w00t!

yeah! aweshome all!
but why cant release the beta omg....

In a fast first look, I find everything great, as usual.

Anyway, have to say I find the spine crawlers a bit confusing. Watch the 6th SS. If I'm not wrong, they don't attack from beneath anymore. Instead of that, they seem to launch long tongues to enemies. With all those things in the screen, it won't be easy to see whats going on.

/sad @ no beta stuff

I'm disappointed that there was no beta news, and that LAN has been removed, but am excited by all the new info, screens, and video! Looks like the wiki will need some updatin'...
I wonder what the mysterious new b.net feature will be and if it will, in some way, make the lack of LAN support not matter.

We should have an 18(21)+ age requirement.. Because this is sooo much porn right now I don't know what to do!

It's just too beautiful!

Thought someone else might find this as cool as I do.

Click for full size.
It's the list of Zerg buildings w/ pictures before and after I uploaded all the new images. It's really cool to see how the art is coming along. I think it's getting better each time they update it.
Note that the only buildings that didn't get new images were the Nydus Worm and Creep Tumor, both of which are only arguably buildings, and aren't normal buildings.

Big update days make me all warm and fuzzy inside. That video has so much awesome new stuff in it.

I love (in no particular order):
- The Mothership's attack animation and the look of the Vortex ability.
- Spine Crawler's attack is awesome (I like that it's not just another version of the sunken colony).
- The Ultralisk's building attack looks awesome, very feral and scarey (for the poor people inside that bunker).
- The Corruptor's attacks look interesting (and they seem to do a ton of damage)
- The Photon Cannon's attack animation is sweet
- The sound effects are very nice, especially the Protoss air units

And the best part, 9 Ultralisks running away from 4 Ghosts...

The Zergling/Baneling ball was very amusing.

Im very happy about the press confrerence and everything but......... This really brought to light that they have AAAAA LOOTTTTT of work to do on the game. Dustin said so himself in almost ever race that their were many changes needed. Especially the zerg. It makes me sad to because now the beta may be postponed and then eventually we will have a febuary release date ((((( maybe.

I am kinda disappointed that there is no LAN support... thats all I guess, everything else seems just fine

Hellion needs to go... How can you leave such a boring unit like hellion for so long without any changes? I don't really understand....

hellion looks shity..

scor wrote:Hellion needs to go... How can you leave such a boring unit like hellion for so long without any changes? I don't really understand....

hellion looks shity..

check out my response on page three of viewtopic.php?f=7&t=383 Also, I might add, it helps if you bring something to the table with suggestions or *why* you find things displeasureable, so we can discuss the topic rather than resort to "XYZ SUX" retorts.

scor wrote:Hellion needs to go... How can you leave such a boring unit like hellion for so long without any changes? I don't really understand....

hellion looks shity..

Hellion is kick ass i think. It is amazing against the zerg and fast so it can do great hit and runs. I seriously dont see why people dont like it. You have a real reason for not liking it?

Icesong wrote:The Zergling/Baneling ball was very amusing.

Zerg should have won that fight when they retreated to the top of the ramp.
Up -> Burrow -> Kabloomy.

I'm really happy with Blizz this time!


p.s. http://www.sc2gg.com 's crew has also been at the event and one of their members (Moletrap) has released a really great.. uhg.. report... on all the new Replay/Observer features.

no LAN!!! wtf what about future SC2 tournaments? WCG? and countless korean competitions

Woah woah.. hold it

WTF do you mean "NO LAN" ?!

somebody who after some game said "hellion is fun to play" "against the zerg and zealot"

hellion my most hate unit in sc2(and so many fans) speed of a vulture... weapon of a firebat ...I don't care balance..simply name and sucks design.and can never be replaced vulture and firebat..

blizzard can do much better than hellion...C&C buggy no place in starcraft 2.scrap it.

scor wrote:somebody who after some game said "hellion is fun to play" "against the zerg and zealot"

hellion my most hate unit in sc2(and so many fans) speed of a vulture... weapon of a firebat ...I don't care balance..simply name and sucks design.and can never be replaced vulture and firebat..

blizzard can do much better than hellion...C&C buggy no place in starcraft 2.scrap it.

Did you read the thread I linked? I specifically addressed your concerns of being a "buggy" in the starcraft universe. It makes sense Lore-wise, balance wise, and everything else other than your particular "taste." I personally disliked the vulture, and always ran into trouble grouping my firebats with my marines back in SC1. If you get a chance, check out the comments in that thread (scroll up) and let me know what you think

Jaydin wrote:

scor wrote:somebody who after some game said "hellion is fun to play" "against the zerg and zealot"

hellion my most hate unit in sc2(and so many fans) speed of a vulture... weapon of a firebat ...I don't care balance..simply name and sucks design.and can never be replaced vulture and firebat..

blizzard can do much better than hellion...C&C buggy no place in starcraft 2.scrap it.

