Anyone playing StarCraft II?

[Pete]

I've completed the single-player campaign, I've played a few multiplayer matches and I've got the review in the works (aiming for the end of this week).

 

I think the plot was open-ended, as there was the rolling out of the "first ones" - a theme that has been done to death but is still fun nonetheless - and, well, we didn't really see much in the way of first ones despite all the characters yammering on about it throughout the entire campaign. My issue with the story is that I should know by the end of the campaign whether we defeated the first ones or whether we're poised on the brink of something far larger to come - I shouldn't be left scratching my head in confusion (and, in one case, disgust - more on that in the review ).

 

The insane difficulty increase between the campaign battles and the multiplayer battles (versus AI still) caught me out to begin with, but I think I've got the hang of it now if anyone wants to come and kick my ass in an online match? I've got a few friends who have the game as well so there's potential for interesting team matches or the more traditional "every man for himself" matches

 

If anyone has the game, let me know what you thought of it - preferably without spoling the story too much for others.

 

Also, if anyone has it who's also played the original, let me know what you thought of the changes in this game - I've not actually played the original myself. Shameful, I know >:]

 

I can say it has me hooked though. I'll keep coming back for more multiplayer mayhem as well as trying to unlock more achievements in the single player campaign - maybe not for hours at a time but that's just me. The novelty hasn't worn off yet after several weeks, which in my book means it's a good game.

[hatfarm]

Yeah, I purchased it. I've played a bit of the single player, but I bought it for the multiplayer. I've played the original as well, I don't think I ever played single player on that though. I'm pleased with the changes overall, the game seems to be a bit faster, which I like. If you'd like to play online some time, my name is hatfarm, and you can add me at hatfarm@gmail.com. I don't play alot because of school, but I've been fitting it in when I can. Speaking of, I'm gonna go play now.

[hatfarm]

I'm still learning the ropes of multiplayer, but if anyone would like to play together sometime (head to head or against someone) my battle.net account is hatfarm@gmail.com. Let me know you're from these boards though, because otherwise I'll probably not add you as a friend.

[Pete]

Alas I think they've segregated everyone by region so I'm not sure I could add you as I'm in the UK.

 

On another note, playing as Terran with my brother against two Terran teams on Very Hard setting - no matter what tactics we try they win. The computer doesn't see losses like a human player does, and it can obviously be adding to it's build queue and issuing army orders at the same time - something which a human can't do. It does wind you up something chronic when he's already battering your defenses and then just drops a few nukes for good measure just when you're getting back on your feet.

 

The terrifying thing is that there's another level of difficulty above this - "Insane". A very fitting description.

[NKF]

I'm planning to wait a bit before trying this game, but from recollections of playing the first game on LAN with some pals against the AI, I can say that the AI really has an advantage and can do all sorts of things in a matter of seconds, where you on the other hand can only command your army in sequential order. This is one reason I like real-time or with pause or variable time compression in one-player games as it allows you to do exactly what the AI can do.

 

The SC 1 AI's not terribly smart or anything, but the masses of minor units that it can build up in a short time and throw at you while commanding all the units at once is just insane. Especially at the start of the battle. You do get into a predictable pattern where you know what sort of defenses to concentrate early on to counter the waves of minions the AI will throw at you, then start sending out squads to wipe out the resources collectors, etc. Gets rather stale after a while, but that's AI skirmishes for you.

 

- NKF

[ufonef]

I'm very impressed with sc2's AI. Although It has the advantage of being able to command troops while at the same time being able to build up its base, units and cast spells - but except those, its a very fair gameplay. I played quite many skirmishes in sc1 and remeber being annoyed by the fact AI could see the entire map. You would build a new base somewhere - and AI already knew you could be attacked there easily. I hated it. There was no hide and seak whatsoever. In sc2 however, AI works out its strategy only based on what it can actually see. You can build a base and remain undetected for a fairly long time. Its way more realistic and fun. And to be honest, the "AI being ridiculously fast" isn't its main advantage - it simply has very good preprogrammed build ups, and can enmass really powerful armies - but it doesnt cheat and a player can actually learn something from observing the ai - at least if you are a begginer like me.

It can also make some wise decissions as to what is your weakness. One time ive decided to bunker myself up with those zerg ground defence buildings (sunken colonies?). But AI responded very quickly by building a couple of immortals, which deal +30 more damage against armoured units/structures, so my defence was annihilated in seconds.

Other time, ive also tried to do a bunker, but the AI attacked from a rear. It had to break through rocks to get to my base however. So i though to myself, ill use the new abbility to unburrow my sunken colonies and will simply reallocate them. I did so, but the AI had an observer over my base, it saw me doing that, and quickly outmanouvered my guns which take a long while to reburrow, and they attacked from up front.

All in all, its really fun to play those games against the ai. I've never seen any ai in any game playing so 'human' yet. Ofcourse, after a while you can see patterns in how it plays, but its still fun. And it feels a bit less predictable than in sc1.

[Pete]

The trick to holding off the Terran AI early on if you're playing Terran too is to have a force sitting a way out in front of your base to destroy his scout SCV's before they can see what's in your base.

