Talk:StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty/Archive 2

message: "Although most fans expected a new race to be introduced to the game, it has been announced that there will be only the original three races."
This isn't sourced so I can't check it, and I haven't been through all of the announcement stuff yet, but is that really true? The FAQ on the website seems to have been carefully worded to avoid the question "how many races will there be", stating the originals will return but not whether these are the ONLY races. Radix 14:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Races

message: I think we should have a section or at least provide some information in the article relating to the anticipation of fans for SC2. This is from the SC1 article:
:Many Easter eggs can be unlocked during and after completion of Warcraft III which relate to StarCraft, leading many to sequel speculation.[24] There was also a leak about a 2007 release from HanbitSoft, the Korean publisher of StarCraft.[25] Job advertisements on Blizzard.com looking for a "Game Balance Designer" with experience in StarCraft and Warcraft III,[26] and the fact that there are several unannounced titles also being developed, suggest that Blizzard is working on another RTS, possibly StarCraft II. A fourth Warcraft game, a third Diablo game, or an entirely new franchise, however, remain possibilities.[27] Nearly 17,000 players have signed an online petition in support of a sequel's creation.[28] A group of fans operating under the name Snowflake Entertainment are creating a mod to create StarCraft using the WarCraft III game engine, titled Project Revolution. Although not a sequel, Project Revolution will transfer the game from two to three dimensions.[29] On January 16, 2007, Blizzard hinted at Starcraft II at the Burning Crusade expansion launch night for World of Warcraft.[30] On May 13, 2007, a timeline was added at www.blizzard.com, documenting the three flagship series. It is assumed that the timeline will end on May 19, when Blizzard is scheduled to announce their new game. On May 19, 2007 Blizzard Entertainment announced that StarCraft II is in development.[23]
I think we should add something similar to that into article. Of course we should condense it and try to avoid POV, so non-SC players can understand the significance of the release of this sequel. Oidia 14:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So essentially what you want to add is a section similar to the one over on our C&C3 page? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background Info

message: I couldn't tell from the video if it was "warp-ray" or "war-prey".  I thought it was the first, the entry says the second.
warp ray <<< thats the right one
It's definitely Warp Ray. This can be confirmed by viewing the unit videos of Sc2. 24.254.48.67 19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, this official screenshot from Blizzard confirms that it's "Warp Ray". - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 20:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  warprey or warpray 

message: We should get rid of the names that have not been released yet for units.  Like the protoss Pheonix? Not happening.  Only things on the offical website(s) of blizzard should be used.
:Several names were also mentioned at WWI, but not placed on the website. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 21:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to make this accurate. 

message: VolkovBot removed the entire section on multiplayer for no apparent reason. Should it be reverted? Vocaro 22:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a glitch in the bot. -- RattleMan 22:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes add the multiplayer section Jason13086 02:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I added it back in, with improvements. Vocaro 05:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did VolkovBot remove an entire section? 

