EPTMaybe just give siege tank a AP round mode with high single target damage to help zone out large units.
And still waiting to see scourges to come back. Even HotS campaign agrees that you need it to deal with a deadly air-terran ><
Removing Units due to overlap - Page 2
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Yiome
China1687 Posts
Maybe just give siege tank a AP round mode with high single target damage to help zone out large units. And still waiting to see scourges to come back. Even HotS campaign agrees that you need it to deal with a deadly air-terran >< | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On August 11 2015 20:37 Connor5620 wrote: Im just going to go on a bit of a rant here feel free to disagree and/or let me know what you think! Where did the Blizzard that made Brood War go? and now they are going to release a game like Legacy of the Void and call it "Starcraft" hell no! Wings of Liberty wasn't bad - i wish i played it more! and Heart of the Swarm? may have been fun at times and good to watch but id rather play the campaign and watch games rather then play it - Don't get me wrong ill still get LotV ill try the multiplayer for a while but as from what ive seen of the beta its not looking to good, i know its just in beta and you cant call much from it but there are still a lot of things wrong with it - In my opinion, LotV is turning out more like BW than WoL or HotS were. Although there is much work to go And Nottapro is correct when he says: I frankly hated the hard counter system, the fact that unit interaction is becoming more flexible and you can survive with the slightly wrong build order makes the game infinitely less frustrating. That goes along with LotV being more like BW than WoL or HotS. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote: In my opinion, LotV is turning out more like BW than WoL or HotS were. Although there is much work to go Does it need to turn out like BW? If so, what parts of BW played in such a way that was so much better than WoL or HotS that we need to use it as a benchmark? It had its day(s) in the sun. It'd be nice to see LotV be a good RTS rather than just BW:HD. | ||
|
FT.aCt)Sony
United States1047 Posts
On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote: Does it need to turn out like BW? If so, what parts of BW played in such a way that was so much better than WoL or HotS that we need to use it as a benchmark? It had its day(s) in the sun. It'd be nice to see LotV be a good RTS rather than just BW:HD. Did you not play Brood War? The game did indeed take skill at higher levels. You wouldnt see C class/rated players beating S class players like you do/did in WOL/HOTS. Was very obvious who the better players were in Brood War. Didn't have mass a deathball and a move and slightly micro units throughout. Unit hot key caps (2 ultras/2 siege tanks/etc...) instead of just toss everything in on one hot key. I could go on about everything that differed between the two but there is no reason too because someone will qq and whine for a report or rant. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote: Does it need to turn out like BW? If so, what parts of BW played in such a way that was so much better than WoL or HotS that we need to use it as a benchmark? It had its day(s) in the sun. It'd be nice to see LotV be a good RTS rather than just BW:HD. Does it need to? No. But if it is going to be like any game, BW should be the main influence. SC2 should feel like an improved SC1. Not improved graphics but degraded gameplay. I don't want LotV to be BW:HD. But SC2 should be a spiritual influence of BW, containing the good parts of BW while improving on others. Right now SC2 does not have the best parts of BW, and has degraded in most other areas... BW did have some control issues. But SC2 has many questionable design decisions, from the macro mechanics (that were only added to emulate BW's bad controls since macro was easier in SC2 - which is a horrible design decision in the first place - artificially make the game harder with a more difficult time vs the CPU rather than vs the opposing player, in a supposedly competitive game). This is a straight degradation of the quality of the game design. Why emulate BAD UI CONTROLS from the 90's??? Could you imagine any other genre going back to emulate outdated controls and calling it a good idea like the SC2 dev team has? Hard-counters was another one of those issues. Especially considering racial issues. The damage system in general. All of it was changed from BW, and for the worse. And as mentioned, LotV seems more like BW than WoL or HotS. So that is a good sign. | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On August 11 2015 19:26 Isarios wrote: T Viking - The Liberator completely trumps this unit for damage, splash, ground attack utility and speed. It should be removed at this point. Terran has huge numbers of options for dealing with Broodlords and no Colossus exist anymore. Hellbat/Marauder - These overlap, but are still different enough. There are lots of options for soaking banelings now. Banshee - Also basically completely overshadowed by the ease of Liberators: Libs shoot down overlords that spot them, reactor-able, cost similar gas, don't require upgrades, shoot