[Game] Starcraft II

[Murphy]

Hm, and this applies to hosted games as well? Or is it matchmaking only? Are there plans to lift this restriction at some point in the future?

If I can't play with my buddies I don't think I want the game.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Hm, and this applies to hosted games as well? Or is it matchmaking only? Are there plans to lift this restriction at some point in the future?

If I can't play with my buddies I don't think I want the game.

You can form a "party" with your friends once you're all friended via email or code or whatever and then play the 5 placement matches (and then the REAL league matches) for 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4 or whatever. The region thing doesn't apply if you place your international friend in your party.

And of course you can do this with custom non ranked games as well.

 

[smokeythebear]

You can form a "party" with your friends once you're all friended via email or code or whatever and then play the 5 placement matches (and then the REAL league matches) for 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4 or whatever. The region thing doesn't apply if you place your international friend in your party.

And of course you can do this with custom non ranked games as well.

Are you sure?

I'm pretty sure it doesn't work this way. Even in the beta I needed 3 keys and 3 clients to play on the EU, NA and Asia server.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Oh. Well I dunno then. Might as well try though?

 

[NoxNoctum]

So I played the infamous "Zombie" mission... thought it was a piece of cake tbh, was a lil disappointed. Every other mission has taken me at LEAST 10-15 tries (playing on brutal)... this one I beat on the first way through.

***********WARNING********POSSIBLE SPOILERS*********************














All I did was, build one bunker in each of the 3 entrances (these are upgraded bunkers with the gun on top and the extra slots and range), put marines and 1 firebat in each, then build siege tanks behind each turret and perdition turrets surrounding the main 3 turrets. It wasn't even a challenge. I probably only got the "your base is under attack" message like 8 times. Then during the day I just sent out a massive fleet of 50 hellions and killed everything. Once I figured out that the infestors only came out at night I stayed late and killed them. Lost a few hellions but who cares, I had massive extra resources I didn't need.

In the end I lost 12 units (hellions lost while on the way back to base after killing the two infestors while the "zombies" were out and about ). Nearly all of my... 15 siege tanks had 300+ kills. Most had over 400, and two had over 600. Not bad.

I suppose the mission could have been a challenge if I hadn't played the siege tank mission first or had been dumb enough not to research perdition turrets (AMAZING against Zerg)... but still. It was fun though, I really enjoyed the day/night mechanic. SC2 definitely has the most compelling missions in a RTS campaign I've played.

I really pity the people who are dumb enough not to buy this because it's the "same old thing" or whatever.

 

[smokeythebear]

You could have beaten the mission in a third of the time with Reapers/Bunkers. Everyone of the zombie units is 'light' even the centaur things. Reapers bonus to buildings + mobility makes clearing out buildings very fast during the day.

I know someone who lifted off their entire base into an unreachable corner of the map every day night cycle and the mission ended up taking them 2+ hours lol.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Wow.... that's an... unusual approach?

I didn't think to use reapers just cause the hellions are so ridiculously fast that I could get them in and out very quickly, and they can take a bit more damage from the few spine crawlers around the map. Plus I could get the "build two units at once" upgrade for the factory and still be able to build hellions. Not so for reapers, which requires the other upgrade.

 

[Rak]

I got through wit Reapers/Hellions combination. Yes Reapers are fragile but don't forget that they do 50 damage to buildings, which you need to take down buildings fast.

BTW everyone is playing as toss online, and it's getting pretty boring. I'm in Platinium league and 4 out of 5 games I do are PvP :/ I'm thinking about switching to Zerg.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Switch to Zerg. They're the most fun to play. All I ever play.

Oh and if you do... get infestors! LOTS! You'll enjoy fungaling (cant remember the exact name of the "spell") large hordes of zealots and marines/marauders and mind controlling enemy motherships and thors, and then ripping them apart with hordes of cracklings and banelings, while you drop a bunch of hydralisks in their base and unload an army of roaches via nydus in the rear

A lot of people say Zerg are UP. I disagree. They're a bit more challenging to play, but in the right hands... they're absolutely deadly.

Kinda like in IL-2 if you've ever played that. The FW-190 Anton is a difficult plane to fly at first, but once you get it down... you're king of the skies.

 

[Gunfan9x19]

Game looks awesome, but I'm not going to pay $10 extra for "features" like region locks. A lot of the people I play games with online are on the other side of the Atlantic, and if Activision/Blizzard won't let me play with them, they aren't getting my money.

