Poll
Loading ...-
Subscribe
-
Translate
07
It’s been a while since the last Q&A batch. Since then, Blizzard has released new screenshots to fan sites and to a magazine, and has probably been busy after the news of their merge with Activision.
Karune, Blizzard’s RTS community manager, has posted the 23rd Q&A batch. Before advancing to the meaty part, he reiterates the official Blizzard line regarding the merge:
It has been an exciting week of business related headlines about the new company ‘Activision Blizzard.’ Many have asked me about how this would affect products like StarCraft II, and the answer is that it won’t. We still have our extremely talented development team on this task, working exactly like they have been over the past years. Furthermore, StarCraft II will still be branded as Blizzard Entertainment, meaning you will not see Activision Blizzard logos on the product or introduction. StarCraft II is still set to rock the PC gaming stage!
If you have more questions about the proposed merger, please visit our FAQ at:
http://blizzard.com/press/activision-faq.shtml
The Chat with Devs section is somewhat lacking this time, not providing any real insight into development. Instead, Blizzard is reminding everyone again that the game isn’t finished yet and everything is likely to change:
Chat with Devs: After my chat with Dustin this past week, he wanted me to remind everyone that there are still several new units being created and tested for all three factions. What you have seen of the Protoss and Terran factions are in no way finished and more new units will be introduced, as well as the likeliness of current units being replaced.
On to the questions:
1. Will the Campaign have as many videos as the original Starcraft?
There will be several more in-game cutscenes, which are at a much higher quality than the original StarCraft pre-rendered movies. And while StarCraft II’s single player will likely feature a few less pre-rendered movies, they will be much longer and more epic than anything seen in the original StarCraft.
Amazing, isn’t it? In less than 10 years, computers have advanced so much that they can generate 3D graphics, in real time, that are superior in every way to the pre-rendered cutscenes of the original StarCraft - cutscenes that took multiple computers many hours and days to render.
Blizzard’s games are famous for their high quality animated sequences, pre-rendered or not, and StarCraft 2 will not be an exception. To watch some of the original StarCraft 1 videos, check out this recently constructed “The Story So Far” Blizzard page.
2. Is the ghost unit going to be able to use the EMP Shockwave and -within short time interval- the Nuclear Strike as well?
Currently, there is no restriction to when you can follow up a special ability with another, as long as there are available energy points.
A dangerous combo, indeed. Since the Ghosts of StarCraft 2 are likely to appear in much larger numbers, this one-two combo is going to become the killing blow of choice for many Terran players who are facing Protoss opponents.
3. Will the Ghost’s EMP affect building shields and energy?
Yes, the Ghosts EMP ability currently affects both building and unit shields, as well as casters energy. It is important to note that there is a possibility the Ghost may lose its EMP ability due to balance.
EMP remains unchanged from its StarCraft 1 incarnation as a Science Vessel ability. Many people think that the Ghost, as it currently exists, is too powerful. It will likely lose some of its abilities, and EMP, a very powerful offensive capability, might be one of them.
4. Will there be some sort of wall structure in StarCraft, for any of the races?
Aside from building current structures close to each other to form walls, such as a line of Terran Supply Depots, no, there will not be walls that can be built. On the other hand, there will be some new wall structures in the single player mode and these doodads can also be accessed in the map editor.
5. Will the game feature a mechanic similar to Warcraft 3 where if a selection of units contains more than one unit type then the whole selection will move at the speed of the slowest unit to maintain cohesion?
No, units in the same selection will not move at the same speeds. The slower units will need to be micromanaged by the players to keep up with the larger group.
Here’s one place where automation doesn’t fit in the StarCraft gameplay. Players will have to manage their forces, taking unit speed into account, without artificial help. This is the kind of unit control and management issue that differentiates players according to pure skill, and we’re glad to see it in the game.
32 Comments to “Q&A 23: Campaign Videos, Ghosts & EMP, Speed Automation”
StarCraft 2 makes PC Gamer’s “Top 8 of 2008″ »
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
All the Rest © SC2 blog 2009
Interesting to see that there might be new units. I was really thinking they were only going to rip off Terran and Protoss units.
I’m sure I’ll enjoy the new epic cinematic sequences, but I do miss the old mini scene cinematics from sc1 and wc2.
I think they’re going to add more tier 1 and tier 2 units so that we can get more options for our rushes and early game harasses. Imagine an alternate tier 1 unit to the zealot, marine and zergling… hmmm i bet its going to be really fun to watch.
