EPTyou're right
, but still. it still has the same point I was talking about, emp does a lot of dmg.Come back units - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
you're right , but still. it still has the same point I was talking about, emp does a lot of dmg. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
Protoss- Reavern (self explanatory) DT (lack of a warning in your mineral line when workers died made this ridiculous; I'd like this back.) Arbiter (Multiple fast moving motherships. Wat.) Zerg- Defiler (Infinitely untouchable units with consume, raped Terran in narrow corridors and turned the dynamics of the MU up till this tech on it's head) Lurker (Gandalf unit) Terran- Siege tank (cost 2 supply, had higher damage than they do now) Vulture (75 minerals, 2 shots workers, fastest unit in the game, costs 1 supply, can shit 3 invisible detecting nuclear bombs) Any of those in SC2 would SCREAM imbalanced (and many people echoed this exact sentiment). Period. But it somehow worked. Yet there are a few units in SC2 that are similar Protoss- Sentry (Huge game changer, alters terrain effectively) Zerg- Infestor Terran- Nothing really stands out. Generally well rounded. I guess there just aren't as many super efficient units in SC2. I'm willing to give it time though. The games good as it is, but there's room to improve and the upcoming expansions give me hope! ^_^ | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On October 06 2011 05:56 Jerubaal wrote: So basically you want to play bad, but then win anyway. K. That's not what he's saying at all . . . you're a douche and dismissing someone's argument by construing their words in a different context is not good enough quality to warrant a post. Honestly if you're going to post here at all at least try to contribute something to the conversation. He's arguing that there needs to more exciting units in the game, units that if used well can get someone back into a game. As it stands, StarCraft 2 lacks a lot of these units and makes for a less exciting game and a game in which two or three battles decides the outcome of the game. Making more units that require lots of player interaction (with the potential for massive payoffs) increases the skill cap for BOTH players and makes for a far more enjoyable spectator experience (one that is filled with intense moments and crazy moves that people love to see). Watch a Brood War highlight video versus a StarCraft II highlight video. You'll see a big difference. @Kimaker I like your post. So many overpowered units that the game was balanced and yet always exciting. And don't forget the science vessel!  | ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
That is what it comes down to. These are the units that have the potential to take out a large number of units quickly, generally without putting the unit itself at risk. So I mean aren't we basically just discussing the effectiveness of the AoE damage units in SC2? | ||
|
The Black
United States222 Posts
| ||
|
garlicface
Canada4196 Posts
Other than that, banelings, hellions. | ||
|
awu25
United States2003 Posts
| ||
|
Complete
United States1864 Posts
On October 06 2011 04:37 LaGTTBloodThirsty wrote: infestors arent that good of a CBU anymore if u play anyone who can properly micro/split O_o not to mention feedback snipe and i think emp all out range any kind of fungal now fungal range hasn't changed since like, beta? Nor has emp our feedback. fungal outranges feedback. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Mutalisks are hugely impactful and increase in effectiveness with good micro, but nobody loses their army and goes, better build a lot of mutalisks! If anything you use mutalisks to compound an advantage. Banshees could only be seen as a comeback unit if it was very early in the game. People rarely make banshees in the midgame. The only time you see this is when one player has a large tank advantage and someone makes a banshee to shoot them. This thread has the same warped view that a lot of BW> SC2 threads have in that it mistakes the artifacts of the limitations of the day with good design. Ok, maybe awesome reaver micro could make the unit great, but that was because the unit itself was inherently crappy. Is that what you want? Stupid, inherently crappy units? Is that good design to you? We had the epitome of a comeback unit. It was called the blue flame hellion. It was stupid. | ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
On October 06 2011 06:09 awu25 wrote: This is a "I wish SC2 was more like BW" thread. How can high templar only be 2 in SC2 and a 6 in BW? You've basically taken pimpest plays from BW that happened like once ever and give the unit as a whole a huge comeback number. How often did you see arbiter hallucination -> recall? Probably only once. No one has come even close to executing something similar in SC2. I mean, we rarely even see storm drops on harvesters in SC2 I second this.... we have yet to see the full potential of Storm Drops... if executed well, it will certainly be an awesome comeback unit! | ||
|
Snorkle
United States1648 Posts
