Starcraft II Beta Live!

[Teleros]

Has blizzard attempted to improve their resource collection model in any way? If there's anything I despise about playing an RTS, it's worrying that I might run out of resources before I finish building up my forces.

Not as far as I know. Once the resources are gone, they're gone .

[Master of Ossus]

Quick question for anyone who's seen the Beta matches, does it look like Blizzard has done anything to increase the amount of resources you can take in?

Yes. They have added "high-yield" mineral and gas patches, which in their (shit) maps (see my above post) are astoundingly vulnerable and can be used only after a player has already completely won the game.

One of the things I always hated about the original starcraft (and most older RTS games in general) is that it takes fucking forever to gain resources and build anything. You need to have like fifteen workers gathering minerals just to have a viable economy, and by the time you build up a strike force, all your minerals are gone, so if you fuck up you can't build another one.

That is certainly not an issue, in SC2 Beta. I've regularly seen 2-base players make tech switches in 10-minute games. It may take 15 workers to have a viable economy, but the fact is that players have viable economies within 2 minutes of the start of the game and are scouting each other, and generally engage in offensive operations against each other by the 3-4 minute mark. By the 6:00 mark the game is usually in full tilt (which is still rather limited, mind you). In this game, for instance, by the 7:00 mark, the terran player had harassed the protoss economy (hellions), fended off an early scout, switched to siege tanks and defended an early protoss push, dropped the protoss natural (more hellions), recovered the dropped harrassment forces, and was double-expanding. And he was doing this out of one base. He also had Tier 4 units by the 10:30 mark, off the three-bases.

It was so annoying that I basically ended up using the resource gain and fast-build cheats on every campaign map. This is something that RTS' have really improved upon over the past few years. In C&C 3, when you mine tiberium, it grows back at a reasonable rate, so you don't have to worry about running out. DOW has you capture points for unlimited resources. Has blizzard attempted to improve their resource collection model in any way? If there's anything I despise about playing an RTS, it's worrying that I might run out of resources before I finish building up my forces.

I do not believe that SC2 has "regenerating" mineral patches by default (the map editor, given how powerful it seems, probably allows it), but given how far you seem to be able to get (multiple tech switches, Tier 4 at ~10:00, mined-out main at ~15 minutes), let alone the resources of the entire map (that seems highly unlikely, given these crap maps, just because the vulnerability of the high-yield expansions is so high that you can't take them unless you have total map control). Also, this is about the first time that I've seen DOW's capture point system being praised.

[[R_H]]

I do not believe that SC2 has "regenerating" mineral patches by default (the map editor, given how powerful it seems, probably allows it), but I have yet to see a game where either player appeared to be exhausting the resources at their mains, let alone the resources of the entire map (that seems highly unlikely, given these crap maps, just because the vulnerability of the high-yield expansions is so great that no one can ever take them in a competitive game, let alone mine them for any significant period of time). Also, this is about the first time that I've seen DOW's capture point system being praised.

DoW's capture points do not give you infinite resources, they start "decaying" which dramatically reduces the requisition point supply rate.

What's the issue with the point system DoW uses?

[Teleros]

DoW's capture points do not give you infinite resources, they start "decaying" which dramatically reduces the requisition point supply rate.

Yes they start decaying, but from what I've seen they never decay to the point where they give zero resources.

What's the issue with the point system DoW uses?

Whilst it's nice for longer games, most games are pretty fast from what I've seen. Personally though I'd like to have to run around capturing stuff all over the map less (at least for some factions) - hence why I always mod it to let me spam turrets within my control zones so I can ignore irritating AI raids and focus on the main battle.

[adam_grif]

Also, this is about the first time that I've seen DOW's capture point system being praised.

I'm pretty sure a lot of reviews praised the shift in focus from base building / resource gathering to action thanks to control poitns being contested. DoW / CoH resources (CoH especially with the supply lines concept) get a lot of love from gamers in my experience.

[Stark]

The CoH system exists to spread the action out, and is far better than the basic rushgasm DoW system.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm pretty sure a lot of reviews praised the shift in focus from base building / resource gathering to action thanks to control poitns being contested. DoW / CoH resources (CoH especially with the supply lines concept) get a lot of love from gamers in my experience.

Seriously? DoW's req points system has always bothered me because it places so much emphasis on the early game that it's not possible for someone to try and play a macro-oriented game that tries to cede territory (or whatever) early on so as to build up economically and recover. That makes for very, very limited strategy in that both players rush to capture points and harass in the early game. I know that some people really like games like that, but it just seems so shallow, to me. CoH's resource system does appeal to me, but that seems completely different from DoW's implementation.

