The Official "Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty" Thread

is it more zoomed than it was in beta? its noticable in retail and yeah, kinda sucks....

took a break from campaign and tried the challenges, the 2nd tier of challenges are hard, lol.
 
Wow that is really zoomed. What resolution are you running? I am running 1440x900 and my zoom is perfect.
 
Question for people that are well into or finished the SP campaign...do you eventually earn enough credits/research points to unlock all the upgrades. I'm sitting on a bunch of both and scared to pull the trigger =P
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
I'm not sure why it's zoomed in so close for you. At 1920x1200, it seems to be less of a problem, though I'll try comparing it tonight. Maybe someone could confirm the difference (or similarity).
Click to expand...

Nearly everyone I've played with complained about how "zoomed" it seems to be since the beta. Two of us are playing at 1680x1050, one at 1280x1024, and another on a Mac.

squishy said:
yes, thanks. I'm not much into RTS MP, so I want to be able to play against the AI by myself.
Click to expand...

Yup, very much doable. And they have 6 difficulties, IIRC (very easy, easy, medium, hard, very hard, insane). They have a coop vs. AI mode if you don't mind teaming up with friends or strangers.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Question for people that are well into or finished the SP campaign...do you eventually earn enough credits/research points to unlock all the upgrades. I'm sitting on a bunch of both and scared to pull the trigger =P
Click to expand...


I cant say personally since I haven't finished the campaign yet, but I hear people saying they messed up their build even after they finished the game. I guess you have to go one way or the other or just spread your points across the board.

squishy said:
I know this will be a stupid question, but is there a skirmish mode?
Click to expand...

Yes
 
CrimsonKnight13 said:
I'm not sure why it's zoomed in so close for you. At 1920x1200, it seems to be less of a problem, though I'll try comparing it tonight. Maybe someone could confirm the difference (or similarity).
Click to expand...

im running it at 19x12 too and it seems more zoomed than it did in beta. ill try it out on other resolutions and my other monitor to see any differences too.
 
squishy said:
yes, thanks. I'm not much into RTS MP, so I want to be able to play against the AI by myself.
Click to expand...

There are actually achievements for playing against the computer by yourself (as well as achievements for playing against with others against CPU). I do not think I will ever be able to get the outmatched ones though -.-
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Nearly everyone I've played with complained about how "zoomed" it seems to be since the beta. Two of us are playing at 1680x1050, one at 1280x1024, and another on a Mac.
Click to expand...
drstk said:
im running it at 19x12 too and it seems more zoomed than it did in beta. ill try it out on other resolutions and my other monitor to see any differences too.
Click to expand...

I guess it doesn't bother me much or doesn't seem too zoomed in. I guess we could call this an RTS FoV issue in a way. If so many are having a problem with it, Blizz might acknowledge that they need to give people the option of zooming or fix it altogether based on resolution.
 
WHO FINISHED THE LAST MISSION ON BRUTAL! I need help! Give me some tips! Lol! I'm trying to complete the achievement for it!
 
It is a good, fun game, but not great, IMO. I don't like the limited camera control, the subpar graphics, or the happy, dippy Warcraft-esque art style. Starcraft really is just a cheap ripoff of the WH40K universe, and that is the impression I get playing it.

This game will take up a chunk of my time over the next month or so, but it won't make me reconsider my all time fav RTS list, which has CoH, DoW, WiC, WBC, and AoE on it.
 
Spectrum17 said:
It is a good, fun game, but not great, IMO. I don't like the limited camera control, the subpar graphics, or the happy, dippy Warcraft-esque art style. Starcraft really is just a cheap ripoff of the WH40K universe, and that is the impression I get playing it.

This game will take up a chunk of my time over the next month or so, but it won't make me reconsider my all time fav RTS list, which has CoH, DoW, WiC, WBC, and AoE on it.
Click to expand...

Valid opinion. I would say I'm enjoying SC2 more than DOW2 for sure but am SO HAPPY that I have both :)
 
PrincessFrosty said:
This might give you an idea of how anoying the zoom is on a large monitor:

sc22010072919472344.jpg
Click to expand...
I personally would like the zoom to be farther out in scope as the default is wayyy too zoomed in, but I can guess to why Blizzard decided to default the zoom level the way they did:

1. Performance: They don't want a bunch of computer illiterate whiners who hasn't upgraded their PC since the last century complaining that "it runs like shit on my system!" The less stuff on screen, the faster it runs.

... Despite all optimizations and lowest denomination compromises Blizzard made, morons are still complaining about perfomance issues, seen in user review: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/starcraft2

2. Competition Standardization: If having bigger resolutions means seeing more, I'm positive that some Korean company will capitalize on this and create a 4096x4096 device that lets the player see the entire map at any given location. This confers a big FOV advantage to players with the most expensive screen.

Granted, having better hardware, such as GPU and monitor, than the other guy gives you somewhat of gameplay advantage, but somewhere along the way, the line is drawn between having some extra widescreen FOV and a 110-inch projector that lets you see the entire map.