Thank you for a great Q&A batch!
“This is the kind of unit control and management issue that differentiates players according to pure skill, and we’re glad to see it in the game.”
BS.
The only meaningful metrics of player skill are 1) being able to build the proper mix of units, 2) use their abilities in the proper sequence at the proper time, and 3) being able adapt to your enemy, exploiting his natural factional weaknesses or mistakes he makes.
APM is not a measure of your skill as a tactician. It’s a measure of your SKILL AT MICROMANAGING. The game needs to be a test of players ability as a simulated general, rather than a test of their ability to run a single squad of Reapers around the board sniping at shit because they can instantly eyeball their range down to the pixel and have crazy mouse-monkey powers.
It also just plain doesn’t make SENSE. Presumably, my little imaginary army is composed of professionals who are highly drilled and trained at combined-arms. (Okay, YES, Zerg would be an exception, I suppose.) If I arrange a bunch of Siege Tanks and a bunch of Cobras into a formation and then select them all at once to mvoe them somewhere, mightn’t the Cobra crews come to the conclusion that maybe, just MAYBE, there is a reason they were given that order, and that rather than haring off on their own while the Siege Tanks trundle along slowly, they ought to stick close to them in order to be a screening force, rather than forcing ME, the commander in orbit, to give them a new movement order EVERY TEN SECONDS to keep them aligned right, when I SHOULD be doing other things?
The game needs more automation than WC3 had, not less.
wow, mercutio is really letting his steam out.
I disagree with mercutio. That’s why other games suck and SC doesn’t
Even the zerg would be able to handle travelling as a group, they are after all supposed to be being controlled by a cerebrate, overlords, etc. that are mentally equipped and neurally equipped for such coordination jobs.
I can see where ability to control firing times, range, erc. will come in, but having units move at different speeds is something that doesn’t make sense. The sniping reapers example does make sense as a control skill ability, but not unit movement housekeeping.
@rikas - well, of course, your mileage may vary. I’d be curious to know WHY you disagree, though.
@dill - Perhaps using the Reapers example was a bad idea; if your opponent has left his base open to Reaper harass (hasn’t built adequate defenses, built an advanced unit-producing building juuuuuuuuust a little to close to his perimeter, sort of things) that’s a test of your tactical acumen; you need to see the opportunity and take it.
What ISN’T a test of your tactical acumen is losing a battle you should have easily won because you simply cannot click as fast as the other guy, or not being able to utilize strategies that make sense because your units are too ‘dumb’ to behave properly without having your eye on them all the time, or because the game doesn’t give you the tools to do the job.
Basically, anything that comes down to ‘grunt work’ OR highly repetitive tasks ought to be as automated as heavily possible. Heck, it’s why we have things like hotkeys and build queues and rally points in the first place.
Movement is one obvious area; having to carefully shepherd your entire, carefully constructed army across the whole map in stages that require multiple click actions because the units are too stupid to STICK TOGETHER is one is not only silly… it’s not fun, and it might be preventing you from doing vital base maintenance or sending out a blocking force to keep your main body safe.
Another good example is buffer/debuffer units that are meant to apply their abilities to individual enemy or friendly units. Suppose you have a, I dunno, a hypothetical Zerg unit that applies poison to an enemy that reduces their movement speed. Now, in my opinion, I’ve done my job as a Cerebrate by investing resources in training this unit and then deploying him to the front lines; once he is there, I should have the option for him to simply automatically apply his poison to every enemy unit in the vicinity without needing to click on him, select his ability, select a bunch of enemies in sequence (some of whom may decide to retreat, leaving the Zerg unit running halfway across the map trying to catch them) and only then does the debuffing begin.
Units that are basic healers, same thing. See: Terran Medic.
This is a topic I feel rather strongly about; basically, RTS games are just that, Real Time STRATEGY. This ought to mean that everything is oriented towards giving strategy primacy, rather than kick-ass mouse reflexes. If I want my mouse reflexes to be tested, I can go boot up CS: Source.
This means getting rid of as much micro as is feasible and really letting the player settle into his role as a GENERAL.
Sounds like your just lazy and have no skills whatsoever in that department.
Sometimes you don’t want everything to travel together at the same speed.
@JMM - That’s true, in the specific case of movement, sometimes you don’t. And if I don’t want them to all travel together at the same speed, I will move them in individual hotkeyed groups instead of ONE larger, hotkeyed group.
