Starcraft 1 Beta had Yellow Minerals!

[ArcherofAiur]

The way they had the Undead designed was really, really interesting. I believe the 6 (Yes, they started wanting to do 6 races) different races often used different resources, and the Undead were the most unique, using only corpses and mana to build buildings and units.

The Necromancer was a "building" hero, who basically sat at your base, sacrificed units for mana, and you used the mana to summon in buildings. Killing things gave you corpses as a resource, which let you create units (and there was supposed to be this undead hand animation that would come out of the ground, seize recently slain units, and drag them under the earth).

Do you know anywhere I could find out more information on that?

Basically what I'm saying is: Blizzard's original ideas and what they actually make a game out of are often drastically different. Some really neat ideas don't make it because they just didn't work out, as fun as they sound, and other ideas don't make it for Blizzard knows why.

I 100% agree. But I think the key is trying over and over to improve on what youve done even if it keeps not working. If it was easy to improve on Dune II someone would have done it long before.

[ManjiSanji]

I've been looking around a bit, and I've not been able to find anything about the old version of the game, unfortunately, but I'll keep looking. It was very early, like the old images we see of SC1 that looked like Warcraft 2 kind of a difference. The graphics weren't bad, it was just a substantially different looking game. There were wayyyyyyyy less units, and everything had more of an up-close view, instead of a top-down view.

[TheEconomist]

Wow, it's amazing how many people haven't seen this yet. When StarCraft 2 was announced I went on a SC1 beta information frenzy to get a guess on how much will change in the SC2 beta.

[Kacaier]

And marines shooting down a battlecruiser is very realistic????

Yes, I find that a lot more plausible. A small projectile going at hypersonic speeds will hit a BC. Now, doing any real damage like 5 to a 600 HP BC sounds ridiculous, but the hitting is there nevertheless. Guided tank shells will never hit anything aerial, unless it was a flying helicopter that happened to be hovering right in front of the tank's barrel.

[Shadow Archon]

Yes, I find that a lot more plausible. A small projectile going at hypersonic speeds will hit a BC. Now, doing any real damage like 5 to a 600 HP BC sounds ridiculous, but the hitting is there nevertheless. Guided tank shells will never hit anything aerial, unless it was a flying helicopter that happened to be hovering right in front of the tank's barrel.

Depends on how fast the aerial vehicle is going and their trajectory. A guided shell hitting an aerial vehicle is not as outlandish as you think. In Ironman(Yes I'm referencing a fictional source, but hey SC is fiction as well.), a Tank shoots down Iron-Man/ Tony Stark.

[Kacaier]

Depends on how fast the aerial vehicle is going and their trajectory. A guided shell hitting an aerial vehicle is not as outlandish as you think. In Ironman(Yes I'm referencing a fictional source, but hey SC is fiction as well.), a Tank shoots down Iron-Man/ Tony Stark.

A guided shell is that, a shell that is guided. Because of this, it's only momentous force is from the origin launch. It cannot gain velocity. So, a guided shell can only move side to side and control in a small degree its descent. With those constraints, a tank's turret would have to track an aerial vehicle and launch at an angle so its arc would be in range of the plane. Imagine the crap load of targeting variables it would have to calculate. The shell is designed for a ground-based, or at the very least, a slow-moving target.

It would be an absolute waste of material and computing resources for the tank's main gun to have the ability shoot a plane down. Not to mention the payoff would be very limited. Majority of a tank's shots would most likely to fail in hitting its target. That's why they have side-tubed GtA missiles, or aerial support.

[Shadow Archon]

A guided shell is that, a shell that is guided. Because of this, it's only momentous force is from the origin launch. It cannot gain velocity. So, a guided shell can only move side to side and control in a small degree its descent. With those constraints, a tank's turret would have to track an aerial vehicle and launch at an angle so its arc would be in range of the plane. Imagine the crap load of targeting variables it would have to calculate. The shell is designed for a ground-based, or at the very least, a slow-moving target.

It would be an absolute waste of material and computing resources for the tank's main gun to have the ability shoot a plane down. Not to mention the payoff would be very limited. Majority of a tank's shots would most likely to fail in hitting its target. That's why they have side-tubed GtA missiles, or aerial support.

You are correct that it is impractical, but I was just pointing it out that its not impossible to have a tank shoot down an aircraft with guided shells with the aircraft not being right in front of the Barrels.

[Pandonetho]

Hey man, if a terrorist can shoot the Iron Man going at the speed of sound, anyone can do it!

[Quirel]

It would be an absolute waste of material and computing resources for the tank's main gun to have the ability shoot a plane down. Not to mention the payoff would be very limited. Majority of a tank's shots would most likely to fail in hitting its target. That's why they have side-tubed GtA missiles, or aerial support.

Yeah, because a tank needing to transform to deploy an artillery cannon is the epitome of realism.

[ManaPirate]

Scorpions can shoot down Banshees pretty handily in Halo, and all they're packing is a 90mm cannon. I bet a Siege tank could hit a mutalisk if it tried real hard xD