down for tons of damage. They only lose cloaking and banshee speed, but these are all upgrades that take a lot of time. I honestly think the Liberator is too good at too many things and steps on wayyy too many existing units. Raven - tread on by the Liberator again. Zoning is simply easier with Liberators now. Harass, easier with Liberators than turret drops. A problematic unit overall in older versions. Remove? Disagree with this. The Viking and the Liberator have two different roles. Long range, high single target damage with a bonus against armored vs Short range, low aoe damage with a bonus against light. The interaction between building and controlling vikings and liberators in TvT is actually very interesting right now in my opinion. Watching someone control vikings and liberators against carriers is interesting, with the liberators mostly going after interceptors and the vikings being controlled against the carriers themselves. In TvZ, liberators really suck against corruptors, but have a similar interaction to TvT when it comes to viking control. The banshee is supposed to be mobile, cloaked harass. Thanks to the timings, ease of detection, the current meta in beta, etc it doesn't do its job very well right now. It does an ok job when it has the speed upgrade, but it's so hard to reach and given game states at that point probably not worth it unless you're on air terran. Even if the liberator didn't exist, it still wouldn't do its job very well and wouldn't see much play I think. The Raven is currently just a bad unit. The primary use of auto turrets was not harass but rather using them as physical barriers. Hunter-seeker is not similar to the ground targeted cannon. It's annoying that the only source of terran mobile detection is this bad, expensive unit. If Blizzard is intent on keeping it useless instead of redesigning its abilities, a massive price cut so that it can at least be used as a mobile detector, something the liberator cannot do, would be great. As for the Thor, I believe the de-emphasis was intentional. I don't think it should be removed though. Its anti air zoning capability is better, it's very tanky, and does hilarious dps against high hp targets. I think its ok to not see very often. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On August 12 2015 03:43 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: Did you not play Brood War? The game did indeed take skill at higher levels. You wouldnt see C class/rated players beating S class players like you do/did in WOL/HOTS. Was very obvious who the better players were in Brood War. Didn't have mass a deathball and a move and slightly micro units throughout. Unit hot key caps (2 ultras/2 siege tanks/etc...) instead of just toss everything in on one hot key. I could go on about everything that differed between the two but there is no reason too because someone will qq and whine for a report or rant. Do you have any other reasons for it? So far what you've mentioned is simply that it's easier to tell who's more skilled in BW, which I can also agree with - I've beaten players on SC2's ladder that were far better than I am, but luck made wins possible. But that shouldn't be the basis of an entire game's design pattern. I think that skill will sort itself out when the designs get more and more clear. I'm still having an issue deciding where on the "BW to C&C" spectrum to place SC2. I agree that clustering is dumb and forces AoE to do little damage, but I thought that was always an engine discussion, not a gameplay/design one. On August 12 2015 03:43 Spyridon wrote: Does it need to? No. But if it is going to be like any game, BW should be the main influence. SC2 should feel like an improved SC1. Not improved graphics but degraded gameplay. I don't want LotV to be BW:HD. But SC2 should be a spiritual influence of BW, containing the good parts of BW while improving on others. Right now SC2 does not have the best parts of BW, and has degraded in most other areas... BW did have some control issues. But SC2 has many questionable design decisions, from the macro mechanics (that were only added to emulate BW's bad controls since macro was easier in SC2 - which is a horrible design decision in the first place - artificially make the game harder with a more difficult time vs the CPU rather than vs the opposing player, in a supposedly competitive game). This is a straight degradation of the quality of the game design. Why emulate BAD UI CONTROLS from the 90's??? Could you imagine any other genre going back to emulate outdated controls and calling it a good idea like the SC2 dev team has? Hard-counters was another one of those issues. Especially considering racial issues. The damage system in general. All of it was changed from BW, and for the worse. And as mentioned, LotV seems more like BW than WoL or HotS. So that is a good sign. I definitely like the argument regarding hard counters being stupid. Makes the game feel like rock, paper, scissors but with 300+ APM. Which games have had better UI control that you're thinking about that Blizzard needs to emulate? | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5427 Posts
