|
On July 30 2015 17:30 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 17:16 TedCruz2016 wrote: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?
If both FF and MSC were removed, maybe charge or blink or both should be moved to the cybernetic core, but that could encourage early all-in and make it too imba to deal with. I think it would be a good idea to give the shield-healing ability - which appeared in the campaign - to sentry in multiplayer game.
|
The dragoon is a bland unit and there's already the stalker, which is basically the same.
But I do want to make the point that bland units are essential. Every race should have some simple straightforward bland units and some that are not.
The statement that adding a bland unit necessarily make the gameplay more bland, I contest. The game is more than just the sum of it's part. You don't compute the blandness scale of the game by just linearly adding the blandness values of all units.
I think removing forcefields is a change that instantly changes the dynamics of protoss battles. The fact that Blizzard isn't doing this just shows this is not their goal.
In a way I agree that forcefields were a new idea that actually worked out and made for some interesting gameplay and a bit of creativity. But it is also true that because forcefields are binary, you can either walk through them or not, they are hard to balance. If they are part of the game, they immediately also have a big impact.
|
No. It's not a good idea. It's a boring unit that's the same as the Stalker.
Stop bringing up Broodwar units, it's been lame since WoL was released.
|
On July 30 2015 21:27 Crownlol wrote:
No. It's not a good idea. It's a boring unit that's the same as the Stalker.
Stop bringing up Broodwar units, it's been lame since WoL was released.
How is a Stalker boring and a Marine and Marauder not boring? I agree that the Stalker is more interesting with blink but it also makes the game more complicated to balance. That's the problem with SC2, lots of interestingness in each unit but often combinations or a lack of combinations of units make the game one-dimensional and/or difficult to balance.
For instance; the Viking might seem like an interesting unit with it's ability to transform into a mech unit. But it is in practice so much more boring than the Goliath which it obviously replaced. Assault mode is useless and make's a potentially more dynamic unit more one-dimensional than it's ancestor to keep it balanced..
|
On July 30 2015 21:27 Crownlol wrote:
No. It's not a good idea. It's a boring unit that's the same as the Stalker.
Stop bringing up Broodwar units, it's been lame since WoL was released.
actually it's the opposite, is the stalker that it's boring and not the dragoon, there is no BW boring units, if you actually played it extensively, i was B on iccup in the good old BW prime years(Flash years) i was playing only against korean , so i know what i'm talking about
they tried to fix something that needed no fixes, this is the first issue
|
Whatever the case, the goon that's gonna be in the campaign looks very pretty so far
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UxRjKTC.png)
|
Wow, they made it even fatter then in BW. Did they at least replicate the retarded AI?
It just wont feel like a true goon if it can move from one side of the map to another.
|
On August 01 2015 06:58 eviltomahawk wrote:Whatever the case, the goon that's gonna be in the campaign looks very pretty so far
That looks amazing. Replace stalkers with that please bliz.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On August 01 2015 06:09 Garmer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2015 21:27 Crownlol wrote:
No. It's not a good idea. It's a boring unit that's the same as the Stalker.
Stop bringing up Broodwar units, it's been lame since WoL was released. actually it's the opposite, is the stalker that it's boring and not the dragoon, there is no BW boring units, if you actually played it extensively, i was B on iccup in the good old BW prime years(Flash years) i was playing only against korean , so i know what i'm talking about they tried to fix something that needed no fixes, this is the first issue
Then go play BW with no boring units, why are you here trying to change SC2 into BW when BW is out there playable? I don't get it.
I love blink Stalkers. A unit which is fun and if controlled properly... oh boy, oh Big Boy!!! 
|
On August 01 2015 06:58 eviltomahawk wrote:Whatever the case, the goon that's gonna be in the campaign looks very pretty so far
Where did you take that picture from?
|
On August 04 2015 00:41 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2015 06:09 Garmer wrote:On July 30 2015 21:27 Crownlol wrote:
No. It's not a good idea. It's a boring unit that's the same as the Stalker.
Stop bringing up Broodwar units, it's been lame since WoL was released. actually it's the opposite, is the stalker that it's boring and not the dragoon, there is no BW boring units, if you actually played it extensively, i was B on iccup in the good old BW prime years(Flash years) i was playing only against korean , so i know what i'm talking about they tried to fix something that needed no fixes, this is the first issue Then go play BW with no boring units, why are you here trying to change SC2 into BW when BW is out there playable? I don't get it.
Well just for the sake of argument. Because BW is old and thus nobody plays it outside of korea, despite it being objectively the best RTS ever created by far (still). Just because BW exists and is playable doesn't mean it's feasible to play it and get the same satisfaction as that of a new game.
