|
Hello Community,
I would like to discuss about a "revival of the dragoon".
This was already posted by myself in the battle.net forum: Battle.net-Thread: Petition: Blizzard, give us back the dragoon.
Feel free to participate with direct balance discussion there (:
Any attendance is highly appriciated 
Original petition text:
+ Show Spoiler +I think there is no need to say that Protoss is considered the weakest race in LotV at the moment. I would call it imbalance, because of my insufficient competence in StarCraft (currently diamond, ex-mid-master player), but - however - to my way of thinking it is obvious that "something is wrong".
PvZ:
At normal macro games, away from cheese/all-ins (which, in my opinion, should not be the only alternative with a balanced winrate to come on in the game), Zerg always was dominant, e.g. with Roach/Hydra play in the early/mid game. Only wall-ins, forcefields and tactical, defensive styles were able to succeed with 3base macro attempts of the Protoss in PvZ.
Now Lurkers and Ravagers negate forcefields, render wall-ins weaker and the Zerg is stronger in dictating the game (speed, expansions, ...) than ever before.
Inversely the Protoss barely has a chance to punish a fast expanding Zerg because the strong Roach/Hydra styles and the Lurker (if All-Ins are excluded).
PvT:
In my view the defensive role of the Protoss is even more distinct in the PvT compared to the PvZ.
Early Stim-bio + Cyclone pushes are so strong...in an interview with Desrow Huk said he is not seeing a way (even with a "perfect" hold) to trade positive against such pushes, especially considering a macro style opener, much a less 3 base styles.
At the late game the situation is not much different. At least in the PvT the disruptor is more or less useless. 300 gas are huge investment and terrans are used to snipe colossi, a unit that stays defensive (at range) in the Protoss army. There is no need to explain that an aggressive unit like the disruptor, which needs to go into the enemies army, would never have a chance for activating it twice...a good terran will never miss to focus such a unit.
Additionally terrans are used to micro and split a lot because of the way how this race works. It is not much of a problem for terrans to split stimmed bio and render the disruptor even more useless in PvT.
According to my opinion Protoss lacks of a unit that is more than a "meatshield" (like zealots) or "dead supply" (stalker, because the only reason for them is sniping medivacs/vikings...against stimmed bio they trade heavily negative) in a mid/late game army composition.
In LotV Protoss has even less of a chance to play safe and macro heavy. Protoss needs a good way, if microed and executed well enough, to stabilize a game in the early/mid and play safe / macro heavy...and even in the lategame it would be nice to have a unit where you can rely on and not always hope, that storm and colossi "would be enough to stay alive".
So, I think Protoss needs a unit with enough damage and hp to be a useful, sensible supplement to the Protoss army for defensive and expanding purposes.
One unit which is not "nearly useless" in the late game like current gateway units.
At the good old BroodWar times this role was gloriously fulfilled by the dragoon.
I would really like to see the dragoon back in LotV!
A dragoon has high damage and hp but the most important: a slow rate of fire and a range upgrade...meaning one is forced to play a nice, exciting micro/focus fire style with dragoons to achieve its potential and it is not imbalanced at the early/mid game, because it would fail in aggressive plays because it would be outranged by, e.g. tanks, lurkers, ...
So Blizzard, please give us back the dragoon!
|
I don't know what's the deal with the dragoon. The unit design is really bland: it's a unit that shoots everything... Unless you want to introduce bad pathing which is what made the micro interesting in BW, it's essentially a stalker without blink and better raw stats.
|
I liked the blue blood and the voice acting. I liked how it looked like a spider. It would be neat if Immortals had more prominent legs, and maybe deeper, hollow-sounding voice clips. But from a gameplay perspective, I find the Dragoon to be thoroughly inferior to having Stalkers and Immortals in the game on a very basic level.
Now the numbers involved in the unit design and the tech tree are a different story. I'd prefer slightly lower damage Immortals that are warped in from a Gateway, and of course, the Stalker could use a buff to its vs everything attack. But splitting one unit up into two units with differing roles, one with a very interesting, well-designed ability, and the other with an alright ability (I guess), feels like distinctly superior design.
|
The Stalker and the Dragoon are incredibly similar. Have you compared their stats? Compared to the Stalker, the Dragoon has:
-20 more HP
-6 more damage against armored
-lower firing rate (17% longer firing period)
-no blink
-2 less starting range (catches up to Stalker once Singularity Charge is researched. Yes, a Dragoon initially has the same range as a Roach.)
-Their speed is the same (using standard speed and worker speed as a reference point between the two games, which is pretty solid.)
As a result it does:
-15% less dps against Light
-22% more dps against Armored
Given that Dragoons do less damage against Light, they're not going to be the bio/ling slayers you're looking for. The extra HP will help to an extent, but at the end of the day they're very similar.
If you keep both the Stalker and the Dragoon, they Protoss has two units that are so similar it's just silly. If you get rid of the Stalker in favor of the Dragoon, you get rid of one of Protoss' most unique and skill-oriented micro abilities for relatively tiny gain.
Some might say 'well that's not fair, you can't just compare values between games.' That may be true up to an extent, but all I'm doing is following the trends that Blizz uses when bringing a unit from SC1 to SC2. Many values are the same, or fairly simple to convert. In order to make the Dragoon vastly different from the Stalker, you'd need to change it so much that it's barely a Dragoon anymore.
It seems you're more concerned with bringing back a unit you think is 'cool,' and are grasping for reasons to bring it back. If so, to a degree, I understand where you're coming from. The Dragoon feels a lot more Protoss. It would be satisfying in its own right to watch these pure gold Protoss armies striding across the battlefield, but none of this is worth removing Blink.
I think a reasonable compromise would be keep the Stalker, but give a Dragoon skin. They even already have the assets with Legacy of the Void. (Though one problem I could see here is that turning rate is an important factor in gameplay, and Dragoons aren't supposed to need to turn.)
On a different note, has anyone noticed in the LotV Dragoon footage Dragoons feel very slow i.e. 2.25 or lower? That would kind of sadden me as it's so different than the SC1 Dragoon.........
|
Honestly, there's not such a big difference between dragoons and stalkers. Stalkers are a bit weaker but some of that can be blamed on combat shields, 45 hp marines, marauders being in the game, etc.
If the community was going to make a stand for one Brood War unit it should be the reaver. 95% of protoss's gameplay problems can be blamed on the colossus and the way it forces you to play deathball style. Colossus deathballs are to SC2 what carrier+arbiter deathballs were to BW - a cheesy, cancerous style.
|
I thinkbthe adept fills the gaps, if blizzard finally gets what they actually want with the unit.
|
The number of players that want BW back should be a metrics Blizzards is using to rate its success on SC2.
I want BW back too...
|
Dragoon and Reaverrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Who needs the trashy Disruptor.
|
On May 12 2015 05:59 ZenithM wrote:
I don't know what's the deal with the dragoon. The unit design is really bland: it's a unit that shoots everything... Unless you want to introduce bad pathing which is what made the micro interesting in BW, it's essentially a stalker without blink and better raw stats.
Goons were actually quite interesting overall with their big delay before actual attack (that could be cancelled), big range and overall clunkyness.