I am confused as to the accusation of laziness. (I leave the question of my particular mouse-skills entirely open.) I don’t want the computer to play the game for me; what I DO want it to do is to handle things on its own that I, as the guy commanding this entire army, ought not to have to do, and in fact are deleterious to my making overall strategic and tactical decisions to force me TO do.
Game design has made advance after advance in this arena as time goes by. In the original Warcraft and in the original Command and Conquer, you couldn’t even group-select units; everything had to moved individually, and there was no hotkeying.
In Warcraft II, you could group-select, but pathfinding was horrible and you had to cast every spell any of your support units had by HAND.
Starcraft got better (albeit still with poor pathfinding) and WCIII better still.
And that’s just within Blizzard; other RTS games, such as Battle for Dune, introduced or experimented with other organizational innovations, some of which failed, some of which came to be regarded as standard.
It’s a trend that should continue and be encouraged.
I completely agree with you, mercutio. I hate having to manage annoying things like keeping your army together.
ps: “deleterious”, great word choice there.
Mercutio:
“The only meaningful metrics of player skill are 1) being able to build the proper mix of units, 2) use their abilities in the proper sequence at the proper time, and 3) being able adapt to your enemy, exploiting his natural factional weaknesses or mistakes he makes.”
You are describing a TBS, not a real time strategy game. In real time strategy games, and especially Starcraft, control of your army is essential. Making sure your units get to where they need to be at the proper time requires more skill than it requires clicks. This isn’t about building each unit individually or being limited to a selection of 12 units - this is a decision a player should make, not something that should happen automatically. By your logic, an army made of Siege Tanks and Cobras should also be smart enough to enter siege mode when spotting the enemy while the Cobras push the enemy away from the Tanks. You’ll have to click a lot less, but what’s the point?
This blog is pretty consistent when it comes to shooting down shitty non-automation suggestions, especially ones that require a 300 APM-capable hand. This isn’t one of these things.
Also, you could group and assign control numbers to units in the original C&C.
Yes I also feel that micromanaging is what makes this game even more than other RTS like Supreme commander and C&C; because you can really think fast when u are really into the game trying to control multiple things at once.
The game makes you think faster than enemy.
Besides what fun is it if you can master the game in a year or two? Starcraft thrived for more than 10 years now.
@Kane - Excellent points. I’ll try to address them.
I agree that control of your army is essential. However, I will disagree with your statement that making sure your army gets to where it needs to be at the proper time requires more skill than clicks; I have found that much of the time, it requires more skill AT CLICKING (subtle difference) than it requires skill at identifying a trouble spot or a place vulnerable to a sudden push.
How many people here remember trying to get units up and down a ramp in SCI? You had your army, you knew exactly where it wanted to go, but if you wanted them to move down or up in anything resembling an orderly fashion, you’d need to spend ages clicking. Not exactly an activity that is either fun or should be occupying a lot of your time JUST to get your army moved, in my opinion.
Now, to quote you…
“By your logic, an army made of Siege Tanks and Cobras should also be smart enough to enter siege mode when spotting the enemy while the Cobras push the enemy away from the Tanks. You’ll have to click a lot less, but what’s the point?”
I would agree that this is getting way to close to the computer playing the game for me. Whether or not the Tanks go into Siege mode, whether my trundling army stops where it is to fight AT ALL rather than perhaps taking hits while it moves to a more advantageous position, that’s a call that -I- need to make.
The units will shoot automatically when an enemy comes into range (if they’re capable of shooting on the move) which ought to be enough given the level of complexity we’re likely to be dealing with here; I don’t think SC2 will be like, say, Dawn of War, which has a system where you can order your squads to actually automate certain tactical choices (whether they stand and fire weapons or charge into hand-to-hand combat) when they encounter foes.
However, I don’t feel that I should be called upon to constantly ‘keep the flank together’, as it were, during a completely eventless but still POSSIBLY dangerous trek across the map as they go to get in position. Although I suppose I could just order the Cobras to FOLLOW the Siege tanks… but if that functionality exists (I would hope you can issue a follow command, that’s pretty basic in a modern RTS) you might as well just make it so a group of units all SELECTED together, MOVE together and just cut out the jury-rigged solution. Which is in fact EXACTLY what Warcraft III did.
also, if I’m wrong about the original C&C, that’s my bad; forgive me. It’s been a VERY long time since I rolled out the ole’ Tiberium Harvester.
Quote “This is the kind of unit control and management issue that differentiates players according to pure skill, and we’re glad to see it in the game.”
