Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Game development status

"the game development is in the pre-alpha stages [3] and is "very far along and already playable in multiplayer with all three races"." Isn't that kindof contradictory? A pre-alpha game can't be described as "very far along". Bogdan2412

No, it's not oxymoronic. They may have a lot to do on the content side of things, but a lot of the hard code and design work appears to be finished - they're using placeholder models from Warcraft 3 in one of the videos (or so it appears), but everything functions correctly. Thus, they may be in a pre-alpha state far from release but still quite playable. -  Ennuified  talk   15:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a concern about this quote: "very far along and already playable in multiplayer with all three races". In all of the articles I have seen, I have never come across this quote or anything similar. Is there any attribution for it? Deadly_B

Google it next time, [1] --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So shouldn't "The game is already playable in multiplayer with any of the 3 factions." be included as well? DARK 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Significant error in page

The "Create shields on explored land anywhere on the map." needs to be removed as its only source is from a confused IGN reporter who actually meant 'power fields' not 'shields'. Please refer to 3:10 - on http://pc.ign.com/articles/788/788627p1.html, he mentions this supposed create shield ability right after Terran Reapers are introduced, but before the ability to warp units anywhere in pylon range is introduced. Now he reported this live from WWI, as he was watching the gameplay video which is now available all over. Right after the terran reapers are introduced, they hop into a protoss base, take out a pylon making the cannons unpowered. Then Browder introduces the Phase Prism unit which provides a power field similar to pylons. This must be what he meant, he was simply too frantically typing out bits as he watched the video or too new to starcraft to know what to call the protoss power fields. I'd change it myself but I never made an account yet and new users cannot edit the page.

Agreed and done. It's clear that he means power fields. Eyefragment 01:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The page also says that Protoss, Zerg, and Terran will be the only races appearing, but Blizzard just said that they would be featured. They never actually said that there wouldn't be any others; its misleading.

I haven't seen evidence that there will be any other races. Until Blizzard confirms it, I'm assuming that the 3 races in StarCraft will be the only ones returning.

Blizzard has indeed confirmed that there will only be three races. See: "International Roundtable" at http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/vids_1.html IVI Auric 07:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


Reapers do not have shields.PiccoloNamek 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As shown in the gameplay video, it does seem that marines do in fact have shields. the video can be downloaded at starcraft2.com Accendrez 07:04, 28 May 2007

But it also seems(in the video) that they are just eye candy.DARK 14:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There will be only one such super unit like the Protoss Mothership. "such as the ability to "warp-in" to different locations, and the powerful mothership unit. Pardo said Blizzard could have also attempted to create a "Terran version" and a "Zerg version" of these new units and abilities, but the team did not. It is instead looking to balance the factions against one another while keeping them distinct." http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171178.html Accendrez 07:04, 28 May 2007

New Units

Terran Reaper: Uses dual pistols, can jet pack across terrain, includding cliffs.

Protoss Stalker: a "dark dragoon" with a blink ability that allows it to warp short distance anywhere in the line of sight.

Protoss Immortal: Replaces the dragoon,significantly decreases damage from powerful attacks using shield (but still takes damage from them).

Protoss Colossus: A large quad-legged vehicle that fires strong dual lasers against ground units. Shown in the video destroying a large wave of Zerglings. Able to walk over cliffs, and targettable by air attack.

Protoss Warp Ray: A flying unit with a continuous blue laser, who's damage increases while continuously attacking. Powerful against buildings and larger units, but weak against weaker ground units (ex. Marines)

Protoss Phoenix: A flying unit that has an ability to fire multiple charged lasers at once to all nearby flying units, but requires massive cooldown after using the ability (rendered inert).Effective against weaker units.(ex. Mutalisks)

Protoss Mothership: A powerful flying unit which consumes an extreme amount of resources to produce, but is a unique unit (Each player may only have one at a time). Has the Timebomb ability, which slows enemy attacks and movement within the Timebomb (so far only shown to slow missiles from missile turrets), Earth Cracker which fires a set of large laser beams that obliterates anything in it's path, in the style of Independance Day? Also has an ability to create a black hole. Looks like a floating sand dollar.

Protoss Phase Prism: A flying unit that acts exactly like a pylon when deployed (same principle as terran buildings using takeoff/landing ability) except that it can't spawn Phase Prisms of its own. See below for Protoss Pylons' new ability.

Nydus Worm: Nydus Worm is more likely a replacement for the Nydus Canal transporting zerg units. Apparently able to pop up anywhere in a split second, including bare terrain without clip.

Baneling: evolved form of zergling. suicide creature who explodes with acid when it touches an enemy unit, much like the Infected Terran in Starcraft.