Having said that, I don't think you could just put them into a game with better pathing, army clumping and stalkers and immortals being a thing.
|
On May 23 2015 01:18 aka_star wrote:
The number of players that want BW back should be a metrics Blizzards is using to rate its success on SC2.
I want BW back too...
BW didn't go anywhere, you can still play it if you want. But you really won't get BW2 by adding BW units to SC2.
|
On May 23 2015 01:18 aka_star wrote:
The number of players that want BW back should be a metrics Blizzards is using to rate its success on SC2.
I want BW back too...
Then go play it, it's not dead.
Not ranting, just want to point out that if you want to play BW, you can just do that.
|
I don't understand the need of making sc2 (and/or lotv) like bw.
Sc2 is a "different" game. If you really want to play with the bw units, then just go play broodwar :-)
I do that aswell from time to time, just to hear the awesome unit voices and all ^^
|
On May 23 2015 01:51 IAmJuice wrote:
I don't understand the need of making sc2 (and/or lotv) like bw.
Sc2 is a "different" game. If you really want to play with the bw units, then just go play broodwar :-)
I do that aswell from time to time, just to hear the awesome unit voices and all ^^
I think the issue is that alot of people aren't happy with the 'different' game that SC2 is. Speaking for myself, I was willing to give it leniency until the LotV details came out. At that point I was just irritated. I don't think that means adding in BW units will fix it though. The dragoon wouldn't be at all the same if you plopped it into the SC2 environment. Too many gimmicks for a unit like that to be good.
|
On May 23 2015 01:51 IAmJuice wrote:
I don't understand the need of making sc2 (and/or lotv) like bw.
Sc2 is a "different" game. If you really want to play with the bw units, then just go play broodwar :-)
I do that aswell from time to time, just to hear the awesome unit voices and all ^^
I really think people who want BW2 either ought to get behind an SC2 mod that effect, or hop on the actual BW bandwagon. There are already mods out there like SC2BW, Starbow, Mass Recall etc. I feel like at this point SC2's best hope is the modding community - just look at what GameHeart did.
|
I wish TL made a rule against threads like these. It's probably the 100th thread I've seen asking for Bw units back without any real argument to back it up. Just play BW if you want those units for the sake of it.
Protoss just got a really strong early game unit which is the adept (it seems even op to me but maybe it's too early) so claiming that toss needs a new gateway unit makes me feel like you haven't been following the beta that much.
|
Obviously if the dragoon is introduced into sc2, its going to be tweaked to fit better in it.
If we take a look at some other sc2-bw units; Marine, zergling, hydralisk and now mutalisk.
They are all tweaked into sc2.
|
On May 23 2015 03:26 Foxxan wrote:
Obviously if the dragoon is introduced into sc2, its going to be tweaked to fit better in it
And we will end up with Immortal 2.0 or something between Immortal and Stalker. I really don't see the reason why it should be in the game, it won't bring anything to the table that Protoss doesn't have already.
|
Okay, so I just read the infromation the liquipedia has for the Dragoon, and all I can say is, "Everything I read about the Dragoon sounds exactly like the Stalker". I'm going to post what Liquipedia has written down, and everything bolded is what I'm just saying.
The description:
The Dragoon is a ranged ground unit that can be warped in at the Protoss Gateway if a Cybernetics Core has been warped in. They are one of the most versatile units in the game, with high health and pushing power, and with proper micro, have the ability to deal high amounts of damage without having to risk any in return due to their high speed and range. If you replace the wording of 'Dragoon' to 'Stalker', this would literaly be a perfect description of the Stalker.
When used with Zealots, the strength of the Dragoon truly shines. Having Zealots fight in close combat, Dragoons can score uncontested hits against enemy units. Dragoons are especially strong at kiting Terran infantry despite their explosive weapon type and Terran's infantry small size (which is what usually forces Terrans into mech against Protoss, on top of that Siege Tanks are quite cost-effective against them). Once again, everything written here more or less still applies to the Stalker. The Stalker can do all of this. The real problem I see is that the Zealot in SC2 isn't contrubting like they did in BW.
The Dragoon is the ranged army unit for Protoss, the only one that can really contest other large ground armies (since melee armies find it harder to all attack at once) until Reavers are available with a Robotics Support Bay and then still quite useful and often necessary due to their high burst damage upon being massed and ability to attack air, at least as supplemental defenders. Protoss don't have Reavers now, but the the issues the Dragoon face are still roughly the same issues Stalkers have. I still don't see how Dragoon would be fixing these issues.
Dragoon unit AI is, quite famously, amongst the worst of all StarCraft units. Dragoons will sometimes glitch such that they will not move until the player presses Hold Position or Stop three times. Like many units Dragoons will also stop unnecessarily close to their targets to attack at less than maximum range disconviencing pure-attack-move micro. When their range is upgraded at the Cybernetics Core, Dragoon AI seems to improve slightly. For example, non range-upgraded Dragoons will often run into Spider Mines even when they have vision of them, but range-upgraded Dragoons usually will not. First major difference. Is this part of the reason why People even want the Dragoon? For their louzy AI.
Now for their competivie Usage against Zerg:
Protoss units tend to suffer against Zerg units that are potentially much more damaging for cost. Unlike Terran, no early Protoss composition is quite able to fend off Zerg attacks completely at range while in the open. Hydralisk speed and high explosive damage deal major damage against Dragoons, as well. For this reason primarily Zealot compositions are more popular against Zerg in the early game. To summarize in my own words, Dragoons were poor against Zerg first tier units. Doesn't sound much different with the Stalker right now.
Dragoons are the opening Protoss anti-air, able to stop a single Overlord from scouting reliably, and is commonly created after the first Zealot in the event of the Protoss fast expand. Dragoons in the Zerg matchup have no special utility except being relatively strong at countering Lurkers and fighting off low masses of Mutalisk. Most the same, in utility provided except that Stalkers don't deal with Lurkers well, but then again, Lurkers in SC2 are like seriously buffed in comparison to their BW counterpart (more health, more range, more damage).
Especially in the Zerg matchup, Dragoons suffer at anti-air as compared against other units. Archons, High Templars with Psionic Storm, and Corsairs are much more effective responses to counter Zerg air. Sounds almost like the Stalker and their situation right now.
Several PvZ strategies rely on an early timing attack using Dragoons - for example, the rare Goon-Reaver build and the build used by Bisu against Hyvaa in this game: 15th MBC Survivor on Athena. Dragoons are important in the later game for being effective for preventing Hydralisks from taking free shots at High Templar and Reavers opening with a Gateway-focused army. (Zealots perform this function poorly because they have no ranged attack.) Timing attack like Immortal/Sentry/Stalker push, or Blink-Stalker Push. And also, Stalkers can also prevent Hydralisk from taking free shouts at High Templar and other slow late game units. They too have range.