I’m not glad to see it in the game. I want to manage huge armies, see massive battles, gritty blood baths and not even think about managing what formation my guys are in. If I send an army to attack, I want the heavy artillery to keep up with the main fleet (staying in the back of course) giving suppressing fire. If I have to micromanage my men, that will take me out of the game. That’s what I HATED about Warcraft III. I am a casual gamer, and Warcraft III was so hard to control, I lost all taste for the title and gave it to my little brother (who also hates it). If Starcraft 2 is going to resemble Warcraft III, I will probably give up gaming and leave it to the kids (I’m 21).
I agree with mercutio. Maybe when the time comes where it is commercially availabe that you can just place some nodes on your head to substitute for the mouse (where your brain directly controls the mouse pointer) then that’s the time where we would be happy with this kind of micromanagement that the post is glab about.
oops. typo. glad instead of glab. sorry. ^_^*
Hey SC2Blog care to join our tournament?
http://www.starfeeder.com/blog/archives/calling_all_starcraft_fansites_first_sc_fansite_tournament/
btw just my 2 cents, Automation should stay low… StarCraft and StarCraft II is an eSport. This isn’t just chess, this is Cyber paintball. Meaning SCII is the best competitive RTS because of the shear skill and ability with not only tactical and gameplay knowledge, but APM!
I agree with Mercutio.
I personally think the units should have an intuitive AI in so far as not to hinder the skill or intention of the player.
I’d be curious what Mercutio has to say regarding the Mountain Giant “taunt” ability. Skillful players would micromanage units to bypass mountain giants completely. Effective use of Taunt relies on the opponents’ lack of micromanagement.
AoE spell damage can be vastly mitigated by micromanagement. Should units be intelligent enough to avoid these spells on their own? At what point do we draw the line for automated AI?
As Kane notes, Turn Based Strategy games can allow the player to completely micromanage the army without limitation of physical dexterity.
“AoE spell damage can be vastly mitigated by micromanagement. Should units be intelligent enough to avoid these spells on their own? At what point do we draw the line for automated AI?”
I personally think that this is where micromanagement using uber hand movements takes over and I have no qualms with this. I think that games with intelligent units that have advanced AI, where you, the player, will be relegated to a high-level commander where you can just say (or command) “Attack Point A” and those units will decide by themselves how to attack Point A, will need to be re-categorized into another breed of Strategy Game and I also have no problems with that. (But with current software and hardware technology, I think this cannot yet be fully achieved as of the moment).
Just my two cents. Sorry for the gramnar.
I wonder if part of the problem is to do with how SC has been received and used beyond what could ever have been imagined 10 years ago. It was designed to be a good game that was fun and competitive to play, but I doubt anyone foresaw competitive play (I’m sure in one interview the devs say they never imagined such high click rates for instance.)
The new game has to build on those things, the designers are trying to satisfy casual gamers, hardcore fans and competitive players. Might it be possible to design the game in such a way that you could choose which bits of automation to have? So for tournaments, you could switch off autocast and ‘all units move at same speed in a group’, and if you entered the tournament you’d know that those were the rules. But if you wanted to play against a friend online, you could choose to put those things in place - the difference between kicking a ball around in a park with a mate and competing in a competitive sport?
Is this possible? Any thoughts?
Yeah! I was thinking the same thing. But do you think the game would be vastly different from ‘normal mode’ and ‘ladder/tournament mode?’ If so, would that be a bad thing?
Quoting SCV Operator:
“I wonder if part of the problem is to do with how SC has been received and used beyond what could ever have been imagined 10 years ago. It was designed to be a good game that was fun and competitive to play, but I doubt anyone foresaw competitive play (I’m sure in one interview the devs say they never imagined such high click rates for instance.)
The new game has to build on those things, the designers are trying to satisfy casual gamers, hardcore fans and competitive players. Might it be possible to design the game in such a way that you could choose which bits of automation to have? So for tournaments, you could switch off autocast and ‘all units move at same speed in a group’, and if you entered the tournament you’d know that those were the rules. But if you wanted to play against a friend online, you could choose to put those things in place - the difference between kicking a ball around in a park with a mate and competing in a competitive sport?
Is this possible? Any thoughts?”
Very nice idea indeed! to put an option of whether to use or not to use automation. Bravo!
Please devs, I beg you to answer this question on the next Q&A batch.
@Banana Republic
Ah, the Mountain Giants. I didn’t see them that much (not that my battle.net rating was all that hot, mind you) and when I did they were fairly hard kills.
