would you like to see starcraft 2 5x5 or 6x6?

[SlickR]

Would you like to see starcraft 2 multiplayer allow 5x5 and/or 6x6 players?
-would you like starcraft 2 multiplayer mode: conquer the hill?

[Ninja95]

id like more players
Yuo can always play cth using ums

[hammocksleeper]

I think Starcraft 2 would be awesome if it was set up first-person like Battlefield 2 or something. Man that shit is off the chain. That way you could have like 64 players.

[Superiorwolf]

5v5 MAX I'd say

[MidnightGladius]

1v1 is where it's at.

But certainly, a I could certainly see a huge, 64-player dogpile going somewhere :)

[XarthatXio]

And how you would see the differents in colors of another players? 12 is enough. And 64-multi-game could be very harmful to processor.

[Seal]

12 or 16. theres enough distinction still.

[SlickR]

So basicly you would all like SC2 to support more than 8 players!
right?

[Zerg_eater]

I think Starcraft 2 would be awesome if it was set up first-person like Battlefield 2 or something. Man that shit is off the chain. That way you could have like 64 players.
umm Starcraft ghost?

[Skullflower]

So basicly you would all like SC2 to support more than 8 players!
right?

yeah. That would be cool. Bigger maps also

[own3d0406]

hah, Id like to play 1v1 on a 16 player map.

[Infested_Zeratul]

64 players !?

Think of all the LAGGGG :(

An 8 on 8 would be exiting and slow... but its good... Did i say 8 on 8? i meant 1vs15 melee ^^

[Seal]

24 would go too, but that's kinda overkill.

[blupp74]

As far as Starcraft FPS goes, I don't think it would be very "hot".
Sure, there'd be some cool moments when you recognise all the units "up-front" in the game, but in the end it would just be...an FPS.

RTS is what makes Starcraft great. As an FPS it would be little different from Quake or Doom or whatever. They made an FPS out of Command & Conquer.
Anyone remember that at all? Didn't think so...

One thing I *think* might be cool for SC 2 for Terran (and maybe Protoss) is to have...well...units controlling units. For instance, you can build a tank, but you'd also have to build/train a tank pilot at the barracks. (Or maybe just use a marine). When the tank is about to go down, you can choose to evacuate the tank and save the pilot. Same thing with about all vehicles.

I think the dragoons are piloted by wounded or dead (?) protoss warriors, right? Why not have the ability to "rescue" badly wounded zealots (ok, I don't know EXACTLY how this would work out...but still) and have THEM pilot the goons? That'd of course mean you have no goons until you've made zealots...hmm...well, just a thought...

[Infested_Zeratul]

5X5 max... But i'll be glad if SC2 had a unit limit of 1000 =P
Then create a Zerg 5 on 5 money map where zerglings are the only possible unit... crowd it all in a 92X92 (64X64 might not even be physically possible) and then you'll see some action ^^.

Oh yeah, make sure the building have an armor of 50 and 99999 health. And set Zerg creation time to 1 and minerals to 0.

[hammocksleeper]

umm Starcraft ghost?
umm yeah. but the ghost they showed at the convention wasn't cool enough. basically someone make a starcraft mod for bf2 and i'll play that shit like mad. maybe it will turn into another CS where some company (namely blizzard) buys/funds it and then they can market it as a new SC game or something. :D

[IrishDutchman]

I don't think that more than eight players is strictly necessary. Hardly anyone plays 4v4's anyway. It wouldn't hurt though, so why the hell not?

[SolidSamurai]

umm Starcraft ghost?

Starcraft: Ghost sucks ass... face it man.