So far, not much difference yet. What about competivie usage against Terran:
Dragoons are the backbone of the Protoss army in early-game PvT, and remain so until Zealot Speed has been researched. Range-upgraded Dragoons outrange Marines and are all but able to ignore Vultures. Therefore, a common micromanagement technique used by Protoss players against an early Terran rush like the FD build is pulling range-upgraded Dragoons barely outside of Marine range, pressing Hold Position to give them a free shot at the outranged Marines, and cycling this manuvuer. This micromanagement technique is known as Dragoon dancing. A Dragoon with the range upgrade can even hit a Bunker without being hit itself by unupgraded Marines, if a player inches the Dragoon to the end of its range. A stimmed Marine dies in three Dragoon shots, although it is rare to see Terran not teching straight to Siege Tanks. Hey, this sounds almost like how Stalkers are commonly used against Terran, poking early and harassing them. Able to deal damage to bunkers with good mirco without a lost of a unit. Stopping Hellions harass. Omg, it almost sounds like the Stalker can almost do everything the Dragoon. Actually, I lied. It takes Stalker 4 or 5 shots to kill a Marine that used Stim. THat might make a world's difference in viablity. Another thing, part of me knows that when the UI was improved, the Marine was greatly improved due to their ease of useage compared to the BW counterpart, even though much of their increase did not come from stat buffs.
While in the early game Dragoons are entirely sufficient for holding off smaller pushes, but later need to be supported by Zealots. (For the precise technique, see Push Breaking.) Early Dragoons often take advantage of Terran not having yet produced sufficient mech. So beyond the very early game, they need support to fight them off. So is this really a Stalker issue that requires the Dragoon to be put back in the game or that the support that is supposed to help the Stalker fight them off needed in being good, (a.k.a Zealot, Sentry, Adept).
Dragoons fare poorly against Siege Tanks sieged up, dying in three hits, far before they are able to get shots in on a siege line built at the same use of the economy but are still useful for keeping them from pushing out directly due to their speed. Even against superior ground-based armies Dragoons are often used in an army for this purpose, although Zealots are the ones that more often than not dish out the majority of punishment toward sieging and unsieging tanks, if the Protoss chooses to go on the offensive. They also can kite Goliaths in a pinch, although the units they would be defending in such a manuever (Corsairs and Carriers) are easy prey for Goliaths and they probably would have to fight directly.
They serve this function until the late-game until Arbiters and other utility units allow Protoss to bypass or destroy defensive lines and raid bases more directly. Once again, almost everything the Dragoon provided can be done with the Stalker and is Done by the stalker now. What is this magical thing that Dragoon provide that makes them so wanted back?
And lastly, their usage in PvP:
Dragoons compose the majority of early-game armies in PvP because they are ranged and faster than Zealots (before the Zealot's Speed Upgrade is researched), with proper micromanagement Dragoons can kite Zealots indefinitely. In late-game PvP, Dragoons can support armies based on the engaging power of Speedlots, High Templar, and Archons.Almost word for word, you could replace the word 'Dragoon' with Stalker, and all of this would still be correct.
So finally, I just end with, You have the Dragoon. IT's call a Stalker. It litterally does everything the Dragoon did, except in one thing. It takes 1 extra hit to kill a Marine. In truth, that's the result of the Stalker dealing a bit less damage in comparison of being way more mobile and able to bypass terrain. Almost every issue the Dragoon would sloved is sloved by the Stalker, and many issues that presist now isn't really due to the fact that Protoss doesn't have a 'Dragoon' like unit anymore. It's usually due to the other units that supports the Stalker or how the enemy units AI improved (like the Marine).
|
It's not going to happen. It fits no role in the protoss army. Go play broodwar if you want dragoons. Or Starbow.
|
I miss the old pure gold Protoss army, but other than that I don't see what the issue is with the Bluegoon. The reason why Protoss is weak early game is because Terran has marauders w/ conc shells and Zerg has roaches.
|
Remember that marauders + stim exist in this game, they would be pretty awful unless they change their stats massively just for them to be viable in PvT. In PvZ would still be overlapping with the stalker that fits the same role and has increased micro ability with blink, so in general it would be a useless unit.
|
I've never remotely understood posts like this. The stalker is increadibly similar in role to the dragoon, arguably more intersting because blink micro opens up more potential strategies then focus fire, but people as usual want BW and SC2 to simply be BW HD. Now don't get me wrong, I loved BW, but I enjoy playing different games. I have no need to play BW for another 10 years, and if I did I would simply re-instal BW, not complain that sc2 isn't BW
|
|
|
Adept/Stalker/Sentry has everything you need from Protoss core units. I think PvT is in a fine enough place balance-wise atm, at least vs bio.
This thread should be closed.
|
I loved the dragoon, and the lack of a simple, efficient, mobile, ranged unit with AA feels like a design flaw in Zerg and, to a lesser extent, Protoss. But it might not be. There are so many correlated issues that stem from Protoss in the early game that touting one unit or mechanic change as the silver bullet that restores the race to its former glory is a little naive.
That being said, the Adept does quite a bit of what you're asking for. I wish it had a range upgrade somewhere down the tech tree or maybe a starting range of five so it isn't quite so pathetic against roaches, but all things considered gateway armies are a lot more formidable than they were before it.
As things play out, I'm happier with the adept than I expected to be and I'm more and more disappointed in the disruptor. Initially it seemed like no one knew how to deal with them and they were great, but people have figured out what micro and tech is necessary to shut them down and in some instances (PvT bio, PvZ hydra-> lurkers) I've felt that you're literally fucked if you chose them over carriers or storm in the midgame.
If there's a bw unit that Protoss would benefit from in lotv, I'd say it's the reaver.
|
no. you can't fit a powerful, sturdy unit like the Dragoon with warp gates. contrary to what others are saying the Dragoon was interesting with its delayed attack so you needed to get into a certain rhythm to micro them, and its lack of turret meant it could stutter step backwards very well. with its stats it's the prototypical protoss unit.
|
Well, Terran has marine marauder, zerg has roach hydra, I wouldn't mind stalker goon, with blue blood. Blue blood is the key right here.
|
terran suffer in sc2 right now because of blink stalker... it is so difficult to lower stalker number in hands of skilled opponent who constantly stay active with them
stalker and dragoon have same unit role of applying pressure through center control in same matchup... and i think stalker is better because it is blink
people who think stalker is weak unit are weak player
|
On May 12 2015 05:59 ZenithM wrote:
I don't know what's the deal with the dragoon. The unit design is really bland: it's a unit that shoots everything... Unless you want to introduce bad pathing which is what made the micro interesting in BW, it's essentially a stalker without blink and better raw stats.
Yeah I was kinda on the fence about all these arguments for bringing back the dragoon... then I went and played starbow for a couple of games. Who the hell thinks this unit is more interesting than a blink stalker? It's literally just move and shoot, not to mention it feels horrible doing that because it pauses for so long between each shot. Blizzard absolutely made the right decision removing the dragoon imo.
If your goal is to make gateway units stronger, go after the zealot, it seems to me to be fairly neglected lately in favour of the stalker.
EDIT: reaver too honestly, everyone complains about losing a mineral line in 1 second to a widow mine, reaver seems to be even worse.
|
SC community: Stop adding so many abilities, micro should come from controling a unit
SC community: This units only shoots and moves, thats so bland
SC community confirmed 15 year old girl going thorugh puberty
|
On May 23 2015 06:06 ROOTiaguz wrote:
This thread should be closed.