message: The main gameplay will remain similar to that of its predecessor, Starcraft.  As Blizzard president Mike Morhaime stated in a press release, "[w]ith StarCraft II, we'll be able to do everything we wanted to do with the original StarCraft and more" - gameplay will focus on acquiring and allocating resources between a variety of units, structures and upgrades.
The three original races of the Starcraft will return in Starcraft II: Protoss, Terran, and Zerg. It has been announced that these are the only races in the game..  However, changes will be made to each race - new upgrades, abilities, and gameplay mechanics will be added.   For example, the Zergling will be able to mutate into a new unit, called the Baneling, which uses a physics-based suicide attack, while the Protoss will be able to erect shields anywhere, warp units to pylons and the new Phase Prism unit, and give Zealots a new "charge" ability to quickly close distances.
In addition, a number of new units have been revealed to be playable in Starcraft II. The Terran boast a Marine-like unit known as the Reaper, which uses a jump-jet to traverse uneven, or elevated, terrain.  The Zerg, along with the Baneling, also have a new transport unit known as the Nydus Worm, which is capable of moving smaller units underground..  
However, the Protoss have seen the largest expansion announced so far - with seven new units announced.  These include the Colossus, a quadrupedal vehicle capable of traversing elevated terrain and firing lasers, the Immortal, which replaces the "Dragoon" from Starcraft, and the Stalker, a variant on the Immortal, capable of teleporting short distances.  A number of new air units include the colossal hovering Mothership, a unique unit capable of multiple attacks and with a variety of special attacks, the Pheonix, an aircraft capable of overcharging its weapons for a special attack, the Warp Ray which uses a time-based damage attack, and the Phrase Prism which acts a mobile pylon and teleporter.
A number of heroes from the original game are slated to return, including Sarah Kerrigan and Zeratul.
--Haemo 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks nice, but sounds like an overdose of unit names and bolding. I think your focuses too much in listing out the units from the demo and not enough on the real life aspect of SC2's development. --Scottie_theNerd 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You forgot the Protoss mothership, so there are eight officially announced new Protoss units. 10:36 AM, 20 May 2007 (CST)
From what I'm reading sc2 will be signifcantly different from the original. See http://pc.ign.com/articles/790/790186p1.html and http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171178.html.
*game will be even more competitively oriented...design goal: "skilled players will be able to absolutely crush those of lesser ability"
**firing from high ground no longer reveals unit 
**'hard' unit counters, eg. templars to be the counter to zerglings, immortals to seige tanks, etc.
*more low-level tech options to make rushing more deadly (and scouting more important)
*games designed not to last more than 20 minutes (original games could last an hour sometimes)
Jason13086 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gameplay

message: *designed to be the ultimate competitive game
*ign article mentioned something about a tv channel showing games in north america
*will run on battle.net
Jason13086 18:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiplayer 

message: clearly hes the person in that picture and should be added to heros list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.130.39 (talk) 
:Let's not get ahead of ourselves. There's no source claiming that the concept art is "clearly" Mengsk nor are we sure that he will feature in StarCraft II. Be patient, wait until more information is released, and we can add to the article accordingly. --Scottie_theNerd 09:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could just be a flashback, after all ;) --Haemo 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We're interested in building an encyclopedia and our rules and policies are intended to help guide contributors towards that goal.  You're welcome to contribute elsewhere if our rules and policies are too restrictive.  You're also welcome to attempt to change some of those rules and policies.  --ElKevbo 14:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not interested in changing the rules. Good friend100 14:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia reports facts. That doesn't include guessing what might be included in the future. --Scottie_theNerd 15:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Aye.  Mengsk was the Emperor of the Terran Dominion... there are going to be pictures and statues of him everywhere regardless.  Until we know for sure that he's in it, we CANNOT include him in the article.  -  Ennuified  talk   00:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mengsk

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the article it is stated that "It supports DirectX 9 (pixel shader 2.0) and the development team is considering adding DirectX 10 as well." (Under "Features")  But in the site's (starcraft2.com) FAQ, Blizzard has said that the game will be "compatible with DirectX 10" (post-consideration); also, there's no direct mention of "DirectX 9" in the FAQ, although the FAQ goes on to say that it'll be compatible with previous versions of DirectX. Celeritas
:The distinction appears to be that the game does not currently use any DirectX 10 features, but that it is compatible with DirectX 10, i.e. it can be used on computers with DirectX 10. —Centrx→talk • 18:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like every DX9 game. Offtopic: Why the hell did Blizzard even use DirectX for graphics at all? If they are releasing a Mac version, they will have to reimplement the graphics engine with OpenGL anyway. WhyTF implement the same thing twice? It's not as if OpenGL is unsupported on Windows, or anything... despite Micro$oft's FUD department trying to tell everyone otherwise. In fact, with OpenGL you will get full DX10-equivalent graphics capabilities on Windows 98 ... if the GPU manufacturer bothers to provide a driver. </rant> - Anonymous 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. –Wulf 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DirectX

message: The word demo is used a lot in the article.  However, there is no explination as to what this is.  Blizzard has stated that no publicly available demo exists (http://www.starcraft2.com/faq.xml).  I'm assuming this is from what was playable at the Blizzard Convention or given to reviewers.  But even so, it doesn't make sense at the moment.  What demo is the article talking about?  --Notmyhandle 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The demo is the demonstration of game play displayed at the Convention. It is not the kind of demo you are thinking of. Jeltz talk 19:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, or simply call it a "demonstration", as demo makes people think it's something that one can play. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   04:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Demo" 