The guy was talking about BF2 if you've heard of that game. In my mind this would be more of what would be involved in World of StarCraft. Each player controls a soldier in HIGH graphics, and it'd be hella fun, trust me. And it wouldn't be laggy if it weren't supported by B-net. =P
A single server could be a possibility, but it inevitably wouldn't be free. =/

This would NOT be an RTS game and because StarCraft 2 was meant to be an RTS game, this wouldn't apply to StarCraft 2 but instead be more directed towards my idea for World of StarCraft. 32x32 players could be involved in a land war, even more players could be involved in a space war above the atmosphere (fleet battles with a hundred or so players that were made possible in Eve), and hell, another full on 32x32 player matches could occur in battlefields on other areas of the same planet. It'd be a combination of both Eve Online and advanced gameplay elements. It'd be revolutionary, available in perhaps 2010 if at all. :cool:

And btw, SC: Ghost featured 4 on 4 combat at the most. Sure that seems pretty fun, but it probably got old to the testers after awhile considering each unit/character only has about one combat function (ie. Firebats deal heavy, short-range damage, 'rines act as heavy assaulters, ghosts perform lockdowns and stealth maneuvers, while light marines were simply engineers that built turrets and maybe piloted vehicles; ghosts were actually capable of piloting Stingers, but then again stingers suck). In World of Starcraft, certain vehicles could actually be piloted by marines in full-on combat armor (such as Goliaths, and turret guns), while others cannot. A cheaper, all-terrain wheeled vehicle (such as the stinger) would be available, however suited-up marines would be better off not using them; light marines who cannot afford to use combat armor but have the skills necessary for engineering and mechanical operations would be useful using these vehicles to reach and repair others. Light marines could also be useful for occupying SCV's to use in quicker manufacturing.

[Sulik]

Once we have like 4 members and just make Zergling (no gas). The battlefield was bloody indeed. Don't think it's possible with 64, and it's more fun with a manageable team force. Since a clan usually have more than 14 member, the optimal figure should be around 7x7, i think. Sometime civil war is needed anyway

[Neu(t)ral Damage]

I think Starcraft 2 would be awesome if it was set up first-person like Battlefield 2 or something. Man that shit is off the chain. That way you could have like 64 players.
That's exactly like my idea of StarCraft Battlefront.:)

[SolidSamurai]

*Accidental double post*

View below post

[SolidSamurai]

Clarification: 64 players on a single map in an RTS aint going to happen. 64 players in a battlefield FPS could and will happen (if the games were released under our layout of ideas) in SCBF or WoS because it's happened before. SC 2 will be an RTS. Not an FPS.

I love how ppl don't even acknowledge the ridiculously long posts I make for every damn reply and comment in an attempt to provide explanation which apparently fails on a large majority. :confused: :concern:

[gamer102]

If maybe blizard had a big enough server to host 12+ players, id say "do it then", the graphics and capabilites of SC is low compared to WCIII, so id say have lots of players, bigger maps to hold all those players, and SC would get so big.

And have maybe another race, if the game turns out unbalanced, then forget the race and just add more units to the current ones.
maybe a hero for each race too, or a leveling unit would be nice

hey what an RTS and FPS?

[SolidSamurai]

Everything you've said aint new at all gamer. It's actually so damn unoriginal that I won't even bother with sarcasm.

Sorry, but I'm just sick of hearing ppl suggest that shit after I've already sorted it out and provided explanation.
(oh but I do like your avatar =P)

Read what I say first then try to make a witty counter or original idea rather then consistently repeat others....

Not to mention we've already talked about the graphics being uped to 3D without the cartoony and all out lamenemosity that WC3 displayed in its graphics. More realism is what I and a few others are personally advocating.

[Seal]

Not to mention we've already talked about the graphics being uped to 3D without the cartoony and all out lamenemosity that WC3 displayed in its graphics. More realism is what I and a few others are personally advocating.
so if blizzard did a cartoony sc2, you would just kill yourself?
realism is not what blizzard does, blizzard does fun. of course we can expect higher polycounts and darker shades for starcraft, but the blizzard style wont go anywhere.

[SolidSamurai]

I for one am sick of the cartoony crap, really.

Cartoony just makes it easier on the animators and the graphic designers cuz they just follow one specific artist's style and do absolutely no thinking for themselves.

All art is modeled from an aspect of real life afterall. So therefore real life is the most beautiful thing and you can't say otherwise, sucka!

[ShadowGonissa]

Actually, if you had more than eight players, wouldn't that create serious lag, unless you had a totally expensive computer? That would cut off the playability of many fans.