Did you read the thread I linked? I specifically addressed your concerns of being a "buggy" in the starcraft universe. It makes sense Lore-wise, balance wise, and everything else other than your particular "taste." I personally disliked the vulture, and always ran into trouble grouping my firebats with my marines back in SC1. If you get a chance, check out the comments in that thread (scroll up) and let me know what you think

But I loved the Vulture
It was so awesome to pattack-kite with em.. Sure you can do that with Hellions as well but that's not space cowboyish enough.

Oh, and no Terran unit was as manly as the Firebats.

I think the word you're looking for is "maniacal" *as the Firebats.

Nuttin' like the smell of Napalm in the morning...

@ no beta announcement, but the overall flood of information makes me very happy

Pretty nice video but terran seem pretty weak, they do nothing exept be kicked his ass :'(

TusHin[TL] wrote:Pretty nice video but terran seem pretty weak, they do nothing exept be kicked his ass :'(

Maybe in that video, but they are 2-0 buddy in the battle reports. I liked all the updates and I read most of the reports.

1. I am glad templars/dark templars are much higher in the tech tree. they should be much higher then they were in SC/BW.

2. I am not happy that they gave psi storm a boost. it wasn't powerful enough that they were OP in SC/BW?

3. I am still worried about zerg. a lot of buildings and the mechanic with the overlord i do not like, but we will see. The zerg is the biggest of my worries.

other than that i cannot wait . Poor LAN to.

AUDIE wrote:1. I am glad templars/dark templars are much higher in the tech tree. they should be much higher then they were in SC/BW.

Actually effectively they are not higher in the Tech tree. It is just that the requirement building to produce Templar Archives has a Starport rather than a Citadel of Adun.

And the Dark Shrine is needed to make DTs that builds slower than the archives. So essentially it is not that much "higher". It is just making you chose more than before. Hm although I finally can see the benefits of such a design. The only unit that is truly delayed is the collosus. Since you need to do a roundabout turn on the Tech tree to have them.

AUDIE wrote:2. I am not happy that they gave psi storm a boost. it wasn't powerful enough that they were OP in SC/BW?

They said that they will probably nerf it because they do think it is OP currently. But don't worry little terran player. Your mind shall still be torn to pieces under the Psionic storm attack. Still it will remain one of, or even the beast spells in the game.

AUDIE wrote:3. I am still worried about zerg. a lot of buildings and the mechanic with the overlord i do not like, but we will see. The zerg is the biggest of my worries.

To tell you the truth I also am concerned about the Zerg. But the baneling apparently was given a little buff. So with the reintroduction of Hydralisk at Tier 1.5 and that baneling boost, they finally seem to be in a better place than before.

Ipsar wrote: or even the beast spells in the game.

Ipsar]

Actually effectively they are not higher in the Tech tree. It is just that the requirement building to produce Templar Archives has a Starport rather than a Citadel of Adun.
And the Dark Shrine is needed to make DTs that builds slower than the archives. So essentially it is not that much "higher". It is just making you chose more than before. Hm although I finally can see the benefits of such a design. The only unit that is truly delayed is the collosus. Since you need to do a roundabout turn on the Tech tree to have them.[/quote]

I see your point, I am glad they are making them choose, because I do not like dealing with both of them anyways.

[quote="Ispar wrote:They said that they will probably nerf it because they do think it is OP currently. But don't worry little terran player. Your mind shall still be torn to pieces under the Psionic storm attack. Still it will remain one of, or even the beast spells in the game.

Har Har Har. I hate psi storm grrrrrr..... Don't worry I will EMP you since it is much easier to obtain. (snap)

Ispar wrote:To tell you the truth I also am concerned about the Zerg. But the baneling apparently was given a little buff. So with the reintroduction of Hydralisk at Tier 1.5 and that baneling boost, they finally seem to be in a better place than before.

I know they did, but a lot of people like SC2GG.com and TL stated (i believe) that banelings effectiveness dies mid game. So how is zerg going to adjust?

It will be interesting to see.

Re: the LAN issue, there's a petition to ask Blizzard to support LAN play in SC2.

http://www.petitiononline.com/LANSC2/

Given that LAN play is an optional extra and its inclusion carries no penalties whatsoever and has only benefits, I think we should all sign it.

online petitions rarely serve any purpose...the thought is nice, but...well, it tends to be fruitless. honestly, there *is* a reason why blizzard is pushing for no LAN - let's wait and see what the reasons are (a.k.a. what exactly bnet 2.0 will be giving us that will make LAN unnecessary. and check out the blue and community posts - LAN isn't necessary for most things these days.