@Darksider: I should also mention that, at least with the Terrans, they have also added an "advanced worker" unit--the Mule. I assume that using this instead of the standard SCV also increases resource intake, but unless they have regenerating resources then this would be at the expense of faster resource exhaustion.

[Nephtys]

The goal of point-based resources is to force fights across multiple areas. Games where you just build a blob and throw it at an opposing blob aren't as interesting, since there's no real motive not to just fight in one place, crush the enemy's force and roll their base.

In DoW and especially CoH, you have to defend and attack everywhere. Given the fewer units and more durable (IE, things don't instantly die usually) units, you're able to manage it without going through APM micro hell. DoW wasn't bad in the first two expansions, but at the DC rebalance and onwards, it became too mindless. You build a mob of your heaviest armed guys, equip them with tons of heavy weapons, and roll down the enemy. Melee troops that didn't have jetpacks die instantly. Don't have upgrade weapons built in that squad? You're screwed, even if you outnumber the enemy 3:1.

Splitting the resources into 3 seperate function resources helps too. Manpower, the basic 'you need this to buy things' resource, fuel which is the 'tech things cost this' and ammo as a seperate resource for special powers and upgrades allows a lot of flexibility. It means you don't have to agonize about what's better, upgrading a unit or building a whole new seperate unit.

[adam_grif]

Huh? The only differences in implementation are the territory system, where you can cut off their distant resource points by breaking supply lines, and that some sectors give them muni/fuel instead of just all req.

I agree that it's better, but I don't get how you could like one but loathe the other.

The CoH games are won and lost based on early game rushes and harassment perhaps 8 times out of 10.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

One big difference between DoW and CoH resource aquisition is that in CoH, the amount of territory you have isn't essential to getting Manpower. It helps, but you get a good chunk just from your HQ. Thus even if you're cut off, you're at a disadvantage, but you can function. In DoW, if I recall, almost all of your requisition comes from points, so capturing isn't just essential to doing well, it's essential to doing anything.

[adam_grif]

Oh yeah true enough, but without fuel you'll be sending out riflemen squads against panzer IV's, which never ends well.

[Covenant]

Clearly, a better system is one where you have territory control to cut off sectors/control radii, and for sectors to multiply the rate you gain resources, but independent production of individual resources as a whole. So holding 5 sections in one area is the same as 5 in the other.

Then either make sections provide a benefit while you're inside of them/inside the control radius, or have defensive powers, and to also make there some kind of cheap or automatic barricading of sectors. The first thing I'd do with my CoH forces is dash up some guys to lay down barbed wire, tank traps on critical pathways, and then get some defensive weapons set up. I like that idea a lot, but given the speed of a rush it should either be much easier to bunker-in a territory or there should be a heavier emphasis on defensive troops within the early tech tree.

I'm not much a fan of passive defense structures (turrets and such) so I like having to defensively deploy forces. A richer mix of aggressive and defensive forces might help make strategic movement more important and increase the relevancy of a point-based system--where holding onto areas is of key importance.

[adam_grif]

I have no idea what you just proposed. Do you mean that cutting off sectors cuts off it's multiplication bonus but not it's base resource rate?

Defensive powers already exist for Wehr defensive doctrine (For the Fatherland gives soldiers a significant boost while fighting in their own territory), and you can build bunkers / mg posts only in sectors that you control.

Wire/Tank traps / sandbags actually get a fair bit of use in high level play as things for soldiers to do while they're idle. Wiring off key points can devastate enemy mobility early on.

[Covenant]

What I'm saying is that having more sectors would increase the multiplier at which you gain the special resources, but that individual resource zones shouldn't exist--or should exist in a much diminished fashion. Same difference overall, except that you diminish the actual value of each individual sector, making early raids less dangerous to the individual.

Instead you'd be focusing on the layout of the zones, and trying to capture them in ways that gives you map control both in a tactical, units-can-walk-this-way fashion and in a strategic, this-gets-me-more-bullets fashion. If you combine it with a system similar to some board games where entrapment equals control, you could have a tactical situation where controlling a large area is advantageous because it decreases the speed at which your area is lost from attrition, but a sloppy deployment could lead to someone flipping a substantial clump your territories Go style, as they become cut off.