[Seal]

Actually, if you had more than eight players, wouldn't that create serious lag, unless you had a totally expensive computer? That would cut off the playability of many fans.
wc3 holds 12 human players. no one whines about that.
I for one am sick of the cartoony crap, really.
personal vendetta?
Cartoony just makes it easier on the animators and the graphic designers cuz they just follow one specific artist's style and do absolutely no thinking for themselves.
unconsistent style would be very annoying.
All art is modeled from an aspect of real life afterall. So therefore real life is the most beautiful thing and you can't say otherwise, sucka!
maybe so. why do you even play any games, when they can't ever be more beautiful than rl?
creating realistic art on immaterial stuff like spaceships is hard and usually not worth it. its even harder to do that with purely virtual stuff, which should also be interactive and not like a movie. also it would require a beefy box to run.
also near-realistic humans are scary, because they look like humans but aren't really: no one has made a 100% authentic human model. 99% is certainly possible but it looks like a zombie. that's also a reason why you do cartoony humanoids.

[SolidSamurai]

Yea... well there's different degrees of cartoony.

I meant a realistic cartoony; it's hard to describe, man.

Think of, say, D&D online and the detail on the jaws, gums, and saliva for, say, a beholder monster. The game still manages to recieve a teen rating.

Blizz doesn't even include dark blood, organs, chunks of skin, or saliva at all!
And I aint talking about cinematics, that's not part of the discussion.
But that's when it becomes too cartoony for me.

And, besides, StarCraft used to have a mature rating for language alone.

Not to mention, I remember seeing a CGI news reporter (for Portugal I think?) that actually looked real at first glance. Sure it was kinda freaky, but whatever. First glance is enough nevertheless.

[Neu(t)ral Damage]

Warcraft has always been cartoony. A Gyrocopter? Please. StarCraft was modeled after realism. Just look at the Zerg! There's nothing cartoony about that. It's why I prefer StarCraft over other Blizzard games. The more realistic, the more lifelike in more aspects that appearance, like interface, like carriers not being able to be shot down by some shmuck in a space suit waving a rifle around on the ground, like actual real life decisions that commanders have to make in the real world. Not just make a huge army and come from the side. Like making tech trees harder to climb. Do you know what I mean?

[Seal]

Warcraft has always been cartoony. A Gyrocopter? Please. StarCraft was modeled after realism. Just look at the Zerg! There's nothing cartoony about that. It's why I prefer StarCraft over other Blizzard games. The more realistic, the more lifelike in more aspects that appearance, like interface, like carriers not being able to be shot down by some shmuck in a space suit waving a rifle around on the ground, like actual real life decisions that commanders have to make in the real world. Not just make a huge army and come from the side. Like making tech trees harder to climb. Do you know what I mean?
you're not playing a blizzard game.

[SolidSamurai]

Well graphics and complex physics creates the "wow" factor. That's where realism is important. Other then that, it's playing the game and not finding it slow and annoying as hell.

Complex physics could make the game be as fast paced as the original and play the same way, only there'd be even more microing possibilities; which'd be cool.

And if your thinking of what the other guy just said at the end of page 3, then I'd suggest a kind of game similair to spore (but deeper with an actual mature rating), where you evolve and create your own empire, culture, politics, etc.

Then you'd explore space and meet other players in an online world of connected servers. =P

BTW: Gyrocopters DO in fact exist in real life. >_>

[Neu(t)ral Damage]

i know, but not in, what, like middle earth?

[RK330]

Far as I'm concerned they should keep the graphics exactly as they are and mod other, more important, things like GAMEPLAY. They should make it so we can have 30 person maps, and maximum map size should be about 2560x2560 using the same scale as now. More options in map editing and terraining should be added, i.e. I WANT MORE THAN FIVE TERRAINS IN EACH TILESET DAMMIT! etc. And pop limit should be about a thousand units not 200. That way you could have totally awesome and intense games but it would still be doable because you didn't sacrifice completely AWESOME gameplay for "wow effect."

[Giantfish]

I've never played a serious game that used up the 200 limit.

[SolidSamurai]

Exactly.

O snap, gotcha there buddy. ;D

[DragonPraetor]

Ok well, I've always had strong feelings on these two...

WC3 vs SC

The reason why I'd say SC wins is very plain and simple... WC3 has cartoony graphics and still tries to take itself seriously... It's horrifying... I just can't find myself getting in to the story when my heroes are represented by these big blocky cartoonish characters.

