|
On March 03 2010 05:55 internetwarrior wrote:
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.
You are so dense it is unbelievable. Lock this thread already plz.
|
On March 03 2010 05:38 Islandsnake wrote:
I voted option 2 because the OP was already bias lol
same
|
On March 03 2010 05:27 internetwarrior wrote:
Gilaboy: do you have any arguments other than "this is new" or the excellent "I like giant alien robots of mega death".
New != better, last I checked.
Man dude, you are just looking to pick a fight aren't you?
Never said I like giant alien robots or whatever, but what I do like is effective change. I enjoy the Colossus because I think its ability to scale cliffs, and overall impact against light ground units sways the way my opponent will approach how they both defend themselves and attack me. On top of that, the fact that it can be hit by air-to-air units means that I must be mindful of exactly what I bring out with it. I think this has caused me to make sure I'm bringing out properly mixed armies, because I hate to see my resources get wasted when a Colossus gets taken down by Vikings.
Also, how are you having such a hard time with the giant robot thing man? Seriously, everything in Starcraft and all other Sci-Fi games/movies/books take from one another that its just not worth getting worked up about. The only reason I think your OP is terrible is because here at TL we strive to have effective and meaningful discussion, and that requires effort from both the initiator of the conversation, and those that engage with them. So please, just put forth a little more effort in the OP next time and I think you'll find you get both a lot more respect, and useful debate.
|
Reading this thread is almost as bad as reading youtube comments...
|
You really voted 2 because like most carebears around here you are unable to handle a negative opinion on anything. So you voted 2. Good job kids.
|
Don't worry I am sure someone will release a mod that will make the colossus look like a reaver and the lasers like scarabs, it will make all the internet warriors happy.
|
On March 03 2010 05:50 internetwarrior wrote: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.
Quote all he said. He had a reason for what he said.
|
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.
Well, no matter how you balanced it, the SC2 Reaver would still do massive amounts of damage in a way that is not inherently that "interesting"; i.e. once you add in great pathfinding and consequently make it so the Reaver pretty much always hits the units it fires at within a certain range, then the incredible excitement of scarabs (will it land, will it land?) in SC1 goes away pretty quickly. The only way to keep this excitement would be to make the scarabs much slower (a la HK missile on the Raven), so that running units away from the scarabs would be an actually viable form of micro in a world where Scarabs don't randomly glitch out on units, walls, and mineral patches.
Also, a damage reduction would almost definitely be necessary, either in addition to or in place of the slower scarabs.
However, if you reduce the Reaver's damage too much, or make its projectiles too slow, you risk making it practically useless; the fact that it is one of only two units in the game to have build to its ammo using minerals, is incredibly slow, and requires another unit to be useful are all huge drawbacks against it, balanced out in SC1 by its incredible damage. If you reduce this too much, you're looking at a mostly-unused unit.
Also, with the fast speed of SC2, a T2 unit that is that slow and really only useful once you've built another unit and paired it with it another unit would be an even bigger liability in SC2 than in SC1. SC2 moves much faster than SC1, especially early-to-midgame; getting out a Reaver/Warp Prism in time to fight the units its supposed to counter would be much more difficult.
Also, being almost totally immobile without another unit to make it mobile is much less of a liability in SC1 (where most units are fairly immobile anyway) than in SC2, where almost all viable units are fast and extremely mobile.
The Colossus is also an interesting unit, what with its linear splash damage, cliff-walking abilities (both allowing for various types of positioning micro), and susceptibility to anti-air; but it simply fits better into SC2 than the Reaver would. This is no slight.
|
How can they have the same score looool
The reaver is like 100x better.
One of the best old units vs one of the worst new units >.<
|
United States47024 Posts
There needs to be a 3rd option: a unit that's in the spirit of the reaver, but *isn't* the reaver.
On March 03 2010 05:55 internetwarrior wrote:
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.
Toning down scarab damage would be a stupid compromise. What made the Reaver interesting was it's high risk-high reward nature. A Reaver that always hits but can't 1-shot a giant clump of workers just isn't nearly as exciting.
|
You really voted 2 because like most carebears around here you are unable to handle a negative opinion on anything. So you voted 2. Good job kids.
You obviously have not looked up "ad hominem" yet.
But, please, don't let me stop you from getting banned. You're doing such a wonderful job of it...
|
On March 03 2010 06:13 internetwarrior wrote:
You really voted 2 because like most carebears around here you are unable to handle a negative opinion on anything. So you voted 2. Good job kids.
