|
On July 27 2015 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 07:39 Coffeee wrote:
well the problem is, the only reason this unit was interesting and good in brood war is that you had such small armies it was about the smallarmy micro managment.
in starcraft 2, such a unit would just be massed and then set an amove. this isnt interesting nor fun to watch. where as in broodwar it was like the tvt early game (where you micro so much with a small amount of units)
im against this propose The reason ranged goons were interesting in BW was because Marines only had 4 range and needed an upgrade + bunker to be able to fight them. This lead to early game PvT where 1-3 Dragoons could apply pressure to a FE terran long enough to safely expand themselves, but still be unable to just walk past the terran bunkers since it was their range they could exploit and not their power as a unit itself. The slow cooldown of their attacks also made it easier to kite with them, but only because the things you needed to kite were slow enough to be kited. Stalkers are better and more interesting than Dragoons and the only things preventing them from playing the same is marauders, Creep Spread, and 5 range marines.
I think what made them interesting was their low rate of fire and higher burst damage per shot.
The slower a unit fires the more important becomes each individual shot. You just can not afford to fuck up if your unit fires very slowly. A high rate of fire with lower damage allows you to pay less attention because you dont lose too much when making mistakes.
Just compare hitting a lone unit on the side or the center of an army with your Reaver shot. You can simply not afford to target fire the wrong unit, or even worse, let the AI shoot at the closest enemy. Your Reaver might sometimes not get more then 2 or 3 shots off in total.
The slow rate of fire also made them weaker against zerglings while not changing their effectiveness against enemies with more hitpoints. This way Dragoons could be supplemented by Zealots and both units worked in a nice synergy.
|
On July 27 2015 09:02 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 08:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 27 2015 07:39 Coffeee wrote:
well the problem is, the only reason this unit was interesting and good in brood war is that you had such small armies it was about the smallarmy micro managment.
in starcraft 2, such a unit would just be massed and then set an amove. this isnt interesting nor fun to watch. where as in broodwar it was like the tvt early game (where you micro so much with a small amount of units)
im against this propose The reason ranged goons were interesting in BW was because Marines only had 4 range and needed an upgrade + bunker to be able to fight them. This lead to early game PvT where 1-3 Dragoons could apply pressure to a FE terran long enough to safely expand themselves, but still be unable to just walk past the terran bunkers since it was their range they could exploit and not their power as a unit itself. The slow cooldown of their attacks also made it easier to kite with them, but only because the things you needed to kite were slow enough to be kited. Stalkers are better and more interesting than Dragoons and the only things preventing them from playing the same is marauders, Creep Spread, and 5 range marines. I think what made them interesting was their low rate of fire and higher burst damage per shot. The slower a unit fires the more important becomes each individual shot. You just can not afford to fuck up if your unit fires very slowly. A high rate of fire with lower damage allows you to pay less attention because you dont lose too much when making mistakes. Just compare hitting a lone unit on the side or the center of an army with your Reaver shot. You can simply not afford to target fire the wrong unit, or even worse, let the AI shoot at the closest enemy. Your Reaver might sometimes not get more then 2 or 3 shots off in total. The slow rate of fire also made them weaker against zerglings while not changing their effectiveness against enemies with more hitpoints. This way Dragoons could be supplemented by Zealots and both units worked in a nice synergy.
I am a very big proponent of slower rates of fire on some units in favor of larger hits per shot (Siege Tanks, Stalkers, roaches, etc...)
|
I think the dragoon would have a good spot as a core gateway unit while a stalker seems more like a unit that you'd build for harassing. I always thought it was a bad idea to give a core gateway unit that you mass a powerful ability like blink. Having a huge portion of your army be able to blink seems hard to balance to me. I always found stalkers to be pretty weak and I always thought that was why. A slightly stronger and tankier ranged core gateway unit seems to fit better with the Protoss theme of powerful units, where the stalker seems to fit more with the templar side of protoss which is never massed and is more squishy and more used as support or harrass units.