Perfect. Auto casting make every sc2 caster way easier to use than in BW which is why they are weaker which is why there is less comeback factor. Unit clumping also contributes to AOE damage being weaker throughout the game. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On October 06 2011 05:10 Mafs wrote: I play chess and I HATE when people compare the 2. In chess there are come back moves, which make it much much more entertaining. Same with SC2. Nothing feels better then watching someone behind just dominate their opponent because they make perfect moves. And SC2 doesnt have CBU because that makes the comeback that much easier. You should be able to come back only if you outplay your opponent. Making infestors shouldn't instantly win the game unless the person has no counter. I want SC2 to be like chess. In chess, you make a comeback by...playing better than your opponent. And, yes, if your opponent has a marginal advantage and is playing perfectly he should win. There is no, 'well I'm in a really bad position but watch as I micro my queen and kill half his pieces'. | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
There is no, 'well I'm in a really bad position but watch as I micro my queen and kill half his pieces'. Unfortunately StarCraft is a real time strategy were fast hands matter and are appreciated. | ||
|
Dragonblood21
United States139 Posts
The statement of "come back unit" makes people think "well hey any unit can make a comeback if used right" and they are of course correct. But the range of possibilities or outcomes each unit possesses is not the same. To put this in it's most simple form, a player which does not micro his marines will always have his marine do damage, as they shoot automatically. A player which does not micro his high templar will never have his templar do damage, as they do not do anything on their own. However, although this sounds like I am stating it is entirely dependent on skill, I actually feel it is not. I believe it is just a variable in the equation of "what can a unit really do?". The units that have a large amount of factors that play in to what they can do are the units that are being discussed in this thread. And that is what I feel like blizzard should be attempting to do. Design units to have a large amount of factors that decide how effective the unit is. To give an example with the reaver in BW, since that is a very solid unit example, stork's micro did not entirely define the outcome of what his reaver did. A better turret and tank placement by darkelf would have made a much different outcome. If Darkelf pulled his SCVs away and the reaver shot got caught up on a mineral patch ending in a dud, that changes the outcome. If the map was highly unfavorable to a reaver drop, that may have detoured the play from happening at all. I can list examples all day of what can effect these units, but now when I swing to the example of lets say, a zealot, the amount of factors in the game that effects this unit is much smaller. It almost entirely comes down to how this unit engages in combat, and how good the player is with the unit, that decides the outcome. Even a marine, although certainly containing more factors as to how efficient and effective it is than a zealot, still often fails in comparison to the example reaver here. I state again, I feel as though Blizzard should be attempting to make units have a large amount of factors that decide the outcome of the game. Now of course this requires testing, balancing, a lot of hard work really. An overload of these type of units that have such a large range of factors might prove to be a negative thing. Who knows? But the game is certainly much more entertaining, to me at the least, to both watch and play when there are units that can make such drastic impacts in the game. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 06 2011 04:23 KevinIX wrote: This looks completely arbitrary. x2. I read the OP hoping for something more mathematical in nature and was disappointed when all I saw was the OP adding numbers to the different units as he/she saw fit. Example: I would've rated phoenixes much higher than 2, maybe 4 or so. They have a lot of applications with graviton beam and MC's stargate style of play shows their potential. Anyways, the problem with units such as the reaver, defiler, etc.... is that if they were to be put into SCII, they would be the exact definition of OP. Units pack up more tightly and you can select more than 12 units. That doesn't take into account the better AI so a single reaver can probably wipe out a ton of units in one shot and would be much much worse than the a-move colossus that it should replace. Vultures are debatable since you can get observers/overseers/ravens for spider mines(maybe even use FG  ) so in a sense they should be fine. Defilers are debatable as well since dark swarm is crazy good and I can't imagine how much harder TvsZ would be if they were in it(looking at this from my league). Something like the lurker would add better to the game imo but SCII isn't boring to watch. Even if you can figure out what composition both players are going for, there is always the uncertainty factor such as