If he had simply said he didn't like the colossus that would have been that, but he didn't, he insulted people who may like the colossus.
|
effective change.
I enjoy the Colossus because I think its ability to scale cliffs
I hear the shuttles had a really hard time getting over cliffs.
and overall impact against light ground units sways the way my opponent will approach how they both defend themselves and attack me.
A big change/improvement over reavers which were really ineffective against light ground units.
On top of that, the fact that it can be hit by air-to-air units means that I must be mindful of exactly what I bring out with it.
Much unlike shuttles who were completely immune to AA.
put forth a little more effort in the OP next time and I think you'll find you get both a lot more respect, and useful debate.
Honestly I don't see the useful debate happening with people who can't even admit that unlike the Reaver, the Colossus is a very unoriginal unit design wise, and that while it retains some characteristics of the Reaver (AOE damage, same tier/building reqs, expensive) it is also much less of a glass cannon and therefore much less interesting or tension-inducing than the colossus. The few intelligent people on this thread have explained it very well actually, and it seems the others just want something new no matter how better or worse it is.
Personally I'm not excited about SC2 just because it's SC2 and there are OMGNEW units, I'm hoping it can come close to the first in terms of quality of gameplay and originality. Which doesn't seem to be a concern with units like the Colossus being both less interesting and original.
|
Honestly I don't see the useful debate happening with people who can't even admit that unlike the Reaver, the Colossus is a very unoriginal unit design wise, and that while it retains some characteristics of the Reaver (AOE damage, same tier/building reqs, expensive) it is also much less of a glass cannon and therefore much less interesting or tension-inducing than the colossus. The few intelligent people on this thread have explained it very well actually, and it seems the others just want something new no matter how better or worse it is.
So you can't see a useful debate happening with people who disagree with you.
Wonderful.
Also, please read my post above.
|
Alright I'm done with you, you're being rude now...Mods can we get a lock on this?
|
I like the reaver myself, but arguing (if you can call what you're doing arguing) that anyone who likes the colossus is wrong/partially blind/etc is just plain juvenile. It's ok to not like it, but eventually you'll have to realize it is just your opinion. You don't like the model or its animation? I don't think it is anything particularily spectacular, but I like it. It fits in well with the other walkers the protoss use.
I personally like the unit gameplay wise. The cliff walking can be interesting for micro in battles if a nearby cliff is available to exploit. While the colossus isn't anywhere near as vunerable as the reaver (you pay for its durability in resources ... it is much more expensive than a reaver) you still have to pay attention to positioning and protecting it. There are a lot of units that can pick it off relatively quickly (like vikings) and while not as slow as a reaver, they are still slow enough to be vulnerable. Positioning is also important to optimize its damage. Basically ... I think it is an interesting gameplay unit, not just an "a walk for the noobs" unit. They can be used that way, but you can make them MUCH more effective through good control ... I dunno kinda like ... a reaver.
It's fine if you don't like it, but stop acting like a child and pretending your opinions are facts. It isn't having a negative view on something that's gotten you banned; it is the trollish manner you present your "arguments."
PS ... The colossus has 4 legs not 3. A lot of the concept artwork has 3 ... but the model has four. You may want to work on your counting.
|
I REALLY REALLY would want to like the Collosus, it looked so FREAKEN COOL! But I HAVE to agree that Reavers takes more skills to control. It feels SOO good when one of the Scarab hits this clumps of units and then you go "Yes I have this game in the bag!". And I think if Reavers were to exist in StarCraft 2, the Scarab can be a little slower or make it targetable by units so it takes more skills to actually use some attack to kill the Scarab before it reaches target.
|
|
|
On March 03 2010 06:32 madsweepslol wrote:
well said, 789
Agreed, 789 nailed it
|
I miss many of the old units too. The lurker, the reaver, defiler, medic, arbiter, vulture, firebat, etc. But come on, it's a new game! Let's give some of these new units a chance and see how they will play out. Maybe they'll turn out to be retarded and won't work out, and maybe it will turn out that they can be used in many creative ways we haven't yet anticipated.
The colossus is not without merit. As other partially-blind. clearly 12-year old people have already pointed out, the colossus' ability to walk cliffs, do line damage (hey, that's more original than AoE explosions!), and susceptibility to air attack all contribute to creating a balance of strength and weakness that can lead to interesting tactical situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