"I don't like what you have to say and what you guys are talking about, therefore you shouldn't be allowed to say those things."
That reminds me of someone in history...
Anyway I don't think it's necessary to re-introduce the Dragoon. In my opinion Blizzard did a nice job with the Stalker and Immortal, though I've always believed that hardened shields is a stupid ability that counters Mech too much, and should be removed, and the Immortal be cheaper (175-75) along with a few other minor changes.
I think when it comes to improving SC2, we are way beyond simply adding or subtracting units or doing minor balance changes. I know that is exactly what Blizzard is doing as they try to improve SC2, but it needs structural changes.
Despite Blizzard's best efforts to control SC2, they have been unable to do so because it is impossibly complex. Instead, they should work toward improving strategic diversity and variety, allow players plenty of opportunities to show micro skill, and make sure there is a few factors as possible left to chance, then let the players figure out the rest. They should only be stepping in when "balance" issues destroy diversity (for example: the presence of a single powerful all-in that can't be stopped in any matchup destroys diversity for said matchup).
|
On May 23 2015 05:03 EpicDemente wrote:
Remember that marauders + stim exist in this game, they would be pretty awful unless they change their stats massively just for them to be viable in PvT. In PvZ would still be overlapping with the stalker that fits the same role and has increased micro ability with blink, so in general it would be a useless unit.
Dragoon already got wreckt by Stimmed marines anyway in bw.
It's literally just move and shoot, not to mention it feels horrible doing that because it pauses for so long between each shot.
To be fair, that's because the Sbow-devs wanted a higher damage point on it (for balance purposes), but this can easily be reduced and balanced in another way.
|
Add it back and remove the Stalker.
|
On May 23 2015 12:08 StalkerFang wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 05:59 ZenithM wrote:
I don't know what's the deal with the dragoon. The unit design is really bland: it's a unit that shoots everything... Unless you want to introduce bad pathing which is what made the micro interesting in BW, it's essentially a stalker without blink and better raw stats. Yeah I was kinda on the fence about all these arguments for bringing back the dragoon... then I went and played starbow for a couple of games. Who the hell thinks this unit is more interesting than a blink stalker? It's literally just move and shoot, not to mention it feels horrible doing that because it pauses for so long between each shot. Blizzard absolutely made the right decision removing the dragoon imo. If your goal is to make gateway units stronger, go after the zealot, it seems to me to be fairly neglected lately in favour of the stalker. EDIT: reaver too honestly, everyone complains about losing a mineral line in 1 second to a widow mine, reaver seems to be even worse.
The reaver was amazingly entertaining to watch. Everytime a reaver comes into play, my heart starts racing. Due to the fact that it is so slow and fragile, you would always have to use a shuttle to transport it. So using reavers effectively required insane amounts of micro, which is what made the unit balanced.
There's also this element of chance where sometimes scarabs would "dud". This could even be promoted if you move your units a certain way. So having a reaver launch a scarab at your mineral line means you still have a chance to save it if you're fast enough. Sometimes you would have a scarab tail an entire line of workers that's desperately running away. Will it explode or not?! That's what made the reaver amazing.
If a unit from brood war would be reinstated, it should be the reaver. They conceded and gave us the lurker, why not the reaver as well...
|
On May 23 2015 17:47 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 12:08 StalkerFang wrote:On May 12 2015 05:59 ZenithM wrote:
I don't know what's the deal with the dragoon. The unit design is really bland: it's a unit that shoots everything... Unless you want to introduce bad pathing which is what made the micro interesting in BW, it's essentially a stalker without blink and better raw stats. Yeah I was kinda on the fence about all these arguments for bringing back the dragoon... then I went and played starbow for a couple of games. Who the hell thinks this unit is more interesting than a blink stalker? It's literally just move and shoot, not to mention it feels horrible doing that because it pauses for so long between each shot. Blizzard absolutely made the right decision removing the dragoon imo. If your goal is to make gateway units stronger, go after the zealot, it seems to me to be fairly neglected lately in favour of the stalker. EDIT: reaver too honestly, everyone complains about losing a mineral line in 1 second to a widow mine, reaver seems to be even worse. The reaver was amazingly entertaining to watch. Everytime a reaver comes into play, my heart starts racing. Due to the fact that it is so slow and fragile, you would always have to use a shuttle to transport it. So using reavers effectively required insane amounts of micro, which is what made the unit balanced. There's also this element of chance where sometimes scarabs would "dud". This could even be promoted if you move your units a certain way. So having a reaver launch a scarab at your mineral line means you still have a chance to save it if you're fast enough. Sometimes you would have a scarab tail an entire line of workers that's desperately running away. Will it explode or not?! That's what made the reaver amazing. If a unit from brood war would be reinstated, it should be the reaver. They conceded and gave us the lurker, why not the reaver as well...
They reintroduced a microable Scarab, which is the disrutpor. Basically, the disruptor is a Reaevr shot you can control, and there is counter play to it. So it's micro to get the shot, micro to evade it.
The concept is fairly better than Reaavers for that reason. They are also fragile and move slow when not charging.
The problem is that the "suicide mission" concept forces Disruptors to be very strong, but I think that it could be refined.
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
I don't understand why you guys want BW units back. I thought sad example of carrier in SC2 would make people think "does the game need that unit or it would be used in <1% of games"? They brought back lurker because it helps transitioning out of Roach vs Roach in ZvZ (as they stated) and takes place of redesigned Host. What would Reaver/Dragoon/Goliath/whatever bring to LotV except for nostalgia?
|
Dragoon = Stalker 95%
20HP difference.
Stalker is less damaging vs armored but has blink: a very intensive micro, high utility, high mobility, can display a ton of skill in battles and optimizes damage output by maintaining units on the field .
In any case, buff stalker, and go.
|
On May 23 2015 18:44 Ingvar wrote:
I don't understand why you guys want BW units back. I thought sad example of carrier in SC2 would make people think "does the game need that unit or it would be used in <1% of games"? They brought back lurker because it helps transitioning out of Roach vs Roach in ZvZ (as they stated) and takes place of redesigned Host. What would Reaver/Dragoon/Goliath/whatever bring to LotV except for nostalgia?
I think the interesting point of Lurker is to empower possible transitions out of Hydra play, and bring some Anti-deathball AoE and area control that can be applied on any type of units, something that Zerg lacked.
SwarmHosts used to be a good area control and antideathball at the cost of being problematic, forcing stalemates, and stupidly turtle-friendly and cost efficient.
|
The dragoon is a sort of cross between a stalker and an immortal without the interesting abilities and benefits of either.
I think it would be better to stick with those units and not try and add something that would be somewhere between those existing units.
With the reduction in effectiveness of the colossus perhaps their could be an upgrade on the robotics bay for the immortal.
For example an increase to its movement speed to allow it to 'keep up' with the rest of the protoss army and allow for better positioning to absorb damage with its shield.
An upgrade for the stalker that gives it 7 range would be another possibility. If this is on the twilight council it should cost a lot and take a long time to research so having both blink and range is not available until late game.