Lao_Tzu wrote:Given that LAN play is an optional extra and its inclusion carries no penalties whatsoever and has only benefits, I think we should all sign it.

It does allow for people to play with pirated copies of the game more easily, since they can avoid CD key checks.

LAN isn't necessary for most things these days. totally agreed although like me i ahve a veeeeery slow connection speed 30kb/s upload is my limit (can you imagine that?) so no chances to play on battle.net and i am not gonna buy sc2 just i could play a campaign...

staskazz wrote:have a veeeeery slow connection speed 30kb/s upload is my limit

damn, and here I tought I had it bad with my 1,4MB/s XD

Tomer wrote:

Lao_Tzu wrote:Given that LAN play is an optional extra and its inclusion carries no penalties whatsoever and has only benefits, I think we should all sign it.

It does allow for people to play with pirated copies of the game more easily, since they can avoid CD key checks.

I wholly appreciate Blizzard's stance. I just wish they would out and say a few things (not that I have any right to demand anything).

First, that the public is talented (and yes, criminal) enough that private servers will show up eventually. By saying this, they'd be acknowledging that their removal of a popular feature is a permanent, radical answer to an ultimately unfixable problem.

Second, that many of their current RTS developers spent their time in university playing WC2, D1, SC, and other games over LAN. It's important to me that they admit that it was fun back then when piracy was easier on a smaller scale, if admittedly less rampant, but is now a problem since it affects their bottom line personally.

I guess I'd just feel better if someone out and admitted that it was about squeezing every dollar. It's a perfectly fine, understandable, admirable, and respectable business plan. It just happens to affect me negatively and I request closure on what are obvious motives. But as I said, I admit to having no right to that.

Edit: You can see the reason for my position in either the relevant Battle.Net Forum thread or in the Blue Tracker comments.

I agree with those so far who have said that LAN shouldn't be in the final version, considering that to me, aside from the piracy concerns, the whole concept seems rather outdated in the face of a comprehensive and well-monitored online service.

begebies13 wrote:aside from the piracy concerns, the whole concept seems rather outdated in the face of a comprehensive and well-monitored online service.

Well, I think I've made my position clear enough, but if the best argument you have next to piracy is that it's outdated, then that's a terrible reason to cut a much-desired feature.

Idomis wrote:

begebies13 wrote:aside from the piracy concerns, the whole concept seems rather outdated in the face of a comprehensive and well-monitored online service.

Well, I think I've made my position clear enough, but if the best argument you have next to piracy is that it's outdated, then that's a terrible reason to cut a much-desired feature.

What I said was that LAN seems outdated in comparison to a new battle.net, which would likely fill the void left from removing LAN, while providing greater security and more extensive features, incorporating small groups of players more extensively into a system with more competitive opportunities.

Of course it is also quite possible that the new battle.net will fail to capture the original spirit of LAN play...

I can almost guarantee that soon after sc2 release you will be able to find a mod for lan play

Overall no LAN in sc2 = Dumb idea

also consider, sc came out over 10 years ago when you were lucky to have a 56k connection. blizzard seems to want to bring the community together as a whole - take a look at Iccup - I've never played on it, probably never will (don't have time to figure out how to get it to work, not inclined to ask for help, and don't have too much time as it is to play ) so I'm distant from that community.

Of course, blizzard does want it's hand in everything sc2...however there are many positive aspects many people seem to overlook as reasons why they do it. When I was at college, we used to play Halo as a floor - but we couldn't do it LAN because one of the guy's room (despite being our next door neighbor) was off the LAN (must have been on another floor's or something). So we simply hosted it as a typical online game. Maybe I had an unusual experience, but it seemed to work find for us...as long as bnet 2.0 doesn't bring lag to the table I don't see how negatively it will affect normal gameplay...

As to the person who mentioned they have 30KB/sec connection - are you planning on exclusively going out to friend's houses to play multiplayer? If you're going over their places anyway, why not just use their connection? Granted, of course this prevents you from *hosting* the "LAN party," but there must be *some* means of finding someone with the required connectivity (and arguably it would be the same work as finding someone interested in LANing with you).

I'm from South Africa, as you can see in my flag. Sadly the country is saddled with an appalling state-run telecoms monopoly, making internet connections expensive and slow. You may find this difficult to believe, but it's true -- the lag on an internet-based game in SA makes it almost unplayable. LAN is the only viable option for multiplayer Starcraft, unless you have a lot of cash to fork out to the telecoms monopoly for a special internet pipe.