The Nydus Canal was featured in the original StarCraft for use in quickly transporting friendly (typically zerg) ground units. This appears to be the same thing in the game demos. The "Suicidal Zergling" is a new ability of the zerglings to mutate into an unstable state and are ultimately very much like the invested terrans of StarCraft. The Immortal, to elaborate, has a powerful shield that is activated by heavy impacts much like d3o. This shield will not be activated by lesser attacks such as the Reapers. And as a small addition the Colossus is reportedly weak against aircraft, but it does have the ability to scale walls effortlessly.66.248.160.235 02:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The video of the gameplay shows the Immortal taking several tank shots before going into the yellow. That's a big change from the old dragoon. Also it took a very large amount of reapers to take down a small group of immortals.

Question: I know many of those are the confirmed names, but are all? Also, the Suicidal Zergling was referred to as a "Baneling" in one of the videos, by a Blizzard dev. As for the Immortals, we can conclude they're probably stronger, but for all we know the siege tanks aren't nearly as good now, given that they were an extremely important gameplay factor in the original. Remember, at this point everything's relative to something undefined! -  Ennuified  talk   15:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A few things: the nydus worm definitely is a transport unit, given the nydus canal from the original Starcraft did just that (and only that). Also, two of the the 'citation needed' in the 'Differences from the Original Starcraft' are for changes clearly visible in the third (gameplay) video released Sunday, May 20, such as the marine shields and the Terran Reapers, although I'm not certain every marine I saw had a shield. It very well may be an upgrade. Superdupergc 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone should take images from the teaser.DARK 15:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Zerg Returning Units

screenshots here http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/imgs_1.html looks like mutalisks are returning... also a whole bunch of others can be gleaned from those SS's

It is spelled Independence Day Litehawk 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Litehawk

As far as I can see, Zerglings, Mutalisks, Hydralisks, and Guardians are going to be returning units. IVI Auric 07:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Official Screenshots

Located at IGN.com. http://media.pc.ign.com/media/850/850126/imgs_1.html --Kanaru 07:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

More official screenshots at http://www.starcraft2.com/ --Kanaru 14:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Protoss Returning Units

No "official word" on this, but it looks like it's pretty much confirmed: NO dragoons in SC2. They've died out and been replaced with the Immortals. (http://www.starcraft2.com/features/protoss/) --70.71.61.212 09:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that carriers, scouts, corsairs, reavers, and archons are all going to be taken out as well. They are going to keep the number of units about the same, so many old units would have to be taken out to balance the influx of new units. Zealots and Dark Templars are probably coming back. IVI Auric 07:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course zealots are coming back, and in one of the official pieces of concept art, a dark templar is clearly featured. -69.47.186.226 08:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

New Abilities

Zerglings can mutate into a suicidal creature. See the new units section.

Zealots can charge, getting into melee range quickly.

Updating while gaining updates. RedKlonoa 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Protoss will be able to warp in units using Pylons or Phase Prisms after creating units at an upgraded version of the Gateway, which they call a Warp Gate. IVI Auric 07:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Protoss shield is nolonger bullet proof. The HP also takes alittle damage when the unit is attacked, while the shield takes most of the beating. Terran buildings fly faster, including time taken for takeoff and landing. Terran Marines are provided with Roman shields that seem to be eye candy. All data was observed from the video.DARK 15:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

I know they say they will feature this and that, but we don't truly know yet it could still change, just like what units will return and what new unit abilities and strengths and look are. This game is still at least a year away. Can we please avoid use of definitive vocabulary? Litehawk 06:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really necessary since the banner at the top says things can change at any time, which will remain there until the game is released. —EatMyShortz 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In the past Blizzard often stated things similar to: "we have not abandoned the starcraft project". So this most recent announcement is for real that SC2 is due to release right? Oidia 07:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, unless Blizzard have a death wish. 86.76.16.24 07:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

lol someone's been waiting for too long Oidia 11:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone should mention that the game is in the 'pre-alpha' stage...look here http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/starcraft-2/790164p1.html 128.95.141.33 21:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Release Date

I know nothing's confirmed, but if it's 2008, than I think it's probably going to be April 1st, 2008, 10 years after the release of the original. --—JeremyBanks Talk 06:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's ten years after whatever date they announce it! Woohoo, begin the count down.

No release date has been given yet.The one smiley to rule them all 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten years would be 2009 wouldn't it? --Kanaru 07:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, Starcraft came out in 1998. 10 years would be 2008. Look at www.blizzard.com it has the year StarCraft came out.

According to The Inquirer the release date is october 2007: "Blizzard has stated that the company will release this game in October of this year." - source: http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39724


Unless it's backed up by a interview from a official Blizzard employee then consider it false until proven by a Blizzard employee. From an interview made by the New York Times:

"Blizzard did not announce a release date for StarCraft II. Company executives said the game would not be released this year, but that it would run on both Windows and Macintosh computers when it is made available."