message: Please don't use YouTube videos as references. That's just laziness. All these gameplay videos are coming from somewhere, right? We certainly don't copy IGN articles to GeoCities pages and then cite that. Don't do the same for videos. --- RockMFR 03:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: they load the fastest though 65.2.87.44 03:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, in general, does not allow users to link to YouTube for Copyright sakes. Unless the video was posted by its creator, ei CBS' Youtube Channel, it should not be posted on Youtube. See WP:External Links --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Blizzard itself has the videos. This would seem to be the most official source. However, the videos on Blizzard's site are not streaming; they must be downloaded. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can currently stream the Cinematic Trailer and the Artwork/Gameplay trailer from the Starcraft II homepage via the flash at the top. 216.167.228.167 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube 

message: Its finally here!!! (eight years overdue, but I am not going to complain). On a more serious note: Has this announcement effected the development of SC:Ghost in any way, or has Blizzard refrained from providing that infomation? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghost was put on indefinite hold way before StarCraft II was announced. There has been no announcement about how SC2 has affected the development of Ghost. --Scottie_theNerd 07:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I bring it up is becuase some of the FAQ-related material I read seemed to suggest that Blizzard was developing a StarCraft II in line with Ghost. My take on the matter (and remember this is my opinion, not a fact) was that StarCraft II and Ghost were to be released around the same time on different platforms, which explained why a PC version for Ghost was noticably absent. Then I get the news that an official development announcement was made regarding SCII; so I thought that there may have been some connection between the two. Thats why I brought it up. In any case I thank you for the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not releasing a game for PC doesn't make it any easier for the StarCraft II development. --Scottie_theNerd 09:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  It seems doubtful that Ghost will ever come to be, and I would disagree with your opinion here, TomStar. -  Ennuified  talk   15:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghost is in development hell. It will come out on the same day Duke Nukem Forever comes out. Then again, I'm also willing to bet that this game will also be delayed, similar to the original StarCraft. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As this relates to Ghost...

message: While reading the article I can across a footnote referencing this as a fact "One of the most surprising revelations in the team's presentation was that StarCraft II will have the same number of units as the original game. That means that for every new unit added to a sides' army, one had to come out." -- gamespy 
This hardly seems like a reasonable fact. To me, it comes across a bit as somewhat of an outlandish statement. The question I ask is, when reporting information from an establish source (such as gamespy), should we subject particular claims, like the one above, to a bit more scrutiny when there is only one source to back it up? Sysrpl 17:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gamespy had an interview with several of SC2's production crew. The crew stated that the number of units would remain the same. What's so outlandish? - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It only comes across as outlandish if you don't consider that a lot of "new" units will be replacing old ones in roughly the same function (Immortals replacing Dragoons being the most obvious). There's nothing outlandish about that, it's par for the course for RTS sequels. Gotta keep things fresh, after all. Just adding new units without removing old ones is expansion pack material, and not something you can do in a sequel while still keeping things balanced. 82.95.254.249 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Gamespot did seem to mention that the number of units would be *around* the same, but I think that the thought of developers arbitrarily limiting themselves makes no sense. Yes, it's good not to dump in everything, but to keep the number of units EXACTLY the same? Stupid and pointless. darthsuo 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What constitutes a fact?

message: Some information from the French introduction can be translated and added to the English version. 
 French excerpt:
"On sait qu'actuellement, des professionnels du jeu vidéo sont en train de tester le jeu. L'équipe de développement est composée de 40 personnes environ[5],[6]. StarCraft II est très attendu par les communautés des STR de Blizzard Entertainment que sont les joueurs de Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne et StarCraft: Brood War. En effet, celui-ci est censé réunir les deux communautés et devenir ainsi le jeu de stratégie de référence pour les compétitions de sport électronique." 
My translation:
As of now, we know that professional players of the video game are currently testing the game. The development team encompasses approximately 40 members. As expected, StarCraft II has been very well received by Blizzard Entertainment's Real Time Strategy (RTS) community which revolves around Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne and StarCraft: Brood War. In effect, this game is intended to reunite these two communities and is therefore predestined to become the new game of reference for future electronic sports competitions. --IntricateBalance 04:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only thing in that article which is sourced is the claim of 40 members on the team.  The rest is unsourced speculation.  --Haemo 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In addition Blizzard already has two former pro gamers working for them fulltime, these people are Pillars and Zileas, both were incredible succefull online Warcraft/starcraft players, besides those two there prolly won't be any professional gamers involved until the Beta, The Beta of starcraft II, judging from former RTS betas of blizzard will go on for atleast 1-2 months, this gives Blizzard plenty of time to get feedback for game balance and such and this is where the progamers will come into the picture. And probably not before then Salle79 11:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Additions For The English Article Has been Obtained from the French version.  