|
On July 27 2015 10:58 pzea469 wrote:
I think the dragoon would have a good spot as a core gateway unit while a stalker seems more like a unit that you'd build for harassing. I always thought it was a bad idea to give a core gateway unit that you mass a powerful ability like blink. Having a huge portion of your army be able to blink seems hard to balance to me. I always found stalkers to be pretty weak and I always thought that was why. A slightly stronger and tankier ranged core gateway unit seems to fit better with the Protoss theme of powerful units, where the stalker seems to fit more with the templar side of protoss which is never massed and is more squishy and more used as support or harrass units.
This would be an interesting option.
Add a new upgrade for stalkers which increases their general beefyness in both damage and hp.
Make it so you choose blink OR beef-cake stalkers.
This will make things slightly more interesting as massing stalkers won't necessarily mean the protoss has got a blink attack window or is pretty fucked.
If they get blink they have a strong attack window, or they get beef cake for a proper macro style.
|
On July 27 2015 11:05 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 10:58 pzea469 wrote:
I think the dragoon would have a good spot as a core gateway unit while a stalker seems more like a unit that you'd build for harassing. I always thought it was a bad idea to give a core gateway unit that you mass a powerful ability like blink. Having a huge portion of your army be able to blink seems hard to balance to me. I always found stalkers to be pretty weak and I always thought that was why. A slightly stronger and tankier ranged core gateway unit seems to fit better with the Protoss theme of powerful units, where the stalker seems to fit more with the templar side of protoss which is never massed and is more squishy and more used as support or harrass units. This would be an interesting option. Add a new upgrade for stalkers which increases their general beefyness in both damage and hp. Make it so you choose blink OR beef-cake stalkers. This will make things slightly more interesting as massing stalkers won't necessarily mean the protoss has got a blink attack window or is pretty fucked. If they get blink they have a strong attack window, or they get beef cake for a proper macro style.
The Dragoon had 20 Shields. That's all the beef it had. it could take 1 Marauder Shot more than a stalker and would deal 50% less damage to marines than a stalker. What your describing is a unit that never existed before.
|
Have you ever watched Starbow? That dragoon looks sooo bad... its an eyesore. Stalker looks good!
|
On July 27 2015 14:26 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Have you ever watched Starbow? That dragoon looks sooo bad... its an eyesore. Stalker looks good!
I'm sure they could put some glitter on it for you and make it pretty.
|
Why do you need a dragoon as a ranged tanky unit when the adept is in the game? The adept is very durable and protoss doesn't need another GTA gateway unit.
|
On July 27 2015 14:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 11:05 Kharnage wrote:On July 27 2015 10:58 pzea469 wrote:
I think the dragoon would have a good spot as a core gateway unit while a stalker seems more like a unit that you'd build for harassing. I always thought it was a bad idea to give a core gateway unit that you mass a powerful ability like blink. Having a huge portion of your army be able to blink seems hard to balance to me. I always found stalkers to be pretty weak and I always thought that was why. A slightly stronger and tankier ranged core gateway unit seems to fit better with the Protoss theme of powerful units, where the stalker seems to fit more with the templar side of protoss which is never massed and is more squishy and more used as support or harrass units. This would be an interesting option. Add a new upgrade for stalkers which increases their general beefyness in both damage and hp. Make it so you choose blink OR beef-cake stalkers. This will make things slightly more interesting as massing stalkers won't necessarily mean the protoss has got a blink attack window or is pretty fucked. If they get blink they have a strong attack window, or they get beef cake for a proper macro style. The Dragoon had 20 Shields. That's all the beef it had. it could take 1 Marauder Shot more than a stalker and would deal 50% less damage to marines than a stalker. What your describing is a unit that never existed before.
I know, i slightly tangented from the singular focus of "but I want that old unit which is basically a stalker" into "here is an interesting thought FROM that idea, would that better address the concern AND improve some of the weaknesses that Protoss currently have?"