Source, with a Interview of a Blizzard employee to back it up: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/technology/21warcraft.html?_r=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin

High probability that The Inquirer confused the starcraft II release with the release of the starcraft II statue which is due october Source:https://us.blizzard.com/sc2collectible/starcraft2/menu.html Salle79 11:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This rumor has been floating around the internet for a while, but it's completely false, so watch for it. -  Ennuified  talk   15:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image = good!

Nice picture

http://up.kupatrix.com/members/browse/1/Starcraft%20II Here are some uploaded pictures of the teaser video featuring the marine Someone put it up if you feel its okay and useful, just putting the link out there. Litehawk 06:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Platforms

OS X

"Blizzard is developing StarCraft II for simultaneous release on the Windows® and Macintosh® PC platforms." http://blizzard.com/press/070519.shtml Rip noob 08:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Also in their FAQ: "As with all of Blizzard's recent releases, StarCraft II will ship on both PC and Mac simultaneously." -- MacAddct1984 17:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Linux

Although in all likelihood Blizzard won't release the game for Linux, some people (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=448469) have posted a petition (http://www.petitiononline.com/ibpfl/petition.html) for Linux support. I think it should be noted on in the article (remember, the existence of the petition is a fact, not speculation). Mrchaotica 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason that it shouldn't be a section that potential buyers make a plea to the developers to port it to another system Eyelessfade 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No. This is an encyclopedia article, not a platform for change or a means to advertise a petition. If the petition garners significant media attention then it might be worth including. Until then, it should not be mentioned. --ElKevbo 00:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Although such a section might be perceived as a means of advertisement, from an uninvolved perspective it would not actually take on the form of propaganda. It would merely make people aware that there is a group of people inciting for change. As long as it is written impartially, it remains up to the reader to decide whether or not to sign the petition. The real question to ask is whether this petition is significant enough to become part of the article. --IntricateBalance 02:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If, and when, it gets some reliable, non-trivial, third party coverage, it can get a section. Not before. --Haemo 03:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Linux shouldn't have its own section that has a few sentences, but in the header for platforms we can say something like "pc and mac is confirmed. Some linux users have started a petition to try and get it ported to linux" then go on to the individual pc and mac sections. Chocrates
Why would we say that? I've just now started a petition to get Blizzard to make a port of this to XBox360 - should that be in the section too? --Haemo 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

XBOX 360

Isn't it coming out for the 360 as well? I heard that it was. If so, that should be included in there. DaGrandPuba 03:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No just PC and Mac. You should read the articles.

It is clearly stated that this will only be released for PC and Mac. bob rulz 06:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"StarCraft II is being developed for the PC. We have no current plans to bring the game to any console platform." - Starcraft2.com -  Ennuified  talk   00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Vista Achievements Support?

Because StarCraft II is compatible with Windows Vista, does this automatically mean Achievements will be supported? I don't think Blizzard has said anything of the matter, but it seems that all Games for Windows/Vista games are including Achievements.

Sign your posts please, even if you are unregistered. To answer your question: I don't think so. That's part of the entire Windows Live thing, which is limited to Windows Vista exclusives, and SC2 has been confirmed as running on XP. Also, Blizzard probably doesn't really want anything to do with Microsoft. I'm not sure though, can someone who knows a little more about it confirm? -  Ennuified  talk   15:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Returning Units/Structures

Scanning the screenshots, we can pick up several familiar structures that can be identified right away. Maybe a list of old stuff and new stuff is in order?

Here's my list so far, I'm only posting units that has not been mentioned in the main page or official StarCraft II website.

Returning Units/Structures -

Terran:

Units SCV - Appears around the building that looks like the Terran Command Center. Also seen gathering minerals and gas like in the last game.
Marine - Updated with a shield attachment on the power suit, and a physical shield.
Siege Tank - The unit scale and blast radius (in siege mode) seems to be enlarged.
Battle Cruiser - Teaser video features the Terran Battle Cruiser in action and using Yamato Gun.
Ghost - Appears after nuclear warhead detonates in the gameplay movie, slaughtered by unburrowed zerglings soon after.

Structures Bunker - some screen shots shows fire coming out, same garrison ability?
Missile Turret - Treaser video shows Terran Missile Turrets in action. Air attack only. (Teaser video said the Colossus uses the Collision System, and is thus able to walk over cliffs. The official website states that the Collision System allows some units to be attacked by both ground and air attacks. So Terran Missile Turret is an air attack? Also, the Missile Turret is facing the sky, as in the last game.)
Barrack - Game play video shows Terran Barrack landing.
Refinery - Seems to be doing the same thing in the game play video.
Command Center - Game play video shows Terran Command Center landing, and sprouting 4 SCVs.