message: I don't remember seeing that in the gameplay video.  Where was this picture from?
:It's the official logo of starcraft II, various newsites, forums and other starcraft II related webpages uses it, it is the new symbol of Starcraft II, you can also see the logo at the very end in the official Starcraft II movie released at starcraft2.com. Source for movie with the logo at the end of the movie:http://www.starcraft2.com/movies.xml Salle79 05:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try clicking the picture next time.  :-p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   05:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that the picture he's referring to?  I can't find any link between his comment to the logo.  In case he meant the other picture:  Comparing the minimap in the screenshot with the officially released gameplay video on starcraft2.com, it appears to be the identical map.  Yet you are correct that it did not appear in the gameplay video.  Perhaps it is from an extended version of that video or from the collection of screenshots on starcraft2.com.  Khono 05:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Picture 

message: Shouldn't we mention that the lead designer is no longe Rob Pardo and is now Justin Browder (CNC and LOTR RTS games) ? Clearly his influence on the game has been seen..
:It is mentioned that the lead designer is Justin Browder.  --Haemo 06:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design team 

message: I think whoever wrote this confused the old Recall ability with the new ability to create units within pylon/phase prism power fields. It looks like theyre warping units in (ie, recall) but in fact they are creating them on the spot, the phase prisms are only used to create a power field. In addition, we dont actually know whether arbiters are in the game or not, and the fate of the Recall ability as well. I say the line should be removed unless someone has a source.
also, "Terran Marines have been given a physical shield." I don't think a citation is actually NEEDED, seeing as how it can plainly be seen in the screenshot to the right of the paragraph. Someones been going citation crazy. And if someone wants a source for the units being called marines, its in the gameplay trailer (when the zeals first engage the marines, he calls them marines).
--66.215.17.13 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's with the citation templates anyway? The abilities are specifically stated in the video demonstration and actually shown in gameplay. --Scottie_theNerd 09:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for instance, where's the citation that these new Terran units are called "reapers"?  Where's the citation for the fact that "recall" has been extended to structures?  I'll remove the physical shield one, but the other two are really necessary.  --Haemo 21:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Good man - we've added a ref for that; we still need one for the recall one.  --Haemo 01:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The recall ability doesn't have a name yet, it's just referred to as "warping in" a unit.  --Notmyhandle 06:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a good thing we removed it then! --Haemo 08:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some citation stuff 

message: It seems kind of obvious that Mengsk would be around he is a major character after all and since he was in Ghost and Ghost takes place at the same time it would be apparent that he is alive. Another thing we should mention somewhere in the article that it takes place at the same time as Ghost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs).
:Since Ghost was never even released, it cannot be used as a definitive reference point. --Scottie_theNerd 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mengsk II