3. Eye-strain: Related to #2, competitive gamers likes win, and will take almost every possible measure to take advantage of the battlefield. In sports, it's performance-enhancing drugs, in SC2, it's zooming out and all the way out, even if it means reducing the units to nothing more than a single pixel on screen... this can cause eye issues.

For performance optimization and leveling the playing field, the max zoom level is kept the same regardless of resolution, but that isn't to say that the current farthest zoom FOV is acceptable.

I personally think that the zoom is wayyy to close, and that Blizzard is designing this zoom level based on a 15-inch 1024x768 monitor.
 
Last edited:
DeathPrincess said:
Didnt the first one come out on the N64?

Damnit why is this a physical game, having to go to a store is blah after the steam sales! Maybe over the weekend. Unless it comes to steam...

Just one question, I heard the servers were locked to location so that players from korean couldn't play ones in america, europe etc. So if I didn't want to play the 3 players in europe would I have to make an american account? Internet only play is a pain in the ass,,,with my 300 ping...
Click to expand...

1) The first one was a PC game that got ported to N64
2) You can buy a digital copy straight from Blizzard
3) I have no idea what you're talking about. Just play with Europeans, there are plenty of players in every region.
 
dr.stevil said:
really? what the f*ck!!!


seriously, I'm getting a very inconsistant 10-40 fps in game and close to 50 (but often dipping into the low teens) in menus

SLI has got to be screwing with it... either that or my CPU is just bottle necking the shit out of me. Crysis and Metro give me a smoother game play experience (and that's saying something). So annoying :(
Click to expand...

Its your Q6600 thats holding you back.

http://www.techspot.com/review/305-starcraft2-performance/page13.html

If I'm interpreting this right, this game is very CPU IO dependant, wanting large instruction caches and system memory bandwidth. And doesn't know how to take advantage of anything more than a dual core.
 
I'm liking this game alot
But protoss seem overpowered now

I'm using going massive void ray and battlecruiser strategy and we just tear shit up in 2vs2
 
Indeterministic said:
Yep. Was personally hoping to see the use of more than 2 cores by this time.
Click to expand...

Once again, this ties into Blizzards "lowest common denominator" strategy. They have to cater to EVERYONE, and not everyone has multicore (let alone quad core) processors. The [H] community is a fraction of a percentage of their real-world demographic.
 
can i ask what might be noticeable if it was using 4 cores instead of 2? i'm running it on a core i7 and it's running really nicely. what would i notice if it was using all 4?
 
BusyBeaverHP said:
I personally would like the zoom to be farther out in scope as the default is wayyy too zoomed in, but I can guess to why Blizzard decided to default the zoom level the way they did:

1. Performance: They don't want a bunch of computer illiterate whiners who hasn't upgraded their PC since the last century complaining that "it runs like shit on my system!" The less stuff on screen, the faster it runs.

... Despite all optimizations and lowest denomination compromises Blizzard made, morons are still complaining about perfomance issues, seen in user review: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/starcraft2

2. Competition Standardization: If having bigger resolutions means seeing more, I'm positive that some Korean company will capitalize on this and create a 4096x4096 device that lets the player see the entire map at any given location. This confers a big FOV advantage to players with the most expensive screen.

Granted, having better hardware, such as GPU and monitor, than the other guy gives you somewhat of gameplay advantage, but somewhere along the way, the line is drawn between having some extra widescreen FOV and a 110-inch projector that lets you see the entire map.

3. Eye-strain: Related to #2, competitive gamers likes win, and will take almost every possible measure to take advantage of the battlefield. In sports, it's performance-enhancing drugs, in SC2, it's zooming out and all the way out, even if it means reducing the units to nothing more than a single pixel on screen... this can cause eye issues.

For performance optimization and leveling the playing field, the max zoom level is kept the same regardless of resolution, but that isn't to say that the current farthest zoom FOV is acceptable.

I personally think that the zoom is wayyy to close, and that Blizzard is designing this zoom level based on a 15-inch 1024x768 monitor.
Click to expand...

I guess I've been playing too many 'modern' games, but I didn't think it would be that hard to implement a zoom-in, zoom-out feature.
 
drstk said:
im staying away from mp for a while......unless its coop vs comps hahaha. i got beat down enough during beta....:D
Click to expand...

I am 17-7 overall (this includes some 3v3's, solos and 2's) but I mostly contribute that to playing a lot of noobs haha.
 
Dome said:
can i ask what might be noticeable if it was using 4 cores instead of 2? i'm running it on a core i7 and it's running really nicely. what would i notice if it was using all 4?
Click to expand...

If you're not currently bottle-necked with your current CPU/GPU setup, then you won't notice overly much. The i7 has fast enough individual cores and good enough memory bandwidth/access for it to not be as much of an issues as other quad-core chips (such as the Q6600). If you're using a quad core and you're experiencing performance issues due to a CPU bottleneck, you've got two unused cores sitting there not doing anything to help you out ;)

It's possible that with your current setup you could get a performance increase by utilizing more cores. Only way to tell will be to measure the in-game performance while in a heavy multiplayer match (4v4) and compare it to your CPU/GPU usage.
 
it makes sense why, i think the biggest issue is keeping gameplay balanced. if it were enabled for single player that people could zoom out more, people would only hack it to use for multiplayer. that may happen anyway, but with all the maphacks, speed hacks, etc that people will inevitably develop for this game, they don't need to be making it easy for the hackers.
 