Also I agree that the disrupter plus warp prism picking up at range provides the same effect as a reaver would only with more flexibility and higher micro requirements for both the attacker and defender.
The disrupter is likely to receive some more attention and changes if it is not where it needs to be right now.
For example when activated a faster movement speed and shorter delay before exploding or a shorter cool down before it can be used again.
Just throwing some ideas out there. I have only seen a limited number of Lotv games and all of this may be going to far or be unnecessary, but it is fun to speculate on possibilities.
|
Give the stalker an optional gold skin. Problem fixed. The units are essentially the same.
|
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe there is even a chance that they will put the Dragoon into LotV?
|
On May 23 2015 20:58 ZAiNs wrote:
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe there is even a chance that they will put the Dragoon into LotV?
What we are discussing is that Dragoons have no place, simply because Stalkers are 90% the same than them but with much more micro, mobility and utility, at the cost of being less A-move than Dragoons since they are a bit weaker.
I think the only pointless discussion here is thinking that a Dragoon at 150/75 would have any real use in SC2.
|
It looks grand when a group of 12 goons move out, pressuring the opponent.
When WOL was released, I could not imagine protoss without dragoons. The unit was split into the vs-ground-only immortal and "dark dragoon", the stalker. How protoss has found its own SC2 balance, rendering the dragoon superfluous.
Instead of bringing the old units back, we rather should play some SC2BW if we want to have the old glory. Or SCBW. It still runs on modern computers, if configured properly even without false colors.
|
On May 23 2015 21:11 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 20:58 ZAiNs wrote:
Is anyone actually stupid enough to believe there is even a chance that they will put the Dragoon into LotV? What we are discussing is that Dragoons have no place, simply because Stalkers are 90% the same than them but with much more micro, mobility and utility, at the cost of being less A-move than Dragoons since they are a bit weaker. I think the only pointless discussion here is thinking that a Dragoon at 150/75 would have any real use in SC2.
I mostly agree with you, and I don't think it's a good idea to bring the Dragoon back in the game. However, there are some alterations and adaptations you could do in order to get such a thing to fit. For example, what if it was redesigned as a purely AA unit? You could make it do 40 flat damage, with a cooldown somewhat higher than that of a Stalker. Maybe bump up their speed to 3.375 or 3.5 as well. You'd make them specifically to deal with air comps, including major Mutalisk pressure.
Buuuut... It would be way better to just make the Immortal that price that you listed and greatly lower its vs armor bonus damage to compensate. Then it would be even beefier on a HP per cost basis, and not much weaker attack-wise. And that still wouldn't fix the issue with weak Gateway units, so it would have to be as part of a larger set of changes to the game.
|
Dragoons don't fit the design of SC2 protoss. They have no gimmicks.
Seriously, though, I think there might be something to be said about having a protoss unit that doesn't have reduced stats in exchange for a gimmick. Blizzard pretty much divided the dragoon into 3 units (stalker, immortal, adept), each with their own gimmick.
|
Bringing back a Brood War unit is a good idea in any aspect of this game.
|
sc2 needs less dragoons, not more
whats ruining the game is that every race has at least one dragoon now
|
I saw a dragoon in the campaign preview!!
but i doubt it will see any light in the multiplayer
|
On May 23 2015 20:44 okto wrote:
Give the stalker an optional gold skin. Problem fixed. The units are essentially the same.
+1.
|
A better, more flexible version of the Immortal is what we need, now that they have "reworked" it stupidly.
|
Aren't Immortals the lore replacement for Dragoons now? Immortals do a lot more damage and have better shields, but are build on the same 4 legged chassis.
|
On June 01 2015 03:54 Dota_Lust wrote:
Aren't Immortals the lore replacement for Dragoons now? Immortals do a lot more damage and have better shields, but are build on the same 4 legged chassis.
Lore-wise, they are, but game-play wise, Immortals are "rare" units meant to be built in relatively low numbers, and concieved to be the ultimate hardcounter to big armored units because of their traits (hardenedshields, insane DPS vs armor) and moving slow.
The problem is that the basic army of Protoss has lost some firepower compared to BW, since the damage system changed a bit and Stalkers are good but not as good as dragoons were vs medium units, while the Zerg basic army (Ling, Bane, Roach, Hydra) and the Terran most basic army (MarineMarauder) is stronger than they were in BW. Terran mech is also weaker, specially vs Protoss, because of the loss of Vulture/Spider mine tactics.
This situation leaves Protoss with the lack of a strong "core" unit, relatively masseable, and dependant on FF. A cheaper, readjusted Immortal could take the role of empowered dragoon and be a very interesting core unit.
|
I would rather have Stalkers with Blink than Dragoons with range. Blink is such a useful all-purpose ability (defend against muta agression/ suprise attacks into the main/ etc.)
|
I honestly feel like these suggested are purely driven by people wanting starcraft to be more like broodwar.
Yes some units were better, but the dragoon just sounds like a more boring stalker to me. There's absolutely no need to bring it back.
|
On June 13 2015 04:03 dr3am_b3ing wrote:
I would rather have Stalkers with Blink than Dragoons with range. Blink is such a useful all-purpose ability (defend against muta agression/ suprise attacks into the main/ etc.)
Obviously the person that started the thread didn't consider many of the implications of the SC2 changes on the damage system and attributes of units, and didn't do math behind it.
Dragoons in SC2 as they wre in BW would be quite pointless since we don't have medium units in SC2. Also Blink allows for very versatile and mobile tactics.... We have Immortals as powerhouses vs armored, problem is that their design is a bit off.
|
On June 13 2015 05:27 Jerom wrote:
I honestly feel like these suggested are purely driven by people wanting starcraft to be more like broodwar.
Yes some units were better, but the dragoon just sounds like a more boring stalker to me. There's absolutely no need to bring it back.
I prefer the Stalker over the Dragoon in all aspects but one--the Stalker looks skinny which I cannot agree with.
Siege Tanks and Dragoons looked cool because they were massive tanks and were twice the size of a Hydra (twice the supply as well)
This created the illusion that Protoss and Terran had these MASSIVE HULKS on the battlefield that dwarfed all of terran bio, zealots, lings, and hydralisks. And then SC2 came out with Dragoons the size of Hydralisks and the aura has just never been the same.
|
On May 23 2015 04:42 okto wrote:
I miss the old pure gold Protoss army, but other than that I don't see what the issue is with the Bluegoon. The reason why Protoss is weak early game is because Terran has marauders w/ conc shells and Zerg has roaches.
This. If Blizzard wanted to do something about protoss then what they should try to do is; remove the marauder entirely or repurpose it, remove or rework the Roach, put warpgate higher up in the tech tree (starbow has it at the archives), remove combat shields and add in medics while stripping the heal from speedvacs.
Check out starbow if you want to know more.
|
On June 13 2015 05:27 Jerom wrote:
I honestly feel like these suggested are purely driven by people wanting starcraft to be more like broodwar.
Yes some units were better, but the dragoon just sounds like a more boring stalker to me. There's absolutely no need to bring it back.
What we want is a RTS game that has more emphasis on positional play rather then timing pushes.
|
On June 13 2015 06:10 alpenrahm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 05:27 Jerom wrote:
I honestly feel like these suggested are purely driven by people wanting starcraft to be more like broodwar.