I understand idiots buying new Maddens from EA every year, but it's disappointing to see gamers who know better cave in and buy games with abusive DRM or "features" that screw over the consumer. Not saying the game's bad, it looks amazing, and it looks like you get a lot of content even though it's only one campaign, but gamers need to make a stand against publishers who unjustly nickle and dime them for, or outright remove, things that should have been in the game in the first place.

 

[NoxNoctum]

The game is worth $60. End of story. I'd go so far as to say that the singleplayer campaign is worth $60 alone.

And what do you mean only "one campaign". It's 26 (or 27?) missions... since when do RTS games have more than one campaign unless it's like 3 short campaigns with 8 or 9 missions?

 

[Gunfan9x19]

The game is worth $60. End of story. I'd go so far as to say that the singleplayer campaign is worth $60 alone.

And what do you mean only "one campaign". It's 26 (or 27?) missions... since when do RTS games have more than one campaign unless it's like 3 short campaigns with 8 or 9 missions?

Read what I actually wrote, which is that the user gets a good amount of content in that one campaign.

I will reiterate (as it seems some have merely skimmed my post without actually reading it) that it seems like a great game and I would love to have it. That being said, I fail to see why it should be $10 more expensive than any other awesome game that comes out, and that gamers should stand up for themselves against publishers like Activision/Blizzard who act as if they're just as interested in treating the fans like dirt as they are in making a profit.

 

[Holzman]

Honestly... I'm sick and tired of Production companies trying to proverbially molest the computer community. It's understandable for perhaps Blu-Ray disc games to be a little more expensive due to the medium, but Activision giving the middle finger to PC players with MW2's lack of Dedicated Servers or Blizzard's Region Locking... is just pathetic. It's degrading to pay a company to bend you over and have their way with you.

 

[NoxNoctum]

Read what I actually wrote, which is that the user gets a good amount of content in that one campaign.

I will reiterate (as it seems some have merely skimmed my post without actually reading it) that it seems like a great game and I would love to have it. That being said, I fail to see why it should be $10 more expensive than any other awesome game that comes out, and that gamers should stand up for themselves against publishers like Activision/Blizzard who act as if they're just as interested in treating the fans like dirt as they are in making a profit.

Maybe because it's worth $10 more than most other games, both in content and quality? Are you seriously not gonna buy what you admit looks awesome because of $10? That's an hour of work in California at minimum wage. And I doubt Blizzard gives a **** if a few customers don't buy their product and "take a stand". Which you shouldn't be doing in the first place. Activision, EA, sure, take a stand. They're awful companies. But Blizzard? Don't think so. They've consistently pumped out incredible legendary games.

Oh and what the hell did Blizzard "remove" from the game that should have been there in the first place? LAN? That's the only thing I can think of. Yes it sucks, but it's the pirates fault. Honestly though, you can easily still play together in the same room if you don't live in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan and actually have an internet connection.

Oh and lastly, your comment about there only being one campaign is retarded. It's got the same number of missions (exactly IIRC, haven't played SC1 campaign in a LOOOOONG time) as Starcraft 1, it's just that they're all Terran. The expansions will not be $60 (brood war was not full price), and this gives Blizzard an opportunity to give us a truly epic campaign with 90 (or 83 I guess if it's 27 for each) and tell a full story. And again, the mission design is amazing. 83 missions of amazing mission design is nice. At least it appeals to me.

Whatever though, your loss.

 

[Murphy]

LAN? That's the only thing I can think of. Yes it sucks, but it's the pirates fault.

It is? I'm fairly sure it's Blizzard's fault.
Anyway, how is region locking NOT bad? I have friends in America and Canada but I can't play with them if I buy the European version. However, I also have a Dutch friend and friends in England, not to mention real-life friends, and if I bought the North American version I couldn't play with them. To be able to play with all of my friends I'd have to buy the game twice! How can that be a good thing?
I probably won't buy the game because of this, unless someone really pressures me into getting it.

Oh and lastly, your comment about there only being one campaign is retarded. It's got the same number of missions

Maybe people want an introduction to all of the races rather than just one of them? The number of missions is well and good but I guess some people don't necessarily want more missions, just missions with Zerg and Protoss.