Zerg:

Units Zergling - Always seen in massive swarms. Mutates (using eggs like the last game) in to Banelings that functions like the Zerg Infested Terran in the last game.
Mutalisk - Game play video shows Mutalisks in action. If you look closly between the pylons, you can see that they still have the "bouncing attack" feature.

Structures Unknown - Given that it has no creep coming out, and seems to stand on top of a crater, maybe an Extractor?

Protoss:

Units Probe - Was seen warping several buildings behind a next(?) of Photon Cannons. Zealot - Seen on game play video with new abilities. See above.

Structures Photon Cannon - Game play video shows them in action, doing the samething.
Pylon - Now provide 12 food (from the gameplay video) and may be much weaker than in SC1. Can now spawn Phase Prism(One or more?) that acts like a mobile pylon. Able to teleport any friendly unit inside the psi field (both pylons and phase prisms) in to other friendly psi field.(of any other pylon or phase prism)

Note: It is correct that the main article should not contain complete list of known units or buildings, the list presented here is meant as reference/analysis of source materials (screenshots and trailers), for opening up useful discussions.
Maximilius 12:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any rule like that, only that doing so would give the article "need clean-up" tag. But the current list seems small anyway.DARK 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Appears Hydralisks are in a lot of the artwork (but not screenshots) and video 203.59.102.165 13:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


After watching the Korean release footage, it appears the nuclear blast range has been significantly reduced. The terran player was able to move their ghosts into the ground zero very quickly, suggesting that the ghosts were sitting relatively close to the target and did not have to flee after sighting the target. This would conclude that the blast radius has been reduced, especially since there were three nukes launched in the same area. 5/20/07 8:02:00 Pacific Standard

The ghost might have a special ability to withstand their own nuclear blasts. Additionally the nukes were all fired around the same area almost simultaneously and it is therefore difficult to distinguish how large the area of impact is. Also the burrowed zerg should have also exploded along with the blast since they were within range. Unless they too have a special cockroach ability :). Keep in mind, this was a pre-manufactured demo video intended for show, and is not necessarily meant to reflect specificity. Therefore, bouncing to any conclusion would remain questionable. --IntricateBalance 03:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Or more probably since it was a demo, the ghosts had been temporarily immune to damage as it seems they were right in the blast zone (no visability of the blur caused by cloak as they walked, unless of course this has not been included). 210.84.35.134 09:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Or any cloaked or burrowed unit is immuned to nuke blasts now.DARK 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder to Editors

While news of SC2 and its new features is popular, remember the Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT - in particular, avoid listing out every unit in the game known so far. --Scottie_theNerd 11:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes i agree that we should only list NEW units (new from SC1), or additional functions of existing units. Oidia 13:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Avoid listing every unit? This is an entirely new game, not an expansion pack. Someone should be able to go to this page and get all needed information about this game. I think a stand-alone game deserves a stand-alone page. Also, many of the old units will most likely have new abilities, etc. j 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you think that Wikipedia is the one-stop website for all your gaming needs, you are mistaken. The WP:VG guidelines do not include unit and item lists as part of gaming articles. You may notice that the original StarCraft article also lacks a unit list. There are many other sites and Wikis that can include this information; consider contributing to them instead of throwing listcruft onto this article. --Scottie_theNerd 18:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, you can't decide what is indiscriminate information or not. Don't compare two different articles with each other to make a point. Either article can change at any time. I could take your argument anyway and say that an article for every pokemon ever created shouldn't be allowed either, but there is. For example, Palkia. This article as well as Starcraft 1's can include a list of units. 64.236.245.243 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Scottie. If you really want to do those things, try starcraft wiki or strategy wiki--that's what i did. Baejung92 18:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What about having a second wikipedia page dedicated to Starcraft2 'Units and Structures'? This would keep the main page clear and consice and allow for everyone to find what they are after.

Gameplay and "factions"

Pardo announces that Starcraft II will not have a selection limit. Thus you can select any number of your own units at any given time http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/starcraft2/news.html?sid=6171179 Accendrez 07:04, 28 May 2007

I added more information in the gameplay section. The info is basically what you would expect in a Real Time Strategy game, especially from Blizzard. And I changed the "factions" to "Races". In the actual game, blizzard classified Protoss, Terran and Zerg as "race". And using the term factions are not very accurate. Look at Terran for example, they are splited "Terran Dominion", "the UED", "Kel-Morian Combine", etc, and these different groups would be considered "factions". Oidia 11:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Youtube video

Someone should add this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByMnCKQFUnQ to the external links section. -Pho3nix-

1. youtube links are a nono
2. there is the original source. http://www.starcraft2.com so why use an youtube video
NeoDeGenero 11:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)