who'll make a mistake first or storm/emp first, where will they engage? Who's gonna ff better? Will he get all the fungals off or get emp/sniped first? Will he walk over the banes? Those are what adds to the game imo. Things such as reaver drops and double muta harass are harder in BW due to the interface. I watched some of the videos posted, didn't find the arbiter one really interesting or exciting. It was pretty obvious that the Terran was gonna lose the match considering the lack of units to take them out before they recalled everything. The storm one is a bit more impressive but nothing over the top again, just much harder in BW due to the interface. The dt one was interesting but I've been able to do that before so like the arbiter wasn't crazy exciting XD Edi: I think I should've answered the question. I think SCII is fine as well and I don't think adding new units that have the potential to turn the tide of the game as fast as the reaver would be beneficial to the game. As mentioned, your decision making/macro/micro should be what helps you out. I can only imagine would it would be like if you engage your opponent, take out his exp, retreat and then he manages a drop with a reaver and takes out your workers as they retreat. Too much of a reward for a drop IMO. That and I think Blizzard agrees which is why they nerfed BFH. | ||
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
On October 06 2011 06:21 Jerubaal wrote: I want SC2 to be like chess. In chess, you make a comeback by...playing better than your opponent. And, yes, if your opponent has a marginal advantage and is playing perfectly he should win. There is no, 'well I'm in a really bad position but watch as I micro my queen and kill half his pieces'. I agree with this. However, BW units did not inherently give you comebacks. To get those comebacks you had to EARN it as well. Just because there are units that are more prone to getting you back in the game doesn't mean it's super easy to do. Comebacks did not happen THAT often in Broodwar. The difference is that both sides in Broodwar have strong units that can get you big advantages, and this makes the game exciting. If you can control your "comeback unit" better than they control their "comeback units" then you can get a little of an advantage just by outplaying your opponent in terms of control. In StarCraft 2, it's like every unit has been nerfed to the point that there are far fewer units that create excitement. There is so much less player interaction with units that it is much harder to outplay your opponent by controlling your units better. Even if someone has MUCH better unit control, it is hard to see in StarCraft 2 because all the units are so generic. The damage output of a colossus does not change much depending on how well someone controls it. If someone has 3 colossus vs 4 colossus, chances are they are really likely going to lose. In Broodwar, if you have 3 reavers vs 4 reavers, there are SO many ways in which you can use those 3 reavers better than your opponent and increase your unit effectiveness with good control. Starcraft 2 needs strong "comeback units" not to give easy comebacks, but to reward good player control. On October 06 2011 06:23 ceaRshaf wrote: No, I do not want StarCraft II to be Broodwar. I want evolution, but based on strong foundation. Broodwar is our next best thing to a perfect game so IT MUST be the reference. Ignoring it makes us all stupid. The foundation was there, and we need to get inspiration from it. I don't want the Reaver in StarCraft II but I want units that can show the good talent of an individual. Do not put words in my mouth. Unfortunately StarCraft is a real time strategy were fast hands matter and are appreciated. This is a great post. The goal is NOT to make SC2 into Broodwar 2. We don't need reavers / lurkers / vultures back in the game. But what we do need is the foundations that make a good, exciting RTS. One of these is units that need a LOT of player interaction aside from attack-move. This rewards good control. @Dragonblood21 Your post is really excellent and helps clear up the confusion with the word "comeback unit." I really like your post @BigFan I understand your concern with the belief that the game could not be balanced around Broodwar units, and I agree. As it is, the game would be imbalanced if the defiler/science vessel/strong storm were suddenly introduced to the game. But I think the game could be balanced around more units of the type we are talking about with just a few changes. For example, Dynamic Unit Movements would allow splash spells to do a lot more damage (and thus be much more game changing when used well). http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889 | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
Agreed, loved your post. About the term CBU it's implied that if a unit has this ability it can also get advantage in an even battle. Storm is always good in a 200/200 battle. | ||
|
features
Ireland160 Posts
If your ahead it'll help you get more ahead, but if your behind? Its too easily countered by your enemy that has much more resources. Horrible unit imho | ||
| ||