SC has always been about the seriousness of the issue mixxed with realism and it's amazing. I know the question up there wasn't directed at me, but I WOULD kill myself if they gave it cartoony WC3 graphics. It needs graphics like Supreme Commander.

[SlickR]

Ok well, I've always had strong feelings on these two...

WC3 vs SC

The reason why I'd say SC wins is very plain and simple... WC3 has cartoony graphics and still tries to take itself seriously... It's horrifying... I just can't find myself getting in to the story when my heroes are represented by these big blocky cartoonish characters.

SC has always been about the seriousness of the issue mixxed with realism and it's amazing. I know the question up there wasn't directed at me, but I WOULD kill myself if they gave it cartoony WC3 graphics. It needs graphics like Supreme Commander.
SCII will have amazing realistic graphics if your computer can play it with all details ON. If you play it at low level graphics then it will look not so good but it's no where near cartoonish graphics!
There are 4 new people in the engine development department along with some of the "old" guy's and the engine is very good. We'll have to wait and see what gamers think for the whole game though as there is huge amount of work to be done to make a worthy sequel to Starcraft.

[SolidSamurai]

Hey man I know your faking, but at least you had this thought out with the engine development and all. :D

And I guess by "old", you mean not quite senior staff members or employees, but ppl who've already been in that area.

[Seal]

I just can't find myself getting in to the story when my heroes are represented by these big blocky cartoonish characters.i STILL can not see the blockiness of wc3 stuff. besides, can you seriously expect a million polygons per character for a strategy game?
the heroes are big because you are supposed to note them and not mistake them for your normal troops. heroes which just differ in form and color are not quite enough.WC3 has cartoony graphics and still tries to take itself seriously...
it doesnt. its not really serious at all. part of the joke is the seemingly serious things.

[SolidSamurai]

Ya... well in addition to being big... the heroes also have large glowing auras emitting from them under their feet. Hell, an entire blade master's sword glows in his team color's aura.

[DragonPraetor]

it doesnt. its not really serious at all. part of the joke is the seemingly serious things.


That's why I almost cried at the end of frozen throne? They killed the most badass character... I didn't cry because i had to laugh at two cartoon characters going at it cinematic style.

[SolidSamurai]

Ya, that felt like a scene from some god damn final fantasy rip off. Hearing about final fantasy itself these days gets tiring...

But that was like final fantasy seven man... and that sucks. Not that the game is bad but I'm just sick of hearing shit about that kinda thing.

[golaith404]

Actually, if you had more than eight players, wouldn't that create serious lag, unless you had a totally expensive computer? That would cut off the playability of many fans.

This is true. If they up the graphics big time it would take quite a machine to run the game. But look at Half-Life and Half-Life 2. My old computer could run the first game no problem. But it wouldnt even think about running the sequal. So i upgraded just so i could play it. Star Craft 2 will be the same way. There is a huge fan base, and sure, they are going to lose a few by going to 3D, but people will adjust so they can play the game.

Personally, if SC2 is an RTS or an FPS, i will be happy to play it.

[Seal]

That's why I almost cried at the end of frozen throne? They killed the most badass character... I didn't cry because i had to laugh at two cartoon characters going at it cinematic style.

spoiler: illidan didn't die

[Primeshooter]

No, on the 5x5 or 6x6 un less massitve map. and the only thing on a massive maps iz. it will take a while for people to understand it all the way. i mean 4x4 iz still pushin tha limits. but no large maps 128 by 128 iz good, no larger, and think with a 3d engine u no how boring it iz to walk around 4 5 mins lookin 4 sum 1, juss try diablo, ur find out, well i dont like diablo thts y!

[molgrim]

yay for more players :)

[AmigoConZerg]

64 player pile ups sound like a killing good time.

[andre]

And what if they made a map that was constantly ongoing, that was huge, a universe, and all the players on Bnet could join, that would be fun, total mayhem. The could develop some sort of compression scheme for less lag, the map would be computer genarated, at random. It would be less lag if you loaded only sectors (you would have to, it would be to big)

Just an idea that would be fun, thousands of starcraft players on a single map. :p

--andre