The original Dawn of War, for example, only had a Space Marine campaign, so getting into the other races was a lot harder. Everyone knew the SMs from the campaign but the other races had to be figured out with trial and error online. People did alright, I think, but a campaign for every playable race would have been nice anyway and it's kind of a staple for rts games. To break with that tradition is bound to make some people unhappy.
You can compare gameplay length, replay value, number of missions and whatnot all you want, the fact remains that if you want to play a campaign with Zerg or Protoss you won't get one in this iteration of StarCraft II.

You may not care and you may even like the split up campaigns (i.e. one race's huge campaign per game) but if someone doesn't like it that's hardly "retarded".

 

[Yoshiro]

There are protoss mission in the campaign btw.

 

[Reise]

NoxNoctum would make a great Blizzard sales rep.

It would literally kill him to admit there is something flawed with this game.

 

[NoxNoctum]

NoxNoctum would make a great Blizzard sales rep.

It would literally kill him to admit there is something flawed with this game.

There are flaws. The Terran characters are all pretty boring and carboard cutout stereotypes, but the missions are so much fun it doesn't matter. The dialogue can also be pretty cheezy at times, though I think that may be intentional. SC has always kinda been tongue in cheek. I also personally hate anything country/western/cowboy related so I don't appreciate that aspect of the game. Maybe that's why I play Zerg always and enjoy devouring Marines.

And ya, I agree the region lock thing was a weird decision. Luckily I'm not affected by it as all my friends who are into SC2 are in the States, so I'm good, but I feel for those who do. Maybe if you guys raise enough of a rage storm on the forums Blizzard will amend it. Maybe they'll change it in the future.

As for the one campaign, I said his comment about there being one campaign is retarded because it has the same amount of content or more actually than most RTS campaigns. I'm a Zerg diehard so of course I'm a bit sad that I won't get to play any Zerg SP missions till 18 months from now, but when I do, I'll get 27 of them. Personally I'd rather have 83 (very high quality) missions total spread out over around 3 years than only 27 with 9 of each race immediately but that's just me.

Anyways MP custom matches and the newb league are the way to get introduced to the races. There's also the SP "challenges". The campaign definitely is not a good way because half the units in it are not available (for good reason) in multiplayer.

But ya, I'd love to work for Blizzard and help pump out great quality games. And I plan on being in sales in the future anyways. Plus I could make a ton of $$$ off of WoW hopefully and retire at 35 to Italy, or Spain, or Greece. Haven't decided yet.

BTW, sorry I voted down your comment. Stupid and immature. Feel free to down my comment to even things out . Downing comments should be reserved for posters like the poster of the original IS-2 thread.

 

[Murphy]

Personally I'd rather have 83 (very high quality) missions total spread out over around 3 years than only 27 with 9 of each race immediately but that's just me.

Well, arguing numbers we don't know is kinda pointless, but if we go with yours for the sake of argument: Who says that it's either three one-race-campaign-games or one three-race-campaign-game? It could just as easily be three-three-race-campaign-games with the same total number of missions ( and very high quality).
Don't you see, people who complain about the way the campaigns are split up, for the most part, aren't complaining about the lack of content (which would be absurd) or the quality of the content (I'm lead to believe this would be absurd as well), but the KIND of content!

But enough of that. I'm just explaining other people's points. I don't care about this much, to be perfectly honest. I would have preferred campaigns for every race in every game or expansions but I don't care much that they're split up now. What I, personally, care about is that I'm not an rts guy and thus the competitive multiplayer isn't for me and casual (or coop compstomping) multiplayer is seriously restricted by the region lock. Maybe they'll lift that one day. I hear Australians can download the NA client and play in that region. Maybe someday we can all just pick and chose regions.

I'm one of the few people who actually likes the Terran music in StarCraft II, btw. I liked the old one too. It's one of the very rare instances where a soundtrack never gets on your nerves but is still very memorable. I'm not sad to see it go though and I think the new direction that highlights the western and colonization elements of the Terrans is both fitting and cool.

 

[PNV]

I'm not too big a fan of the in-game soundtrack. I get all pumped up and get that epic feeling when one of the orchestral tracks begins (such as the one during "Zero Hour") and then the adrenaline dies down when one of the Jim Raynor western themes begins to play. They're not bad, but when I'm playing a science fiction game of this nature, I want the orchestral score.