I never understand these defensive comments about keeping BW principals out of SC2. They are all over the place whenever you mention the Reaver, or the Lurker a few years ago. If SC2 was more like BW, you'd like the game more too, AND it would be more popular. What's there to be defensive about?
|
On August 04 2015 01:18 hitpoint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 00:41 deacon.frost wrote:On August 01 2015 06:09 Garmer wrote:On July 30 2015 21:27 Crownlol wrote:
No. It's not a good idea. It's a boring unit that's the same as the Stalker.
Stop bringing up Broodwar units, it's been lame since WoL was released. actually it's the opposite, is the stalker that it's boring and not the dragoon, there is no BW boring units, if you actually played it extensively, i was B on iccup in the good old BW prime years(Flash years) i was playing only against korean , so i know what i'm talking about they tried to fix something that needed no fixes, this is the first issue Then go play BW with no boring units, why are you here trying to change SC2 into BW when BW is out there playable? I don't get it. If SC2 was more like BW, you'd like the game more too, AND it would be more popular. What's there to be defensive about?
I can assume things too. If sc2 would be a copy of BW (well except graphics), almost nobody would play it and thus the popularity would be even worse.
We have to face the truth: It is completely irrelevant if a game is "better designed" or whatever you would say about BW in comparison to sc2. The average player these days wants to have fun immediately. He won't give the game any time, either it's enjoyable from the get go or he will never play it again.
So no, a 1:1 BW copy would totally flop these days.
We who are already pretty 'hardcore' maybe would like more BW elements in sc2, but for the average Joe it doesn't matter one bit.
|
On August 04 2015 01:24 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 01:18 hitpoint wrote:On August 04 2015 00:41 deacon.frost wrote:On August 01 2015 06:09 Garmer wrote:On July 30 2015 21:27 Crownlol wrote:
No. It's not a good idea. It's a boring unit that's the same as the Stalker.
Stop bringing up Broodwar units, it's been lame since WoL was released. actually it's the opposite, is the stalker that it's boring and not the dragoon, there is no BW boring units, if you actually played it extensively, i was B on iccup in the good old BW prime years(Flash years) i was playing only against korean , so i know what i'm talking about they tried to fix something that needed no fixes, this is the first issue Then go play BW with no boring units, why are you here trying to change SC2 into BW when BW is out there playable? I don't get it. If SC2 was more like BW, you'd like the game more too, AND it would be more popular. What's there to be defensive about? I can assume things too. If sc2 would be a copy of BW (well except graphics), almost nobody would play it and thus the popularity would be even worse. We have to face the truth: It is completely irrelevant if a game is "better designed" or whatever you would say about BW in comparison to sc2. The average player these days wants to have fun immediately. He won't give the game any time, either it's enjoyable from the get go or he will never play it again. So no, a 1:1 BW copy would totally flop these days. We who are already pretty 'hardcore' maybe would like more BW elements in sc2, but for the average Joe it doesn't matter one bit.
So it would be no different than now popularity-wise, except the game would be much better? I'll still take that.
|
No i am saying it would be even worse cause it is mechanically harder.
|
The argument "should SC2 be a copy of BW?" is pointless and useless, because it's never had a chance of happening in reality. However the thing at hand is : "Should SC2 use BW as basis to make a game even better than BW, keeping its strengths and replacing its flaws?". The answer is whole, big, YES.
|
Sure, but some people think X is a flaw, others think X is a strength, it's pretty hard to get it right for (almost) everybody
|
On August 04 2015 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Sure, but some people think X is a flaw, others think X is a strength, it's pretty hard to get it right for (almost) everybody
Pleasing everyone is probably impossible, but they should still try to get as close as they can. I think there are some universal principals that the majority can agree on.
|
On August 04 2015 02:20 hitpoint wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2015 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Sure, but some people think X is a flaw, others think X is a strength, it's pretty hard to get it right for (almost) everybody Pleasing everyone is probably impossible, but they should still try to get as close as they can. I think there are some universal principals that the majority can agree on.
Maybe, but that's a pretty big question imo. Even here on TL we have a lot of different opinions regarding protoss design, defenders advantage and similar stuff.
Now think about all the more casual people out there who outnumber us greatly (i mean i said they don't care either way, but that's probably not true 100% either :D), it's a pretty hard job at the end of the day ^^
|
On August 04 2015 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Sure, but some people think X is a flaw, others think X is a strength, it's pretty hard to get it right for (almost) everybody
Yeah maybe it's wrong to talk about flaws and strength, I meant that more in a "game design philosophy" sense. Examples : not having a lot of active abilities, not having OP casters compared to non-caster units, multiple armies instead of one big deathball, etc. These kind of things are at the foundation of BW's game design philosophy, and should have been, logically, at the foundation of SC2's too.
|
feel like that wont do much because dragoons werent used to fight bio outside of the first like 5-6 minutes of the game, because bio wasnt used against protoss in bw
dragoons dont really do good vs marines in large numbers even with the range, and storm and reavers exist if terran tries to do something like deep 6 or anything bio related
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