Yes some units were better, but the dragoon just sounds like a more boring stalker to me. There's absolutely no need to bring it back. What we want is a RTS game that has more emphasis on positional play rather then timing pushes.
How does this fit in with the topic?
|
I don't think the stalker is bad at all. The sentry and force field just has to go. Then buff gateway units and delay warp gate tech or change its fundamentals.
Protoss in brood war was a fearsome thing. Playing versus brood war's Protoss made you scared. Playing versus Sc2's protoss makes you frustrated because they're a gimmick race.
|
On June 13 2015 06:10 alpenrahm wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 05:27 Jerom wrote:
I honestly feel like these suggested are purely driven by people wanting starcraft to be more like broodwar.
Yes some units were better, but the dragoon just sounds like a more boring stalker to me. There's absolutely no need to bring it back. What we want is a RTS game that has more emphasis on positional play rather then timing pushes.
Why not positional timing pushes?
|
On June 13 2015 06:06 alpenrahm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2015 04:42 okto wrote:
I miss the old pure gold Protoss army, but other than that I don't see what the issue is with the Bluegoon. The reason why Protoss is weak early game is because Terran has marauders w/ conc shells and Zerg has roaches. This. If Blizzard wanted to do something about protoss then what they should try to do is; remove the marauder entirely or repurpose it, remove or rework the Roach, put warpgate higher up in the tech tree (starbow has it at the archives), remove combat shields and add in medics while stripping the heal from speedvacs. Check out starbow if you want to know more.
Why shoul everything early-midgame be BW2/Starbow?
I like some aspects of their design, but I aslo like SC2, specially medivacs over medics, since it makes BioMech way more viable. Maraiders removed an Medics in would add nothing good to SC2, and would remove much more of the flexibilty lf Terran. Whats more, it woul make banelings imba as hell....
Starbow is Starbow and BW is BW... dont expect to port things and have a miracle.... SC2 has very interesting points too sometimes. But they do some things bad like new Lurkers (much more deffensive than offensive) or dull mechanics.
|
How about just buff the stalker?
Jeez, so surprised ppl want more useless units in this game... as if we dont have enough
|
On June 14 2015 07:37 Kranyum wrote:
How about just buff the stalker?
Jeez, so surprised ppl want more useless units in this game... as if we dont have enough
The Stalker and the goon have similar relative speed and similar damage. Slight advantage of hitpoints for goon and a slight DPS lead for the stalker--but the stalker has blink and the goon doesn't have anything.
The Stalker is already the buffed goon.
|
On June 14 2015 12:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 07:37 Kranyum wrote:
How about just buff the stalker?
Jeez, so surprised ppl want more useless units in this game... as if we dont have enough The Stalker and the goon have similar relative speed and similar damage. Slight advantage of hitpoints for goon and a slight DPS lead for the stalker--but the stalker has blink and the goon doesn't have anything. The Stalker is already the buffed goon.
Not really, they are possibly similar , but stalkers are obviously skill intensive to achieve their maximum shooting efficiency, while dragoons might feel a bit stronger since because of the damage system in BW, they dished out 15/20 damage per shot to most units (many air units, specially mutas), and scaled better in the lategame proportionally because of upgrades. However, they were far less dynamic.
I think a small shield buff on stalkers could do it if, in any case, stalkers feel weak enough. But I think the problem is that Immortals are now improperly adjusted.
|
On May 12 2015 06:38 Pontius Pirate wrote:
I liked the blue blood and the voice acting.
I don't think that's blue blood. I think's its the liquid inside which keeps the wounded protoss alive ;o
|
On June 14 2015 12:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 07:37 Kranyum wrote:
How about just buff the stalker?
Jeez, so surprised ppl want more useless units in this game... as if we dont have enough The Stalker and the goon have similar relative speed and similar damage. Slight advantage of hitpoints for goon and a slight DPS lead for the stalker--but the stalker has blink and the goon doesn't have anything. The Stalker is already the buffed goon.
then why are people moaning about adding the dragoon?
The unit is so similar to stalkers that it makes no sense.
probably because relatively, units from other races have become stronger: MMM balls are a lot more scary than MM in brood war.
The problem is the other races not the Stalker
|
On June 14 2015 20:36 Kranyum wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 12:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 14 2015 07:37 Kranyum wrote:
How about just buff the stalker?
Jeez, so surprised ppl want more useless units in this game... as if we dont have enough The Stalker and the goon have similar relative speed and similar damage. Slight advantage of hitpoints for goon and a slight DPS lead for the stalker--but the stalker has blink and the goon doesn't have anything. The Stalker is already the buffed goon. then why are people moaning about adding the dragoon? The unit is so similar to stalkers that it makes no sense. probably because relatively, units from other races have become stronger: MMM balls are a lot more scary than MM in brood war. The problem is the other races not the Stalker
What I miss was the scaling. Tanks and Goons were only outsized by Ultralisks. Now Stalkers look as big as Roaches and Hydralisks and Siege tanks look only slightly bigger than marauders. Give as that wide base back! (animation wise)
|
On May 12 2015 06:38 Pontius Pirate wrote:
I liked the blue blood and the voice acting. I liked how it looked like a spider. It would be neat if Immortals had more prominent legs, and maybe deeper, hollow-sounding voice clips. But from a gameplay perspective, I find the Dragoon to be thoroughly inferior to having Stalkers and Immortals in the game on a very basic level.
Agreed. We all loved Dragoons from BW, but it's definitely a nostalgia argument (blue blood, appearance, even its quirky movements) rather than an argument based on a need to fill a Protoss niche.
We simply don't need them. They aren't going to solve a particular problem that Protoss has, or fill a particular hole in current Protoss unit compositions, unless you change them completely (as in: unless you no longer make them BW Dragoons).
|
Bisutopia19224 Posts
Dragoons were awesome, but the stalker is a solid replacement. If stalkers became more stout in late game I wouldn't mind. The best BW units that could come into sc2 are the dark archon and arbiter. Both units don't rely on buggy AI for balance. But since the arbiter practically exist, the only unit left to bring over as the Dark Archon which could be adjusted for sc2. Why not have it attack like a dragoon but with a red ball. Slow attack high damage. And then give it a recharge ability which increase shield and energy regeneration on a target unit. And another ability where a unit is temporarily considered an ally. For example, if casted on a tank all unit on auto attack will attack the tank as it is marked as an enemy for three seconds. Bam! I just created a sick ass unit!
|
On June 15 2015 01:43 BisuDagger wrote:
Dragoons were awesome, but the stalker is a solid replacement. If stalkers became more stout in late game I wouldn't mind. The best BW units that could come into sc2 are the dark archon and arbiter. Both units don't rely on buggy AI for balance. But since the arbiter practically exist, the only unit left to bring over as the Dark Archon which could be adjusted for sc2. Why not have it attack like a dragoon but with a red ball. Slow attack high damage. And then give it a recharge ability which increase shield and energy regeneration on a target unit. And another ability where a unit is temporarily considered an ally. For example, if casted on a tank all unit on auto attack will attack the tank as it is marked as an enemy for three seconds. Bam! I just created a sick ass unit!