I did actually read the rest of the thread and completely agree that the dragoon, as it was in BW, is pointless, since the other armies are not the same as they were in BW. It's probably also worth noting that a 100 shield unit in a game with shield battery is completely different than a 100 shield unit in a game without shield battery as far as defensive usefulness is concerned.
|
On July 27 2015 10:58 pzea469 wrote:
I think the dragoon would have a good spot as a core gateway unit while a stalker seems more like a unit that you'd build for harassing. I always thought it was a bad idea to give a core gateway unit that you mass a powerful ability like blink. Having a huge portion of your army be able to blink seems hard to balance to me. I always found stalkers to be pretty weak and I always thought that was why. A slightly stronger and tankier ranged core gateway unit seems to fit better with the Protoss theme of powerful units, where the stalker seems to fit more with the templar side of protoss which is never massed and is more squishy and more used as support or harrass units.
Just switch places of Stalker and Immortal in the tech tree and adapt costs and power. The Immortal is Dragoon 2.0 and Stalker is harass
|
I don't know what this fuss about the dragoon is about. The dragoon is already in SC2. It is called the immortal. So lore wise it is hard that they come back (probably in the LoTV campaign).
The stalker is much better for gameplay as a core unit.
|
I'd personally like for the stalker to have a slower attack speed and the immortal to have a faster attack speed--but both maintaining their DPS. Mostly to leverage the fact that immortals just "stand there" while stalkers are supposed to strike in and out.
|
On July 27 2015 06:30 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2015 05:55 [F_]aths wrote:
I really don't understand why many thread starters seem to believe it is a good idea to bring an existing BW unit back. Of course, since it is still Starcraft, each race needs it iconic tier 1 unit and some other units. But every old unit is a passed opportunity for a new unit.
I would guess the idea is that blizzard has shown time and time again that many of their "new units" suck balls. There are plenty of new SC2 units that are either loathed or ignored by players. The concept is: If you try something new and it doesnt work you go back to something old that you know did. Note however that I personally am NOT in favor of bringing old units back.
Good, because that concept would be flawed, since SC2 is no BW recreation. There is no guarantee that an old unit would work better than a non-working new unit.
If a new unit does not work, it can (and probably will) be changed.
I agree that some of the new SC2 units have some flaws. But I don't understand why this is an issue as long as there are not too great flaws. The game as a whole has to be good.
|
After seeing the model of the Dragoon in the LotV campaign, I am in love. I vote we just replace the Immortal with it and keep the same stats. A purely aesthetic Dragoon. That thing is looking sexyyyy!
|
Isn't the immortal dragoon's successor? In SC's lore, both are containers of dead Protoss warriors' spirits. Stalkers, though, are Zeratul's people from the Void. They have completely different backgrounds.
|
give it time they said, it will be good they said, now we have the same shitty game, that is still not comparable to BW ever
those that are saying the opposite never played BW properly
the problem with BW was its perfection, there were only few little problems in BW related to some non-usage of 2 units only
ghost, come too late in game: could have been fixed by allowing his availability with the accademy and adding the attachment of the cover ops to the accademy
scout, needed some upgrade, like some super shield that redirect part of the ground damage for a certain amount of time
the rest was simply perfect expecially the trio at the factory for terran
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On July 30 2015 16:54 Garmer wrote:
give it time they said, it will be good they said, now we have the same shitty game, that is still not comparable to BW ever
those that are saying the opposite never played BW properly
the problem with BW was its perfection, there were only few little problems in BW related to some non-usage of 2 units only
ghost, come too late in game: could have been fixed by allowing his availability with the accademy and adding the attachment of the cover ops to the accademy
scout, needed some upgrade, like some super shield that redirect part of the ground damage for a certain amount of time
the rest was simply perfect expecially the trio at the factory for terran
Then go play BW and left the rest of us happy with SC2 enjoy this game.