 

Then you need to get some bunkers up. Then some turrets way out in front of your buildings to shoot down the inevitable flying scouts he'll send, but build the turrets in clusters big enough to shoot down 5 or 6 cloaked banshees.

 

By the time you've done that he'll throw a huge army of marines, Marauders and Siege Tanks at your front door. By the time you've picked up the pieces after that it's usually too late and within ten minutes you can expect your bunkers to be targeted by nukes if you're not very careful.

 

Very Hard setting just goes downhill from there. We've tried loads of tactics including harassing his expansion bases with Vikings - works well and is an excellent way of drawing his forces away from your base if you attack his base just as he's about to attack yours, but it's only putting off inevitable defeat as whilst you're running your harassment campaign you've failed to notice a multitude of bad guys getting Medivac'd in around the side of your base or something.

 

I guess my point here is that Hard setting leaves the AI predictable, Very Hard is wildly unpredictable and Insane - well I'm just afraid to try that

[ufonef]

Good tactics If you make them blind, they wont know how to best crack your base open.

Alghough i preffer zergs or protoss, and neither zerglings nor zealots can catch up to scv scouts. AI just goes back and forth around the base. I often let him go in by moving my forces away, and block the exit afterwards, so he cant run away safely... maybe not the best idea as i let him know whats inside my base, but the satisfaction of killing off his scout is priceless.

[Matri]

Blizzard bans single-player cheaters.

[NKF]

That's quite harsh. I hardly ever touch cheats anymore, but even I think that's unfair. There's various honest reasons to cheat (yes, I know that's a bit of a contradiction) as long as you're only doing it for yourself.

 

I remember back in the good old days of games that were good spirited about things like that. Ultima Underworld 1 and 2 for example let you use stat editors to your hearts content, and will add a 'you cheater' on the final stat tally after beating the game (ingame cheats like the unlimited use magical piles of ash didn't register unfortunately).

 

- NKF

[Pete]

All they really needed to do was split singleplayer and multiplayer achievements up into the two areas, so the non-issue with single player achievements unfairly gained being visible to online players and giving a false sense of player status is made irrelevent.

 

Or just make achievements unobtainable whilst using cheats as, as someone pointed out in an article elsewhere on this subject, Blizzard are obviously able to track if you're cheating, so why not just add a few lines of code to show a message saying "achievements will be deactivated whilst you are cheating".

 

Job done, less ruckuss.

[Sunflash]

And another company for the black list of insane stupidty. How is this even VAUGLY a good idea? I sense a certain bay may have a lot more vistors after this little stunt. :/

[Pete]

Then again I suppose there's no real need to cheat in the single player game anyway if you think about it.

[Gimli]

Or just make achievements unobtainable whilst using cheats as, as someone pointed out in an article elsewhere on this subject, Blizzard are obviously able to track if you're cheating, so why not just add a few lines of code to show a message saying "achievements will be deactivated whilst you are cheating".

 

Job done, less ruckuss.

 

This is similar to what Serious Sam HD does. When you cheat in a level, your score for that level is reduced to 0, and you don't get any achievements. Simple as that.

 

 

Then again I suppose there's no real need to cheat in the single player game anyway if you think about it.

 

Sometimes there is. I don't use cheats when I'm seriously playing, but there are a few cases when I'll want to use them:

1) To mess around with the game. Sometimes it can actually be fun. I remember using it in Warcraft 3 for the very last mission where I used a cheat to reveal the entire map. I was curious how the AI managed to overwhelm me so quickly, only to find out that it was actually cheating itself - buildings and units were pumped out at a much faster rate than they were supposed to. Not a shining example of game design, but oh well.

2) When I want to skip some level or get to some location quickly. I used this in a number of cases in Serious Sam. Very useful when you need to test something and don't have a saved game handy.

3) Getting past various bugs. Again, Serious Sam HD is a good example. I got stuck between some buildings - got in, but couldn't get back out, so I cheated.

 

Edit: By the way, Serious Sam HD has cheats built-in by the developers. If you attempt to use outside trainers or hacks, your entry on the leaderboards will appear with a "HACKED" mark. After they let everyone see you (and laugh at you), I think you will get blacklisted.

[Matri]

As was pointed out, cheating in WoW no matter serious it was, only gets you a 72-hour suspension at worse.

 

The disconnect is quite jarring.

[Gimli]

Blizzard's response

 

This makes more sense.

[Pete]

Most interesting. I guess that makes more sense now.

[Sunflash]

I seeeee, so that hackign site was unable to create a program that only did one or the other? >.>

 

Interesting indeed at any rate.

[ShadowBlade]

The CheatHappens article is actually laughable. Who's really at fault here? The company who takes arguably harsh measures to defend its own, clearly-defined rules (EULA, which you have to accept to play the game at all), or the company that makes and profits* from tools they know the game itself forbids and are liable to get their users suspended/banned?

 

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/ShadowB/Misc/cheathappens_sc2.png

 

*The trainers in question are only available to CheatHappens users with paid memberships, so yes, the company's essentially profiting from them. They discretely covered themselves with the tiny "USE AT OWN RISK" sentence, and who knows how recent that is. Given the article's palpably defensive tone, I'd bet the tiny disclaimer wasn't there all along.