Piracy is not really a valid counter-argument against LANs, because Blizzard could easily avoid piracy while including a LAN in SC2:

1: Connect once to Battle.Net
2: Authenticate
3: Access LAN games thereafter

Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.

Sign the petition?

Lao_Tzu wrote:I'm from South Africa, as you can see in my flag. Sadly the country is saddled with an appalling state-run telecoms monopoly, making internet connections expensive and slow. You may find this difficult to believe, but it's true -- the lag on an internet-based game in SA makes it almost unplayable. LAN is the only viable option for multiplayer Starcraft, unless you have a lot of cash to fork out to the telecoms monopoly for a special internet pipe.

Piracy is not really a valid counter-argument against LANs, because Blizzard could easily avoid piracy while including a LAN in SC2:

1: Connect once to Battle.Net
2: Authenticate
3: Access LAN games thereafter

Authenticated LAN play. Low latency. LAN parties. Happy customers.

Sign the petition?

I have a few friends from cape town and I know about these issues. Maybe South Africa should be more capitalistic and less government owned. It would probably help the situation.

AUDIE wrote:I have a few friends from cape town and I know about these issues. Maybe South Africa should be more capitalistic and less government owned. It would probably help the situation.

I agree, but wouldn't it be a bit easier for a game to change than a country's mindset?
Anyway...who knows...maybe a b.net feature will be to play with computers on your LAN...but probably not, because then they wouldn't say there'll be no LAN support, would they?

everything is subject to change at some point - if they find there is still an issue after the roar has died down, i'm sure they'll consider it again. problem is, the topic is still very fresh in many peoples' eyes, and it is hard to distinguish between legitimate concerns and slightly more embellished excuses designed to create a false front.

What Blizz don't realise is not everyone is making 100$/hour (like Dustin B.) and can afford high-tech PCs to play the game and 100mb/s connections for Online play.

Tiger0211 wrote:

AUDIE wrote:I have a few friends from cape town and I know about these issues. Maybe South Africa should be more capitalistic and less government owned. It would probably help the situation.

I agree, but wouldn't it be a bit easier for a game to change than a country's mindset?

yeah this!

PiF wrote:What Blizz don't realise is not everyone is making 100$/hour (like Dustin B.) and can afford high-tech PCs to play the game and 100mb/s connections for Online play.

if you can't afford the high level PC to support the game, then you shouldn't get into the current PC gaming field. new PC games are expensive to keep up with ^_^ as for the connection, they *did* mention you would be able to play on non-broadband connections.

Tiger0211 wrote:

AUDIE wrote:I have a few friends from cape town and I know about these issues. Maybe South Africa should be more capitalistic and less government owned. It would probably help the situation.

I agree, but wouldn't it be a bit easier for a game to change than a country's mindset?
Anyway...who knows...maybe a b.net feature will be to play with computers on your LAN...but probably not, because then they wouldn't say there'll be no LAN support, would they?

I agree with you on this, but sadly we cannot change Blizzard's mind. They are simply protecting their assests, which I understand.

I won't complain until I see B.Net 2, but when I get too see it and it does not please me I've only got three words to say: Hell on Earth

Here are the character portraits seen in the OCR video. A few we haven't seen before.

Oh, looks like Nova from StarCraft Ghost is in the game

Note also more woman characters than in the original...

begebies13 wrote:Note also more woman characters than in the original...

Including a new female protoss (and one that actually looks female too!)

PiF wrote:What Blizz don't realise is not everyone is making 100$/hour (like Dustin B.) and can afford high-tech PCs to play the game and 100mb/s connections for Online play.

I think they use to before they were so big, but I think they do keep this in mind, but maybe not as much as they use to? I'm not sure, but I understand what you mean. If SC2 only requires a 8800 Gforce video card then you maybe in luck. they are like 150 bucks now? Not to bad considering top of the line is around 600 bucks.

Still, you make a valid point, but I think Blizzard is still keeping this in mind, or atleast I hope

PiF wrote:What Blizz don't realise is not everyone is making 100$/hour (like Dustin B.) and can afford high-tech PCs to play the game and 100mb/s connections for Online play.

The difference between Blizzard and many other game devs is that Blizzard somehow often manages to optimize their games so they work on systems that doesn't really have any of the most latest gfx-cards and such. Of course, watching the Sc2 and D3 videos I fear I do have to upgrade my computer.. But it's about time I do it anyway, it's getting old.

Blizzard tends to keep these factors in mind...you *could* play wow on 56k back in the day...it sucked, but you could do it