I think that the problem is that the kind of unit you are definig would take nearly 300 gas, so it has to be brutal itself, with at least good mechanics to move around. Otherwise, will be shredded in 1 second by everything or EMPd'.
Disruptors become invulnerable for a reason.
|
Iam more curious how the dragoon would be implemented into this game.
It cant be a 100% bw copy.
It did 20 dmg vs armored
15 vs medium
10 vs light
It would have to do like 35 dmg to armored and 15-20 vs light.
They get a passive effect to, an effect that when enemy units come close to it the units slow down a bit..Maybe is pushed back slightly to once every x sec.
Maybe possible to walk through its own dragoons to make it microable in a slightly different and more effective way.
(ability with no cooldown)
|
dragoons were the worst unit in bw and thereis already too many dragoon-like (high hp, uninteresting, generic ranged) units in sc2
|
On June 15 2015 02:45 Foxxan wrote:
Iam more curious how the dragoon would be implemented into this game.
It cant be a 100% bw copy.
It did 20 dmg vs armored
15 vs medium
10 vs light
It would have to do like 35 dmg to armored and 15-20 vs light.
They get a passive effect to, an effect that when enemy units come close to it the units slow down a bit..Maybe is pushed back slightly to once every x sec.
Maybe possible to walk through its own dragoons to make it microable in a slightly different and more effective way.
(ability with no cooldown)
What you are describing is the old Immortal.
However just before beta they felt immortals were expensive and unneficient, so they gave it 50 damage vs armor because that way it was justified for Protoss to pay for a unit that could be strong vs armored units like Roaches and beta Tanks.
DK phiolosophy: "If it doesn't work well, make it stupidly strong".
|
On June 15 2015 04:47 summerloud wrote:
dragoons were the worst unit in bw and thereis already too many dragoon-like (high hp, uninteresting, generic ranged) units in sc2
Somewhere out there, the Protoss Scout is breathing a sigh of relief.
|
On June 15 2015 05:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 04:47 summerloud wrote:
dragoons were the worst unit in bw and thereis already too many dragoon-like (high hp, uninteresting, generic ranged) units in sc2 Somewhere out there, the Protoss Scout is breathing a sigh of relief.
Infested Terran waves hi
|
I don't see any mention of dragoon range. That's the big key difference compared to the stalker. In BW, you couldn't use marines to fight dragooons with range. Obviously concussive an help with that, but it would put pressure on terrans. Not only that, but goons with range outranged bunkers. Using various amounts of goon pressure into expands, or forcing Terrans to cancel greedy expands was one of the nicer things about the goon.
|
On July 25 2015 08:02 Vansetsu wrote:
I don't see any mention of dragoon range. That's the big key difference compared to the stalker. In BW, you couldn't use marines to fight dragooons with range. Obviously concussive an help with that, but it would put pressure on terrans. Not only that, but goons with range outranged bunkers. Using various amounts of goon pressure into expands, or forcing Terrans to cancel greedy expands was one of the nicer things about the goon.
Stalkers come with the range upgrade already present.
|
On June 15 2015 05:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 05:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 15 2015 04:47 summerloud wrote:
dragoons were the worst unit in bw and thereis already too many dragoon-like (high hp, uninteresting, generic ranged) units in sc2 Somewhere out there, the Protoss Scout is breathing a sigh of relief. Infested Terran waves hi
Infested Terran was used by ZerO against free I think to hilarious effect kal.
Protoss Scouts had 'DADADADADADADA" when free knocked out Fantasy from an OSL.
Those units have memories, but Dragoons don't in my experience. I can't remember more than one dragoon game and only because Light fucked up the game anyway.
|
Singularity Charge is an interesting upgrade against marines without stim.
If you guys want to try a mod for HotS where you can replace the stalker and the colossus for the Dragoon and the Reaver, I have already created such a mod.
In my mod I found that the goon added an interesting dynamic especially against roach/hydra and mech compositions, but performed about the same as stalkers against bio. (same stats as BW but I also added bonus vs armored to the goon)
Personally I'd rather sign a petition to bring the reaver back as a replacement for the disruptor instead.
|
Singularity charge was only good because marines needed a range upgrade as well. Imagine the stalker vs marine matchup in Sc2, but with 1 less range on marines.
|
On July 25 2015 09:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Singularity charge was only good because marines needed a range upgrade as well. Imagine the stalker vs marine matchup in Sc2, but with 1 less range on marines.
Well that and how pathing worked. But it's a good point I completely forgot. I'd be be down for that to be the case again, kind of like you could kind of kite roaches with stalkers until they gave roaches 1+ range. I'd be down for terrans to have to commit a little harder to bio if they wanted to use it vs p, and would be happy if mech was a more viable option vs p. I'm not talking about going full BW, but the thing that I liked about the dragoon or a stalker with a bit of a range advantage was the ability you had to put pressure out for a period of time. I don't like MSC or sentry snipe/allin as much as I would just like to be able, as protoss, to force out some tech commitment or pressure, without commiting all my gas to sentries. I mean i'm of the opinion to get rid of sentries and ff and wg all together, but, I guess this is just the playstyle i'd prefer and what comes to mind when I think of the dragoon.
|
On July 25 2015 18:12 Vansetsu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 09:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Singularity charge was only good because marines needed a range upgrade as well. Imagine the stalker vs marine matchup in Sc2, but with 1 less range on marines. Well that and how pathing worked. But it's a good point I completely forgot. I'd be be down for that to be the case again, kind of like you could kind of kite roaches with stalkers until they gave roaches 1+ range. I'd be down for terrans to have to commit a little harder to bio if they wanted to use it vs p, and would be happy if mech was a more viable option vs p. I'm not talking about going full BW, but the thing that I liked about the dragoon or a stalker with a bit of a range advantage was the ability you had to put pressure out for a period of time. I don't like MSC or sentry snipe/allin as much as I would just like to be able, as protoss, to force out some tech commitment or pressure, without commiting all my gas to sentries. I mean i'm of the opinion to get rid of sentries and ff and wg all together, but, I guess this is just the playstyle i'd prefer and what comes to mind when I think of the dragoon.
I miss that too.
Marines had 4 range starting, and didn't get +1 from bunkers.
This meant 1-2 range goons could apply a LOT of early game pressure requiring bunkers + scv pull to hold off.
Moving +1 range for marines to an upgrade and +1 range from bunkers to an upgrade would do a lot to bring that back.
|
On July 25 2015 18:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 18:12 Vansetsu wrote:On July 25 2015 09:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Singularity charge was only good because marines needed a range upgrade as well. Imagine the stalker vs marine matchup in Sc2, but with 1 less range on marines. Well that and how pathing worked. But it's a good point I completely forgot. I'd be be down for that to be the case again, kind of like you could kind of kite roaches with stalkers until they gave roaches 1+ range. I'd be down for terrans to have to commit a little harder to bio if they wanted to use it vs p, and would be happy if mech was a more viable option vs p. I'm not talking about going full BW, but the thing that I liked about the dragoon or a stalker with a bit of a range advantage was the ability you had to put pressure out for a period of time. I don't like MSC or sentry snipe/allin as much as I would just like to be able, as protoss, to force out some tech commitment or pressure, without commiting all my gas to sentries. I mean i'm of the opinion to get rid of sentries and ff and wg all together, but, I guess this is just the playstyle i'd prefer and what comes to mind when I think of the dragoon. I miss that too. Marines had 4 range starting, and didn't get +1 from bunkers. This meant 1-2 range goons could apply a LOT of early game pressure requiring bunkers + scv pull to hold off. Moving +1 range for marines to an upgrade and +1 range from bunkers to an upgrade would do a lot to bring that back.