Stalker is fine(when we ignore the problem of the low ground-to-air dmg(yes, mutalisk and phoenix, I am looking at you)). There's no need for another stalker with different model.
|
On July 30 2015 16:54 Garmer wrote:
give it time they said, it will be good they said, now we have the same shitty game, that is still not comparable to BW ever
those that are saying the opposite never played BW properly
the problem with BW was its perfection, there were only few little problems in BW related to some non-usage of 2 units only
ghost, come too late in game: could have been fixed by allowing his availability with the accademy and adding the attachment of the cover ops to the accademy
scout, needed some upgrade, like some super shield that redirect part of the ground damage for a certain amount of time
the rest was simply perfect expecially the trio at the factory for terran
Queen would also need to have its costs reduced and perhaps the costs of the upgrades too.
And ZvZ in general is not too much liked by many people. Having something different then ling all-ins and muta vs muta would be nice for a change.
In BW many units just made sense. They had their purpose and role. In SC2 it seems like many units dont know why they are in the game. What is the purpose of the Thor? Or the Carrier? Just to look awesome and be used in the campaign I guess.
As far as I remember the only reason the Thor is in the game is because somebody at blizzard really wanted to have a huge Mech. For no reason. They just wanted a huge robot. Nobody thought about what that unit would be good for, or whether it would be a good addition to the game in the first place.
|
On July 30 2015 17:03 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 16:54 Garmer wrote:
give it time they said, it will be good they said, now we have the same shitty game, that is still not comparable to BW ever
those that are saying the opposite never played BW properly
the problem with BW was its perfection, there were only few little problems in BW related to some non-usage of 2 units only
ghost, come too late in game: could have been fixed by allowing his availability with the accademy and adding the attachment of the cover ops to the accademy
scout, needed some upgrade, like some super shield that redirect part of the ground damage for a certain amount of time
the rest was simply perfect expecially the trio at the factory for terran Then go play BW and left the rest of us happy with SC2 enjoy this game. Stalker is fine(when we ignore the problem of the low ground-to-air dmg(yes, mutalisk and phoenix, I am looking at you)). There's no need for another stalker with different model.
Yeah, it's fine, but zealot and stalker combined as a whole in the early game is not. P is the only race that is given various supporting units at early game - sentries in WoL, MSC in HotS and now the new addition of adept, while T and Z are really fine at both offense and defense with their T1 units. Some have pointed out that the root of the problem is the low cost-efficiency of P's units. As a result, the whole race is bad at unit trade, as the death of any unit is a huge loss.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On July 30 2015 17:16 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 17:03 deacon.frost wrote:On July 30 2015 16:54 Garmer wrote:
give it time they said, it will be good they said, now we have the same shitty game, that is still not comparable to BW ever
those that are saying the opposite never played BW properly
the problem with BW was its perfection, there were only few little problems in BW related to some non-usage of 2 units only
ghost, come too late in game: could have been fixed by allowing his availability with the accademy and adding the attachment of the cover ops to the accademy
scout, needed some upgrade, like some super shield that redirect part of the ground damage for a certain amount of time
the rest was simply perfect expecially the trio at the factory for terran Then go play BW and left the rest of us happy with SC2 enjoy this game. Stalker is fine(when we ignore the problem of the low ground-to-air dmg(yes, mutalisk and phoenix, I am looking at you)). There's no need for another stalker with different model. Yeah, it's fine, but zealot and stalker combined as a whole in the early game is not. P is the only race that is given various supporting units at early game - sentries in WoL, MSC in HotS and now the new addition of adept, while T and Z are really fine at both offense and defense with their T1 units. Some have pointed out that the root of the problem is the low cost-efficiency of P's units. As a result, the whole race is bad at unit trade, as the death of any unit is a huge loss.
And yes, I wrote almost everywhere that they need to redesign Protoss, remove FF and MSC/MS. But we do not need another pointless unit which will solve nothing - and even with my love towards Protoss from BW I do not want dragoons. Let them be where they are and focus on the important thing - why the hell is Protoss so full of band aids?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
