EPTRemoving Units due to overlap - Page 3
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
| ||
|
Farmer Poopy
258 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 agree with you. I really enjoy the dynamic it creates in TvZ, it's harder to snipe things where a Thor is placed, but at the same time the Thor's a super slow and clunky letting the Zerg counter play via movement. I always hope to see pros shuttling around Thors in medivacs to counter muta harrass but I've only seen it in a couple of games. Also, it's nice how each individual Thor is impactful, but it's not at Mother Ship Core levels where there is a hard cap at one. Lastly, the Thor's anti light splash acts as a soft counter to mass armored air which is what people enjoy right? Soft counters? | ||
|
Brutaxilos
United States2629 Posts
| ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
When you go to the link, go to the section where Dustin Browder talks about "Simple (Why the designers hate me)". I think he makes some great points why there shouldn't be too many units. Basically saying that a) the game is going to become too random b) the units in the game will overlap a lot and not see play c) the game is going to be more confusing | ||
|
Connor5620
Australia203 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 And Nottapro is correct when he says: That goes along with LotV being more like BW than WoL or HotS. LotV is nothing like brood war not even close that goes for sc2 as a hole | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
And scrap the cyclone and just put a goliath. Cyclones are so poorly designed. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 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. It's just desirable for the counterplay to AtG units to be more efficient GtA units. The air units can abuse their mobility while the ground units will win engagements when the cost/supply of both sides are similar. Air units are not an interesting counter to other air units, unless the AtA units have multiple weaknesses that prevent them from being a simple hard counter to the AtG units. The viking's long range anti-air attack is just more suitable to a ground unit. And it leads to more interesting unit interactions. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
The Adept Zealot thing is an issue, they need to make the Adept into more of a midgame unit, it being in the early game is just dumb and makes Zealots unviable. Liberators don't overlap with Vikings too too much but the unit is just OP and fills roles from both the Viking/Thor/Banshee all in one, the problem isn't with those units, it's with the Liberator, nerf the damn thing and let it be done. Swarm Hosts will find a place in the metagame again I'm sure, it's going to take some Korean magic to make them have a place but it will happen. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 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. Because not having good GtA at factory introduces a hard counter against mech. The Goliath in BW was a good AA unit, but it was expensive, cost inefficient vs ground and also occupied your factory building time. You did not want to build too many Goliaths. You had a chance to build fewer Goliaths and rely on your superior micro but get more tanks / vultures for the additional GtG damage. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On August 12 2015 10:44 shin_toss wrote: i disagree on so many points.. sorry I don't get posts like these. You didn't say a single thing. You disagree with things. Congrats. Now what? Care to explain them? Anyway, on topic: I personally think that right now every unit ingame should get be looked at. Blizzard should ask the question "What purpose does this unit have? What gameplay opportunities does it offer? Are they both fun to play and to play AGAINST?" and if a unit is largely a negative, it should either be redesigned or scrapped. If that is done consistently, I can see units like even Colossus stay in the game. It just has to be rational and justified. | ||
| ||