message: I'm sorry, I must've been mistaken about seeing October written on the page somewhere. 216.197.215.173 23:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was there it probably got removed. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and Blizzard has a long history of rolling back release dates for their products. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: Wikipedia should keep a record of people who change/create articles because many abuse the capabilities of changing/making an article. For example, when I viewed the Starcraft 2 article it says that "Starcraft 2 is going to SUCK BALLS" and all other information that was once in the article are now missing. I know that this complaint doesn't belong in this discussion. Thank you. 
Soniqe 03:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's typical vandalism that can be undone by anybody. Wikipedia keeps records of who edits what with each article History page, but it is up to other editors to identify more malicious vandals and report them to administrators if they continue to vandalise after repeat warnings. --Scottie_theNerd 04:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the vandalism on high traffic pages like this happens to pop up on MartinBot's radar the edits to the article have to be checked manually. Thankfully, since the edit history of the page is stored everytime someone hits save, its an easy matter to determine who is responisble for the vandalism. In most cases vandalism is caught and revert rather quickly either by people monitering the recent changes list or Wikipedia Users (like me) who have the article on their watch list. Its not perfect, but its the best we can do. From a technical stand point this article already has an edge against vandalism since it is Semi-protected. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been in it's vandalized form for hours. What gives!? 151.199.55.201 07:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you cleared your browser's cache? --Scottie_theNerd 07:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in Articles 

message: Firstly, my main irk with adding it is that it appears to be just like any other fansite, and Wikipedia is not a directory for such sites. But, I don't think notability would be too hard to establish with proper explanation here. However, I'm concerned as to where the site gets its information from. The background information is taken from the official SC2 site, and the abilities are derived from the WWI demonstration, but the "original" information such as unit stats and costs appear to be speculation based on the original StarCraft. Comments? --Scottie_theNerd 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are any fanbased websites that could be considered as "good enough to backup what they are claiming" then it would be Infoceptor and Starcraft.org. both these websites have existed for a very long time and currently has or had former Blizzard employes as members of their website. their knowledge and "know how" of Starcraft is quite extensive, i would trust them a hell lot more than for example gamespy or gamespot even if they claimed that they claimed that they heard it directly from a Blizzard employee, Infoceptors Unit F.A.Q page is more than just speculations and guesses, i can tell you that much and that it probably with high accuracy reflects the current condition of Starcraft II, I wouldn't be suprised if they gotten the stats directly from someone inside Blizzard. iF anyone still thinks that the information Infoceptor has provided is "crap" then atleast consider it "perfect crap", Infoceptor has existed for a very long time and the people on the site knows starcraft. Only website that can compete with them is Starcraft.org and Blizzard themselfs. 89.160.65.215 11:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Links to Wikias allows readers to access more resources that might not meet Wikipedia's requirements to be used in the article itself, and I see many articles that link to more in-depth Wikias for that reason. That's arguable, of course, and that can be discussed on the VG WikiProject if it's a point of debate. Back to the point - given the amount of resources on Infoceptor, I'm personally satisfied with it, but I'm unsure as to how it fits in with WP:EL. Additionally, the original StarCraft article doesn't link to Infoceptor, though I haven't been following the article enough to know if it was there and removed. --Scottie_theNerd 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infocepter 

message: The insertion of this material is still on-going - I just wanted to to ensure that we have consensus that:
# Infoceptor is not a reliable source
# This material should not be included in the article.
--Haemo 02:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you are the only one interested in reverting a reliable source. Notice how the information I gave about the Starcraft 2 storyline on Tychus Findlay is now verified officially by Blizzard at Starcraft Insider. Of course, this information was made available to official fansites days ago.  --Ceptryn 03:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is asinine - seriously, other people need to speak up about this.  Do we, or do we not, care about having reliable sources for this article?  Reliable sources are a guidelines, but not one I can do anything about alone - am I way off base in thinking this? --Haemo 07:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Still ongoing

message: Here my fellow editers lies the reason for the hidden messages in each section: the appearnce of the page Starcraft II Confirmed Units and Structures. I notice that the hidden message in the section to which the see also tag was added had been removed, here we are not even a full day from the descion to redact some of these messages and pages that meet our criteria for speedy deletion have begun popping up. I admit that the messages are large and imposing, especially in sections where there is little visable written material, but they did serve well to stop this kind of thing before. I submit that we need to reinstate these massages ASAP. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Justification

message: The article currently says something about multiplayer matches being broadcast on television in North America. I checked the IGN article, but it doesn't seem clear whether they are referring to StarCraft or StarCraft II. Any comments on this? --- RockMFR 01:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're not sure - and I'm not, since it appears to refer to both - I'd lean towards eliminating it, to be on the safe side.  --Haemo 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: In other words, it's nothing but speculation. Which means it doesn't belong in the article. -- Kesh 00:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Television broadcasts