I was pretty okay with the taunt ability; you could get around it with really hardcore micro skills, which I don’t like, but the ability nor its counter wasn’t really game-breaking. Ideally, I would have wanted it to work like… mmm… like some of the abilities involving taunts in D&D; it should either FORCE units to attack it (such that the controller literally CAN’T re-target them) or apply a penalty debuff to units that chose NOT to attack it after the ability was used.
I’m not sure that would be balanced in the current version of War III, but in vacuum, that’s how I’d prefer an ability like that to function.
AOE spell damage is a much trickier question.
I don’t think I’d want my units to automatically dodge it; sometimes you want them to just stand their ground and gut it out, other times you DO want them to stop attacking and get out of dodge, other times they CAN’T move (narrow bridge, for example). But that’s kind of a tactical call that -I- gotta make.
You could of course add various toggles for tactical options to your units, but where does that end? How many option toggles for unit AI is TOO many?
Ultimately, having really high APM via crazy mouse skills is going to give people an advantage, of course. I just don’t think it ought to be a big enough one to offset a genuine edge in tactical acumen in the opponent. It’s why I love things like autocast and automatically marching in formation; that frees me up to really THINK about the overall situation.
@SCV_Operator -
What you propose is certainly technically possible, but it’s almost certainly never going to happen. Blizzard has a long track record of not wanting to water down their games with lots of different rules ‘environments;’ hell, IIRC, it was a major concession for them to even build in different SPEED SETTINGS in WCIII you could use in non-ladder play. And witness WoW, where their response to people who often clamor for free-for-all servers, ‘classic’ ruleset servers, etc. get met with a universal ‘never going to happen.’
StarCraft is an eSport, and so will be StarCraft II. To be taking seriously by the main stream, sport athletes need to be in their best shape. eSport athletes similarly are physical over achievers.
Good tactics is just that, good tactics. You sitting at home may have a better tactical plan for your team to win then they do at that time, but would you be able to win the game for them? No.
APM, Great hand eye coordination, Stamina etc etc.. are good qualities of good athletes and gamers. Come on this isnt the special Olympics now :p
SCV said - “But if you wanted to play against a friend online, you could choose to put those things in place - the difference between kicking a ball around in a park with a mate and competing in a competitive sport?”
Well see the problem here is, some one tells his friend that he isn’t that good and asks if he can be handicap. I’ve played basketball with friends, and if someone is so bad that they need everyone else to use a handicap is well… that friend wouldn’t be invited to play again.
On the flip side, if you are so good its not even funny, you would do either of two things. 1)Play handicap yourself, like not ball handling well(or letting your friend kill your expansion) or 2) You totally pwn your friends to hell every time that eventually they don’t want you to play anymore.
It’s an eSport? Really? Can you point me to some official Blizzard statements where they say that explicitly and that they’re designing the game with that intention?
I’m not asking that sarcastically, by the way, I’d be genuinely interested in such a thing.
I operate under the assumption that what we’re dealing with here is a Real Time Strategy game, with the player taking the role of the ‘general’ of his army. I therefor both expect and advocate that the game will be designed around making being a simulated general as fun and streamlined as possible, rather than building in things that explicitly DETRACT from my ability to command my army and instead force me to be some sort of ‘e-athlete’. If I want to play something that incredibly stresses my hand-eye coordination, I have Halo in my X-Box right now.
If the game is an esport, I still don’t see any reason to purposely detract from intuitive AI in so far as not to hinder the skill or intention of the player.
Its like asking pro athletes not to wear sport shoes when playing the game. As newer shoes come out onto the market, do we expect to cap how useful the sports shoe can be for the athlete?
It used to be that if one wanted to build a building where units were, one would have to cancel to the build order and specifically order units in the area to move out of the way. Since warcraft 3, controllable units move out of the way of a planned building. Are the advocates of esport-tastic-starcraft saying we should revert back to the pre-warcraft 3 manual selection?
Congrats on hitting 1000 voters on the poll! I think that the majority of Starcraft fans DON’T want to pay to play. However I think this is a good oppertunity to start a new poll about whether we want Starcraft 2 to be a micromanaging game or macromanaging game. Personally I would like skill with a mouse to be important, but I don’t want to get PWND by a 7-year old korean dude.
“but I don’t want to get PWND by a 7-year old korean dude.”
oooh .. scary ..
Seriously, I think you advocates of uber mouse handling shouldn’t be taking it as a disadvantage if the AI is a bit smart. Think of it this way, you can delegate more of your lightspeed mouse clicks elsewhere and still rule the game.