In BW marines got +2 range when they were inside a bunker. But dragoons with their range upgrade also got +2 so they still had the upper hand. Only when terran upgraded marine range for an additional +1 did marines in bunkers have the same range as dragoons with singularity charge.
|
On July 25 2015 18:46 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 18:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 25 2015 18:12 Vansetsu wrote:On July 25 2015 09:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Singularity charge was only good because marines needed a range upgrade as well. Imagine the stalker vs marine matchup in Sc2, but with 1 less range on marines. Well that and how pathing worked. But it's a good point I completely forgot. I'd be be down for that to be the case again, kind of like you could kind of kite roaches with stalkers until they gave roaches 1+ range. I'd be down for terrans to have to commit a little harder to bio if they wanted to use it vs p, and would be happy if mech was a more viable option vs p. I'm not talking about going full BW, but the thing that I liked about the dragoon or a stalker with a bit of a range advantage was the ability you had to put pressure out for a period of time. I don't like MSC or sentry snipe/allin as much as I would just like to be able, as protoss, to force out some tech commitment or pressure, without commiting all my gas to sentries. I mean i'm of the opinion to get rid of sentries and ff and wg all together, but, I guess this is just the playstyle i'd prefer and what comes to mind when I think of the dragoon. I miss that too. Marines had 4 range starting, and didn't get +1 from bunkers. This meant 1-2 range goons could apply a LOT of early game pressure requiring bunkers + scv pull to hold off. Moving +1 range for marines to an upgrade and +1 range from bunkers to an upgrade would do a lot to bring that back. In BW marines got +2 range when they were inside a bunker. But dragoons with their range upgrade also got +2 so they still had the upper hand. Only when terran upgraded marine range for an additional +1 did marines in bunkers have the same range as dragoons with singularity charge.
They got only +1 range in bunker....
BW Marines had 4 range before upgrade,+1 with bunker. (5 when upgraded, like SC2 marines, 6 in bunker)
Dragoons had 4 range before upgrade. (6 when upgraded, like SC2 stalkers)
Terran Academy was quite like Protoss Cybercore. Dragoon range took 166s vs 100s for Marine Range (and 80 for stim). I think timings were still quite adjusted. But obviously, Bio was fairly weaker since there were no MULES, no Reactors, no Marauders, and Marines had less HP.
Bio recieved significant buffs when moving to SC2, and the stupid DPS of Marauders (up to 20 DPS vs armor) hasn't helped diversity and micro, moving to easy to exploit "terrrible terrible damage" and numerical superiority instead.
|
Right here it says they get +2:
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Bunker
But perhaps the site is wrong and it really is just +1. The important point was that they do get something in contrast to what Thieving Magpie wrote.
|
On July 25 2015 20:22 RoomOfMush wrote:Right here it says they get +2: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/BunkerBut perhaps the site is wrong and it really is just +1. The important point was that they do get something in contrast to what Thieving Magpie wrote.
I had always thought it was a graphics issue and not an outright buff. The wide size of the bunker and moving the attack animation further out. I did not know it was a straight range upgrade.
|
The dragoons were great in BW, leave them there!
They wouldnt fix anything in LotV. Having a new AOE unit would be better for protoss (remove the collossus!), but one that is fun and feels right (not like the disruptor). A reaver like unit would be good but it would need to be tweaked because of the way unit clump in SC2.
Perhaps a good defensive AOE unit to be able to keep several expansions...
|
Dragoon does more damage had more health than stalkers.
SC2 marines have more health, more dps and have marauders which hard counter stalkers.
This is essence is why dragoons felt awesome and stalkers felt meh to Protoss players.
But no worries, protoss players have always found a way in sc2.
|
I though dragoon and stalkers had the same dps just different attack speeds?
I thought that the stalker had the Same range, same dps, slightly less shields, and are cheaper.
|
Stalkers are Dragoons that were nerfed to oblivion compared to what they were due to Warp Gates, Force Fields, and Blink. Thus due to their weakness, Immortals were introduced to help filling the gap of missing superior fire power against armored units.
|
On July 26 2015 02:41 WrathSCII wrote:
Stalkers are Dragoons that were nerfed to oblivion compared to what they were due to Warp Gates, Force Fields, and Blink. Thus due to their weakness, Immortals were introduced to help filling the gap of missing superior fire power against armored units.
Stalkers attack twice as fast as goons for half the damage. And because of the reductive nature of BW's system, Dragoons only deal the same amount of damage to "Large/Armored" units, and actually deal less damage to everything else compared to Stalkers.
They both have 80 hitpoints
They both have the same relative speed
the only real difference is Stalkers have Blink while Dragoons have 20 shields. The fact that Dragoons need an upgrade to get to 6 range makes them even worse than stalkers pre-singularity charge.
|
Dps density also favours marines and marauders in sc2 I would say..
|
On May 23 2015 20:44 okto wrote:
Give the stalker an optional gold skin. Problem fixed. The units are essentially the same.
/thread
|
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.
|
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.
|
What SC2 needs is more strong units that don't rely on crazy micro or spells. If you disagree, just go and see CS and League of Legends. This is what casual players want - simplicity. Sc2 failed to adapt.
|
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
|
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.
|
The two changes I would make to protoss are :
Make zealots charge more accessable. Either give it to them by default or move charge to cyber core and cost 100/100.
Charge makes zealots much better and allows protoss to actually push back small groups instead of just defending.
Basically if protoss make zealots in the early game then attacking the protoss will get you punished instead of it being very low risk with high potential reward.
Secondly I would like to see stalkers get a + damage vs flying units, either again as a flat buff or when blink is researched or even a seperate late game upgrade. I don't care, but stalkers have terrible dps and they are pretty much the only unit protoss has which can shoot up.
Other general thoughts on the state of protoss:
I like the adept, I think it gives protoss the tools their need to shut down early bio aggression, especially once people really start working out the right 'mix' of gateway units. Protoss have been desperately needing something which does good damage vs light units and this fits the bill.
The disruptor is ok, but it only works out when your opponent is distracted. In a straight up engagement it will never, ever do anything. This means it's a harassment tool. It's not going to keep you alive vs a huge roach hydra push etc.
The elephant in the room is the fact that nerfing the colossus sucks. It's worse in every way and still just as expensive as it always was. The disruptor does NOT fill the role of the colossus. It can't. Honestly I think that if the colossus does less damage and has less potential with the loss of range then both the colossus and the range upgrade should cost less.
|
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 Republic12129 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 Republic12129 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?
|
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 Republic12129 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