So I went to a midnight release and picked this up. Been playing it non stop since then. The problem is I was just invited to the Cataclysm Beta! nerdgasm
 
dr.stevil said:
really? what the f*ck!!!


seriously, I'm getting a very inconsistant 10-40 fps in game and close to 50 (but often dipping into the low teens) in menus

SLI has got to be screwing with it... either that or my CPU is just bottle necking the shit out of me. Crysis and Metro give me a smoother game play experience (and that's saying something). So annoying :(
Click to expand...

Something about some of the cutscenes on the ship make the framerate crawl. Yet others are smooth as butter. In fact I can go back in and out of the same scene and it will be really smooth again. It's very weird, I'm guessing a game or 258.96 driver issue.
 
hhara said:
So I went to a midnight release and picked this up. Been playing it non stop since then. The problem is I was just invited to the Cataclysm Beta! nerdgasm
Click to expand...

It's a good thing I was in the first wave of beta invitations so I could get my fill before SC2 launched. :eek:!
 
Today was a great day in SC2 for me!

Brutal Campaign 29/29 DOWN! Sexy Kerrigan portrait is mine!

Made diamond league in 2v2 - one league milestone down!

Wooo, I'm on a high right now.
 
TheGamerZ said:
Once again, this ties into Blizzards "lowest common denominator" strategy. They have to cater to EVERYONE, and not everyone has multicore (let alone quad core) processors. The [H] community is a fraction of a percentage of their real-world demographic.
Click to expand...

It's not as uncommon as you think, steam hardware survey puts single core gamers at ~17%, dual core gamers at ~55% and quad core gamers at ~26%

Generally speaking when you write a multithreaded application you should try and write it so it can make use of n cores and spread the work over as many cores is available, where possible.
 
Trepidati0n said:
Question for people that are well into or finished the SP campaign...do you eventually earn enough credits/research points to unlock all the upgrades. I'm sitting on a bunch of both and scared to pull the trigger =P
Click to expand...

You get way more than you need in research points. You don't really "spend" research points anyway. You accumulate them and you upgrade up the ladder. So once you get 5, you pick 1 of the 5 point upgrades. Once you 5 more, you pick 1 of the 10 point upgrades, etc.

Your credits don't go that far. I'd say you maybe get to upgrade 1/2 - 3/4, depending on how expensive you go. That said, towards the end, I was running out of stuff to buy because usually on missions, I only used certain units so I just upgraded those. So, I didn't bother to buy the stuff for units I didn't use and some of the upgrades aren't that great. Definitely max out the mercs, especially for the units that you use since those guys are great with 0 cast time after the cooldown is done.

Stuff that I thought was useful and used a lot, in no particular order: science vessels, instant supply depot, auto-refinery, tech lab/reactor combo at 25 protoss. For upgrades, both marine, scv, building, tank, bunker, medic. Other ones might be nice, but they didn't seem as great to me. It may differ depending on play style. For example, I hate to micro so I didn't really like active abilities.

At 1920, I didn't really see anything wrong with the zoom, but hey, that's just me.

Ending was average, I suppose. Plot was linear but I thought the gameplay was good and those snide remarks between missions were amusing. The missions had a lot more variety than SC1. Considering it's supposed to be 1/3 of the plot, I'm not really surprised the way things ended up. It's not like they could have had a proper final ending where all the bad guys are dead or else there's nothing to do for #2 and #3. Obviously, the artifact is a macguffin, but *shrug*. It's a game for the multiplayer with a pretty good single player campaign.
 
Last edited:
I'm taking it slowly playing the sp, anyway I don't have much time to play all that much. I finished the 5th mission last night and went back to get some achievements. So far I like it. I think we will have a huge game on hour hands once the other 2 parts come out.
 
I can't decide between Predators or Hercules for my Level 15 Zerg research upgrade. Can anyone help? Which one is best?
 
Plague_Injected said:
I can't decide between Predators or Hercules for my Level 15 Zerg research upgrade. Can anyone help? Which one is best?
Click to expand...

Lol, save the game, pick one, and play a mission...
Load your saved game, pick another and play the same mission.
Easy.

P.S. You really dont need all the unit upgrades. just get the upgrades for the units that you use. I rarely use a firebat or a vulture, so I didn't upgrade them. The marine and the bunker should get both upgrades, those are a must I think. The goliath, while very fragile, get's nice upgrades.
 
I'm liking this game. I've really been missing this style of RTS.

I didn't really care for the first one. I just always wished there was a little less micro-managing of the SCV units. I mostly played C&C:Gold and C&C:Red Alert to get my fix.
 
My progress in single player is slow since I try to get all the achievements done for each mission that I play. This is why so far I am only on train robbery and the dig...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top