Zealots/adepts definitely need a change. I enjoyed beating a guy and being called a retard because I mixed in zealots with my adepts. Dont know why adept needs to be so tanky. Zealots should be tankier, adepts should be better vs. light. The cyclone should be good vs. single target air (vs. armoured), thor should be good vs. clumped air (light). Cyclone be not as good at all vs. ground. Yeah yeah "just rename it the goliath then!" whatever. Tank should be good vs. ground. It is, but the cyclone is too... Tempest is definitely in a weird spot. Almost would like to see it get aoe damage vs. air or something (like it originally had). I don't see a problem with hydra/roach and lurker/baneling. but 1 supply roaches might be... interesting... haha. Swarm host... ugh. Maybe there hasn't been enough experimenting with them. I see fenner use them a lot in Lotv. Whether or not they are being useful or if he's just dragging out an already won game I can't tell. I think an interesting idea would be to lower the cooldown significantly on spawn locusts again, lower the mineral cost of the swarm host and then make each wave of locusts cost minerals. Then it could be like yeah, I want to swarm this guy over so I'll spend 1500 minerals on 3 quick succession locusts waves. Maybe even something like 50 minerals per SH per locust wave, with a cooldown of only 5-10 seconds. If the enemy is ready they can shut it down easily and now the SH user is out a ton of minerals. Or if not, maybe the zerg just spent 2000 minerals but leveled half a base in 30 seconds. Maybe too all or nothing, but it's probably a more interesting idea than now. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
I don't agree that Terran has an easy time dealing with Brood Lords, apart from simply outmaneuvering them. If the Viking is to be removed (and personally, I think it should be), then another aerial countermeasure should be implemented. One idea I had was to lower the energy cost of Yamato Canon to 75 and decrease its damage to 225, exactly enough to 1-shot a Brood Lord, and increase the shields of Tempests to 175, so that it's not enough to 2-shot an Ultralisk, BC, or Tempest. This makes BCs combat well against Brood Lords and Carriers, but still have units they don't tear through particularly well. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On August 12 2015 03:49 IntoTheheart wrote: Do you have any other reasons for it? So far what you've mentioned is simply that it's easier to tell who's more skilled in BW, which I can also agree with - I've beaten players on SC2's ladder that were far better than I am, but luck made wins possible. But that shouldn't be the basis of an entire game's design pattern. I think that skill will sort itself out when the designs get more and more clear. I'm still having an issue deciding where on the "BW to C&C" spectrum to place SC2. I agree that clustering is dumb and forces AoE to do little damage, but I thought that was always an engine discussion, not a gameplay/design one. I definitely like the argument regarding hard counters being stupid. Makes the game feel like rock, paper, scissors but with 300+ APM. Which games have had better UI control that you're thinking about that Blizzard needs to emulate? Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant is sc2 should not have tried to emulate bw's bad ui controls by adding macro mechanics that artificially make the game harder with the player fighting against the game itself. Just because bw had an outdated ui shouldn't mean we should have to waste APM on repetitive crap. It's just bad design theories. More APM used for competing against the other player? Great. APM used for competing against the CPU? Does not have a place in a player vs player competitive game. That's like making a change to where scv's do not return minerals on their own and you have to manually send them back and forth. No one would think that's a good change for the game. Well the macro mechanics are not so different... Bad design theories | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On August 12 2015 04:57 Spyridon wrote: Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant is sc2 should not have tried to emulate bw's bad ui controls by adding macro mechanics that artificially make the game harder with the player fighting against the game itself. Just because bw had an outdated ui shouldn't mean we should have to waste APM on repetitive crap. It's just bad design theories. More APM used for competing against the other player? Great. APM used for competing against the CPU? Does not have a place in a player vs player competitive game. Oh I absolutely agree. I'm not quoting everything because it might break TL's character limit. I think that the macro mechanics (speaking from my memories of WoL's beta, a long time ago) were cool when I saw them first. "Oh look at this! I can power out VOIDRAYS AND RUSH HAHAHA!" and "neaaat! I can get more workers more quickly with Zerg and therefore jump into the action a little sooner." They were certainly cool, but it feels (to my scrub-level of playing, bear in mind that I'm awful at SC) like it's something you have to do without any sense of risk/reward. If you don't inject, you're screwed. If you do inject, you'll macro and build an army quickly, but your opponent who's also injecting will have an army of similar size. Something like Terran was at least okay, because you had the choice between MULES and scan. Protoss using chrono on upgrades was cool, but obviously infuriating when you were facing down VRs super early. I remember Canata, and qxc saying that the pace of the game in LotV was a lot faster than we had seen in HotS, so that extra APM used for fighting would certainly make the game feel a lot more about a 1v1, rather than 1+CPUv1+CPU. It would also make the game cooler to watch, which is always helpful. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On August 11 2015 19:26 Isarios wrote: Here in LOTV, I'm perplexed as to why nobody talks about removing units anymore. In my opinion, there are too many units now, adding more to the WOL + HOTS mix. I agree. Lotv has too many overlapping units for a Starcraft, both within one race and also with other races. While each unit still has a role, and some overlapping of a few units might not hurt, it feels weird to have this large roster now. Of course, if Blizzard would even think about removing units, we would get a community crapstorm and petitions, asking/demanding to not remove beloved units. It also defies the Blizzard way of making expansions, which are made to add content. But if we consider Lotv a stand-alone game, it might be good to reshape the array of unit options for each race. I doubt there is any remote chance, Blizzard will do this, alone for the reason of the complaints by the community. | ||
|
Sogetsu
514 Posts
And also a lot compare the Marauder and Hellbat... they are so different, the only thing they share is the inability to attack air units and the bio tag. | ||
|
Isarios
United States153 Posts
I'm just bringing up the point that currently a lot of units are overlapped. As you can see, everyone already has something to say about the topic. I don't mean that these all should be removed. I'm just showing that there's a lot of overlap. Yeah, I really like both banelings and lurkers. Though I don't think we are going to see much burrow banelings anymore. Also, Lurkers atm are so good against everything that they do fill a different role, unlike being an anti-grouped AOE unit, like anti bio. -- About Disruptors and Colossus, no I don't think they could co-exist. Mostly because how rage inducing would that be to play against TvP? 3 different forms of AOE? NAH! Imo, disruptors are "better" more micro to use effectively. Lowered efficacy in mass (slightly, if you can't get them all to hit good places). But very ... finnicky atm. If the opposing player doesn't split, it can basically be gg right there. IF they do, Protoss is out of options and dies with his gateway army. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On August 12 2015 05:02 IntoTheheart wrote: Oh I absolutely agree. I'm not quoting everything because it might break TL's character limit. I think that the macro mechanics (speaking from my memories of WoL's beta, a long time ago) were cool when I saw them first. "Oh look at this! I can power out VOIDRAYS AND RUSH HAHAHA!" and "neaaat! I can get more workers more quickly with Zerg and therefore jump into the action a little sooner." They were certainly cool, but it feels (to my scrub-level of playing, bear in mind that I'm awful at SC) like it's something you have to do without any sense of risk/reward. If you don't inject, you're screwed. If you do inject, you'll macro and build an army quickly, but your opponent who's also injecting will have an army of similar size. Something like Terran was at least okay, because you had the choice between MULES and scan. Protoss using chrono on upgrades was cool, but obviously infuriating when you were facing down VRs super early. I remember Canata, and qxc saying that the pace of the game in LotV was a lot faster than we had seen in HotS, so that extra APM used for fighting would certainly make the game feel a lot more about a 1v1, rather than 1+CPUv1+CPU. It would also make the game cooler to watch, which is always helpful. I always thought it was lame as Zerg to be honest. Especially in WoL. SC2 Zerg feels NOTHING like SC1 Zerg, ESPECIALLY in the early game (late is more similar). I mean, yeah sure you can make more eggs at once, but the other races have their own boosts too, and (especially early on) unless u went all-in u had nothing to do but try to defend for the whole start of the game. A lot more defensive and less active than BW Zerg early game. Plus a lot more ways to be exploited, with the only early anti air being Queens. Aside from those differences, and more on topic, I never had a problem with Zergs production in BW. Who cares if you had to make more macro hatch? At least that's better than having to manually create your eggs! lol... its acutally harder to keep up with terran productions in SC2, with the heavy mineral advantage they have mixed with double marine production, and the fact that you need to invest a sum of gas to be able to compete with the marine production. So relatively, early game is worse off... Then when it comes to late game, Zerg suffers the most here. Other races can save up their mechanics for emergencies. Zerg has to keep it up or lose. Yes Zerg macro does have its advantages, but they are also very easily exploitable. Taking out a single building, or a stray queen, could shut your production down completely. Also think about balance issues these mechanics lead to. The game will be -far- easier to balance without them. Just bad design all around... Which is what makes me personally wish for more BW design decisions. I don't want a new BW. I want a new StarCraft. But it should take the best of BW and the best new features & combine them. Not degrade, and no questionable game design... And back to main topico f this post, overlap is an issue too, mostly brought about by hard counters. I personally believe a number of units can be combined... Keep functionality of both but in a single unit. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On August 11 2015 23:37 winsonsonho wrote: [*]Viking is boring and it's ground transformation is pointless - swap for goliath Goliaths are in the WOL campaign. I've played with them, and I legitimately can't think of a Terran unit that is more boring to play with than Goliaths with SC2 (aka perfect) unit pathing. edit: Ironically enough, Thors come the closest to approximating the Goliaths's shitty pathing, and everybody wants them made smaller or removed completely. Hmm. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 12 2015 07:57 pure.Wasted wrote: Goliaths are in the WOL campaign. I've played with them, and I legitimately can't think of a Terran unit that is more boring to play with than Goliaths with SC2 (aka perfect) unit pathing. edit: Ironically enough, Thors come the closest to approximating the Goliaths's shitty pathing, and everybody wants them made smaller or removed completely. Hmm. I think the goliath is mainly intersting for its strategical implications. It's a strong GtA unit from the factory. If you build factories it would be supereasy to get it. From there it's about balancing the amounts of goliath's you get with the amounts of antiground units. Which is pretty much the same dynamic as getting vikings, just that you can't build vikings from the factory. But I think they are much more interesting designwise than the goliath. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
If the factory was "slow GtG splash and space control" and starport was "AtA and AtG harass" that would be much superior to replacing the Viking with a Goliath and having the factory be a complete tech path in of itself. Even the weird mix we have now (factory = "GtG splash", starport = "AtA + AtG space control and harass") is better than reintroducing the Goliath, IMO. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 12 2015 08:31 Athenau wrote: Why is it desirable to have strong GtA from the factory? The game's more interesting when tech paths have gaps that you have to cover with clever play or good scouting and planning. If the factory was "slow GtG splash and space control" and starport was "AtA and AtG harass" that would be much superior to replacing the Viking with a Goliath and having the factory be a complete tech path in of itself. Even the weird mix we have now (factory = "GtG splash", starport = "AtA + AtG space control and harass") is better than reintroducing the Goliath, IMO. When I said interesting I meant "desireable when you play Terran".  You always want easy access to vital roles like antiair as the player. Whether it is good for the game or not I withhold a general judgement, that depends on the strategies implied. For Mech, I believe the current situation is fine. Vikings are more than viable, same goes for liberators. Thors are more than just good against mutalisks and a few other units. Widow mines are a very easy access antiair that gives a massable support to the real antiair. Cyclones are already too strong imo. If those units aren't enough the problem is probably on the other side, e.g. carriers, tempsts or parasitic bomb or broodlords or whatever such a problem would be. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
On August 12 2015 08:43 Big J wrote: When I said interesting I meant "desireable when you play Terran". You always want easy access to vital roles like antiair as the player. Whether it is good for the game or not I withhold a general judgement, that depends on the strategies implied. For Mech, I believe the current situation is fine. Vikings are more than viable, same goes for liberators. Thors are more than just good against mutalisks and a few other units. Widow mines are a very easy access antiair that gives a massable support to the real antiair. Cyclones are already too strong imo. If those units aren't enough the problem is probably on the other side, e.g. carriers, tempsts or parasitic bomb or broodlords or whatever such a problem would be. Yes, players always want easy access to vital unit roles. But I think this is less important when you don't have macro mechanics that produce ultra-strong timings. If players had to worry less about the game ending immediately because they didn't scout a tech transition in time, they'd be more willing to play around deficiencies in their chosen composition. Moments like these produce some of most memorable games in Starcraft (Fantasy countering Flash's BC's with mass widow mine comes to mind). The game needs to be less about "you lose" mechanics and more about thinking on your feet and accruing incremental advantages. | ||
| ||
