On March 03 2010 05:02 internetwarrior wrote: I also called someone partially blind because if you appreciate the walking animation of the colossus, as well as its animation for going up and down cliffs, it is A FACT: you are partially blind.
You're calling me a nostalgic? Remove the Thor also. Not because it's taking something else's place, but just because it looks fugly. Replace with whatever you want, I'm not nostalgic, I just don't like things that look and play like shit.
I actually have been here before, but as you have accurately pointed out I tend to not last long because negativity on just about any subject is more or less strictly forbidden. I guess we're not allowed to dislike new units either? Just hail Blizzard?
Ok then.
Woohoo the Colossus is awesome! It's so original I've never seen that kind of design before, and its walking animation is sooo well done I mean just look at that badass going up a cliff OMG. And it shoots LASERS! A giant alien robot of MEGA DEATH! Wow! Sign me up!
I actually have been here before, but as you have accurately pointed out I tend to not last long because negativity on just about any subject is more or less strictly forbidden. I guess we're not allowed to dislike new units either? Just hail Blizzard?
Ok then.
Woohoo the Colossus is awesome! It's so original I've never seen that kind of design before, and its walking animation is sooo well done I mean just look at that badass going up a cliff OMG. And it shoots LASERS! A giant alien robot of MEGA DEATH! Wow! Sign me up!
All of your posts in this thread have been the literal text equivalent of this:
If you wish to argue a negative point, please actually ARGUE for it. Don't just continue to pat yourself on the back and apply copious ad hominems to everyone who argues against you.
You're allowed to dislike new units, but why not offer criticism on how to improve them, instead of whining about how an older unit was better. I'm sure the Blizzard devs have heard this story a thousand times by now and have their reasons for sticking to the new unit.
how does this thread NOT get locked yet I make an exact thread about Thor vs goliaths and it gets locked after 4 posts? Seriously i am curious about this.
On March 03 2010 05:39 Rhinoceros wrote: I'm sure the Blizzard devs have heard this story a thousand times by now and have their reasons for sticking to the new unit.
Yeah, Rob Pardo thought that a giant tripod lookalike that shoots lasers would be so much cooler and more original. Also as some other guy mentioned (probably banned by now) it has more potential for merchandising.
Reavers in shuttles were hard as hell to control, thus I love them. The better players, like stork and bisu, would not have as convincing PvP stats if reavers were replaced with colossus because it would dumb the battles down.
I also miss spider mines, scourge and m'n'm vs. lurkers. So far in SC2 I haven't seen the challenges these created but I'm hoping that it will change as we all learn more about the game.
On March 03 2010 05:42 Tiamat wrote: how does this thread NOT get locked yet I make an exact thread about Thor vs goliaths and it gets locked after 4 posts? Seriously i am curious about this.
I guess the mods are out? But yeah Thors are pretty terrible also. Even if I don't particularly like the Goliath that much.
You guys haven't seen what you could do with the WC3 game engine eh? In WC3, you can mod the crap out of any model and create your own abilities (ie, own mechanics, animations, and how the ability is casted). This is shown really well in DotA since almost all the the spells were self-made and all the characters have slight changes.
Since this is Starcraft II, it should be even easier to design new units, and IMO, Blizzard's BETA version of Starcraft is purely for making the game balanced. And trust me, that's probably the most important part of non-UMS Starcraft since blizzard wants people playing really long until they get off their asses and make another breakthrough game. Most of the old unit models will probably be available in the Campaign editor, and possibly, Blizzard will let us design entirely new Character models in SC2.
On March 03 2010 05:44 Gigaudas wrote: Reavers in shuttles were hard as hell to control, thus I love them. The better players, like stork and bisu, would not have as convincing PvP stats if reavers were replaced with colossus because it would dumb the battles down.
I haven't said that myself because I thought it was self-evident. Reavers to Colossi dumbs the game down.
That video kinda creeps me out. But I don't mind the colossus. Nor would I say its a replacement for the reaver. Sure, the reaver isn't in the game, but just cause they added a new unit doesn't mean it replaces another in that sense.
As for the mechanics of the colossus, I don't mind that its a tripod either. It may not be that original as some other units, but it plays its role the way blizzard had wanted it to, more of less. SC2 isn't like SC, so it seems like the reaver probably wouldn't work the way it would if it were implemented in SC2. But who knows, I don't have a beta key. >:
Going to have to just trust Blizzard and tripods. :D
On March 03 2010 05:46 Squallcloud wrote: I like change.
I like change when it's to replace with something better, not change for change's sake. You could replace all the units in the game if you'd like, it would be a lot of change. Would be it better? Doubtful.
I haven't said that myself because I thought it was self-evident. Reavers to Colossi dumbs the game down.
If you like/defend it, your loss.
Okay. So everyone who disagrees with you concerning Colossi and Reavers is just wrong. This nicely eliminates the need for a discussion thread on the topic.
the colossus just doesnt have that "glass cannon" effect to it. most every unit in sc2 is an evenly balanced unit in terms of durability to damaging power. basically the more damage a unit does the more durable it is and the more expensive it is.
reaver did insane damage but with drawbacks, the need for scarabs and its slow speed.(and dumb ai but it prolly wasnt designed that way). made battles more interesting cuz there was actually something to target to kill that could change the momentum of the whole game.
I haven't said that myself because I thought it was self-evident. Reavers to Colossi dumbs the game down.
If you like/defend it, your loss.
Okay. So everyone who disagrees with you concerning Colossi and Reavers is just wrong. This nicely eliminates the need for a discussion thread on the topic.
Goodbye, thread. I won't miss you.
Your only semi-serious argument, Peabody, is that Reavers in the SC2 engine that "never misses" would be incredibly unbalanced. Wow! I wonder if that could be tweaked by maybe reducing the damage per scarab down to an acceptable level?
Give me a break, there is nothing serious to defend the colossus other than "it's new". Which is what I'd call piss poor an argument.
On March 03 2010 05:54 onewingedmoogle wrote: the colossus just doesnt have that "glass cannon" effect to it. most every unit in sc2 is an evenly balanced unit in terms of durability to damaging power. basically the more damage a unit does the more durable it is and the more expensive it is.
reaver did insane damage but with drawbacks, the need for scarabs and its slow speed.(and dumb ai but it prolly wasnt designed that way). made battles more interesting cuz there was actually something to target to kill that could change the momentum of the whole game.
Thanks for pointing out another obvious aspect of it that seems to elude most of these GIANT ROBOT OF DEATH advocates.
EPT