[Skgoa]

So I played a couple of games as Terrans and Protoss. While I was (and still am) a big fan of Warcraft 3 and liked the original Starcraft, there are some big issues I have with this game:
- I simply can't get used to being glued to the ground in so many RTSs after playing Supreme Commander.
- The whole ressource system is a joke. Its a micro management clickfest that does not add any kind of depth, only complexity.
- There is absolutly no reason to try to control the map, your units will stay at the entrance to your base for most of the game. You do not stand to gain any advantage like forward fire bases or ressources that are worth the risk.
- Blizzard's (or to be fair: the whole mainstream RTS market's) definition of "strategy" seems to be nothing more than 1. decide wich "option" (think zergling rush, zealots, rock, paper, scissors...) you are going to try this game 2. spam the appropriate units 3. send your horde to your enemy's base and hope that you guessed right and he guessed wrong.
If I wanted to play something like that, I would choose UNO, its much more fun anyways.
- The maps are so incredibly small that you don't have any time to react or space to maneuver. Once again: there is no strategic depth, it comes down to who can micro better/faster.

I am propably going to get it for the single player, though.

[Covenant]

I am propably going to get it for the single player, though.

For just the one campaign? Really? That's worth the premium price for you? Will you buy all of the subsequent expansions as well, just for the continuing single player campaign?

I'm not being critical, I'm just a tad confused. RTS games seem to be one of those odd games where people actually buy a shitty game (C&C3) just because the single-player campaign is enjoyable/funny/interesting despite the actual game itself being relatively uninteresting or downright frustrating. It's like the opposite of a FPS, where people buy it for the Multiplayer and treat the single player as a nice addition.

[Skgoa]

I don't know what drives a typical mainstream player to that behaviour, but I have a pretty simple reason for buying SC2 even though I might never use the multiplayer part of it: I look for very different things in a sp game compared to a mp one. A simple example of that would be that I didn't buy Half Life to play HLDM and I didn't buy Counterstrike due to having the urge to play against bots. I am pretty confident that Blizzard will deliver an enjoyable sp game with a good story, great cut scenes etc. I will of course wait for reviews before buying it, but if the game lives up to the hype - which is not so unreasonable to expect from a Blizzard game - I'm going to buy it.

[Teleros]

For just the one campaign? Really? That's worth the premium price for you? Will you buy all of the subsequent expansions as well, just for the continuing single player campaign?

Yup. Plus the whole modding / mapmaking angle should be good fun. Whilst I can't speak for other people, I've never been one to play RTS games with other people - WoW is my multiplayer game.

[Darksider]

For just the one campaign? Really? That's worth the premium price for you? Will you buy all of the subsequent expansions as well, just for the continuing single player campaign?

I'm also going to get it for the single player, but this whole "lets split the three campaigns into three full-price games and fleece the fans as much as possible" bullshit is really pissing me off. I'm going to at least wait for the first price drop, and probably wait until it hits the bargin bin, assuming it ever does.

[starfury]

I'm also going to get it for the single player, but this whole "lets split the three campaigns into three full-price games and fleece the fans as much as possible" bullshit is really pissing me off. I'm going to at least wait for the first price drop, and probably wait until it hits the bargin bin, assuming it ever does.

Why not wait for the Inevitable battlechest edition and buy it then, the only thing you have to give up is when to play it.

[starfury]

I'm also going to get it for the single player, but this whole "lets split the three campaigns into three full-price games and fleece the fans as much as possible" bullshit is really pissing me off. I'm going to at least wait for the first price drop, and probably wait until it hits the bargin bin, assuming it ever does

Why not wait for the Inevitable battlechest edition and buy it then, the only thing you have to give up is when to play it.

[starfury]

sorry for the double posting, just messed quote tags.

[Iosef Cross]

For just the one campaign? Really? That's worth the premium price for you? Will you buy all of the subsequent expansions as well, just for the continuing single player campaign?

I'm also going to get it for the single player, but this whole "lets split the three campaigns into three full-price games and fleece the fans as much as possible" bullshit is really pissing me off. I'm going to at least wait for the first price drop, and probably wait until it hits the bargin bin, assuming it ever does.

But that game wasn't supposed to have about 30 single player missions per campaign? Since RTS games usually doesn't have more than 30 missions in them, I think it is quite reasonable. The problem is that you play 30 mission only with a single faction.

[Darksider]

If a majority of reviews say that it's enough content for a full-price game, I'll pick it up at full price. If it's a glorified expansion pack, I wont. I got fooled by Halo: ODST, i'm not getting fooled again.

[Teleros]

According to the SC2 wiki:

1. Each game / expansion pack will have 25-30 missions (including branching missions etc), plus cinematics etc.
2. Each expansion pack will include a few new units.
3. Each expansion pack will be priced as an expansion pack. So should be less than the full, original game at least (if the basic game is £30, I'm guessing each expansion will be £20 or so).