a well placed sniper team can keep a far more powerful squad at bay for some time by causing moral damage with sniper rifles (trust me, snipers are terrifying when your an infantry man)

Not really sure about the leaders and morale. Would work only on terrans, as Zergs don't have an individual minds and therefore there's no room for something like fear. Protoss are fanatics, so they don't mind dying, hell, they even sacrifice themselves for the good of their whole kind. And then, Terrans are left with a huge disadvantage, being the only ones who's ability decreases as their casualties go higher.
But I'd really like to have a ghost with a new one shot-one kill ability

True, Ill give you that one. I cant see starcraft like that either.  I soppose that system is best for formation war fighting anyways.  Still I was pointing out recent inovations to the game type that should not be totaly ignored. tho I have to say, I really hate the whole, collect crystals, wait 30 seconds and a marine magics himself into existance.   At least with some games they make an effort for it to makes sence now (like in dawn of war, new troops and such are dropped from orbit and the buildings are just the landing points, and even the buildings are shown as being flown in in a prefabricated form that needs soom assembly.

Well, that's just some details. Protoss and Zergs have a good explanation: (protoss just use their buildings to teletransport units from their main factories, and Zerg just spawn their units from larvae). As for terrans, I have always thought they just recruit some random guy and the resource payment its to cover the cost of the armor/vehicle assembly. Still, its a bit unrealistic, I agree with you.


All of the things you suggested are great ideas, but I don't think all of them can be implemented without alienating most of the players. The beauty of Starcraft, as I said before, its the fact that its a simple and fast game but at the same time it allows the creation of complex strategies.
Yes, many of the things you propose really bring the game into a new whole level. Hell, In the past I have always dream of the same kind of features to be included in games: morale, veterans, several kinds of specialized infantry, real snipers, real AT guns (1 shot=1 dead tank)air units that need refueling and air bases, REALLY long range artillery, camouflage, tanks immune to basic infantry fire (rifles), tanks that are able to kill a soldier in 1 shot (but also, able to miss),  units without unlimited ammo, the need of supply lines,  etc...(Its a really looooooooooooooooooong list). But weirdly, all those ideas have always come to my mind when playing RTS's...except Starcraft. I have never thought of it as trying to achieve a completely realistic status, but more as a fun game. I don't think that making this game more complex can be for good.

[Laevatein]

My take. Feel free to ignore.

All of the innovations I've heard here are all well and good, and maybe I would like Starcraft with all of the innovations made in recent RTS titles such as Dawn of War, or Rise of Legends or C&C. Marine squads? HELL YES. And it would make for some interesting battles.

However, I think Blizzard it sticking to the familiar formula because not only will it appeal to the old school crowd, but for another reason: Starcraft, at least in the WCG circles, is considered a SPORT, where the stakes aren't just fun and bragging rights, but hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars for the various parties involved, including the sponsors. This is true especially in the Starcraft Capital of the World, South Korea, where TV channels are dedicated to Starcraft matches and their top players worshipped as idols (I so wish I was making this up...).

And sports as you know, aren't changed much throughout the years. In 100 years, basketball has changed little in terms of rules. Sure, there are more technicalities, but the core gameplay remains the same.

You can be sure that when it comes out, SC2 will sooner or later replace SC as the premier electronic sport of WCG, and obviously they'd want to keep much of the rules intact from the original Starcraft as much as possible. It's the "Money money money" argument, but not in terms of simple greediness from Blizzard, because there's a lot more at stake if they changed the core gameplay of SC too much.

[NejinOniwa]

...and the fact that the above is true is fukken SAD. -.-

[Darknight_88]

And casual players opinion aside, I think Laevatein has spotted the real reason of why this game will go without many changes :

However, I think Blizzard it sticking to the familiar formula because not only will it appeal to the old school crowd, but for another reason: Starcraft, at least in the WCG circles, is considered a SPORT, where the stakes aren't just fun and bragging rights, but hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars for the various parties involved, including the sponsors. This is true especially in the Starcraft Capital of the World, South Korea, where TV channels are dedicated to Starcraft matches and their top players worshipped as idols (I so wish I was making this up...).

And sports as you know, aren't changed much throughout the years. In 100 years, basketball has changed little in terms of rules. Sure, there are more technicalities, but the core gameplay remains the same.

You can be sure that when it comes out, SC2 will sooner or later replace SC as the premier electronic sport of WCG, and obviously they'd want to keep much of the rules intact from the original Starcraft as much as possible. It's the "Money money money" argument, but not in terms of simple greediness from Blizzard, because there's a lot more at stake if they changed the core gameplay of SC too much.

...

I so wish I was making this up...

so do I