|
When HOTS was announced, Blizzard made a big deal about how strategically not having too many units created an interesting game state. They also said they wanted to remove some WOL units to keep the number of units similar.
In the end, fans decided they didn't want any of their units removed and none were. HOTS did just fine with this slightly increased number of units, now into a game a few years old.
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.
Now more than ever we are seeing tons of units overlap each other and not finding different enough roles.
Many units would find new purpose without their competing overlaps. Currently, many units are simply overshadowed by their newer counterparts.
Also sadly, basically every new LOTV design or redesign simply treads on something already existing.
Edit: While I do think removing units is a good idea for clean design, I currently don't have the arguments for it. I'm simply bringing again to light this idea and hopefully adding some discussion.
Also, the below units are intended for removal. I'm just saying they overlap. Especially for example, banelings and lurkers. I just say they overlap a bit. Both are great units with areas where they don't overlap and should not be removed.
I will name a few and hopefully you all can supply the rest:
P
Tempest - Carrier is much stronger now, and has moderately long range. Has moderately little micro potential/requirement.
Zealot - Adepts are in general better. They fill the same anti-light role and tanking role. Has very little micro potential beyond general micro mechanics. Honestly, would the game be that much worse if Zealots were replaced with Adepts? It feels flavorful too.
Colossus - extinct in face of the disruptor
Void Ray - even could be said to have lost its niche and could be removed. Okay for midgame defense, sometimes overshadowed by Oracle. Good for all ins, but not as flashy as the Tempest all in. Theoretically very useful in an emergency counter to Broodlords, but the Protoss player tends to lose if they are in that position.
Mothership - who even remembered this unit existed? It needs a buff. I don't suggest its removal, simply because its fun to cloak everything.
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.
Thor - AA splash via widow mines, AND LIBERATORS AGAIN. Not good on ground. Cyclones also overlap the Thor.
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?
Z
Banelings - slightly overlapped by Lurkers. Especially in the burrowed land mine style. Anyone remember scarlett vs Bomber on Habitation Station? That was incredible.
Corrupter - overlapped by Viper Parasitic Bomb, a moderately unloved unit and has little potential right now.
Swarm Host - Not used at all. Tell me again, what's this unit do?
So far, I'm happier with LOTV as a fun game, but design-wise, these are such obvious flaws that I don't know why nobody talks about them.
|
I think your topic has been brought up a lot in discussions. I fully agree that there are too many units with peculiar identity currently. Though my list would look a bit different. I think some of the overlaps you describe are OK because they lead to distinctly different gameplay (e.g. lurker-baneling).
Personally I would love to see the zerg range path diversified. Currently too many units do similar things:
roach - more longevity (1supply now possible with larva inject reworked?)
hydralisk - more focus on antiair (stronger attack vs air, weaker vs ground); otherwise it will always overlap with the roach a lot
lurker - too mobile; can jump on enemy armies which is not its job but the job of roaches, should just be slower
ravager - not good enough for its cost in the lategame; too mobile for an early siegerange unit; would like to see the early game speed nerfed to roach speed but the extra speed unlocked through the roach speed upgrade (maybe even just keep it slow all game long). Mid-/Lategame upgrade for the corrosive bile shot which is pretty bad after the early game and midgame.
infestor - fungal growth removed; parasitic bomb moved to the infestor; fungal at the moment is just bad in comparison with lurkers for antiground and with PB for antiair. And it's unfun to get fungaled. The infestor needs a stronger, yet more situational spell.
viper - back to HotS status (PB removed fromt he viper)
Swarm Host - removed; it serves no real purpose. We don't want free units as combat mechanic and even as harassmechanic it shouldn't be better than real unit drops or real flying units. It overlaps on all ends with existing units such as mutalisks (for harass) or broodlords (for attacking) or lurkers when you want a lategame/longrange unit that profits from your acquired range upgrades.
|
Having units in the game that aren't used that often is fine. As players figure the game out more things will change. In WoL it took over a year for Zergs to make Infestors. All it takes is some minor stat tweaking to totally change a unit's usage. Archons used to be considred a joke, and now they're super important.
Also a lot of the units you say overlap don't actually overlap at all... You really think the Lurker and Baneling are anywhere near similar enough to warrant one of them being removed? Hellbat and Marauder? Have you ever seen a PvT or TvT?
Pretty much your whole Terran list is just saying 'Liberator is too strong so there's no point in making this unit!' Obviously the Liberator's stats are going to change quite a bit before release, this isn't really a design issue.
|
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 -
|
I just want them to give us back badass WoL Voidrays. They were so much stronger. Oh and I said the Tempest was an easy to control weak carrier since HotS.
As for the Mothership, Blizzard said in HotS they only want it to be used for giggles and were in shock that it became mandatory for Protoss vs Swarmhosts. Not that it was completely obvious when they made Locusts work on their own against real units, and nerfed the Voidray into non existence.
Also I guess Liberators will get a rework and have some weaknesses added to them. Apart from being forced to targetfire in an awkward way with their ground attack. And not looking like a Terran unit at all.
But I don't mind that there are Scouts in the game. (unit not used by anyone in BW) Because even the Scout got some play on competitive level.
So while, since HotS the new units just replace others instead of bringing something new to the table, I don't mind that we still have the old ones in the game. They don't hurt unless you fatfinger. And units to get for the giggles are always fun and sometimes the only answer (see Mothership).
The most important reason is though. I am expecting that we will get a huge patch changing the game up past LotV release, when they observed the game for long enough to see holes that players and mapmakers couldn't fill in terms of balance.
So its nice that there are units people grew attached to still lingering around in the game.
Oh and they are currently focusing on speeding up the macro, not units. So this thread comes a bit to early Imo, as they are probably aware of it. And just patch things to prevent that one race roflstomps the other.
|
I would remove tempests, liberators and/or cyclones and swarm hosts. Of course, never gonna happen, but one can dream.
|
Setting aside the specifics of your analysis.
I'm struggling to see a cast iron reason to get rid of units because their roles overlap with other units. Am I missing something? The OP doesn't really provide one outside of "Blizzard said it was a good idea" and he manages to do that without a quote so we aren't told what their reasoning was.
Off the top of my head...
-Design elegance. Pretty much an aesthetic concern. It seems just generally ugly to have units sitting unused.
-Viewer understanding. I think you could argue that having units vary from game to game inside a single race is a problem for viewers understanding. I don't really buy it though as A. This exact state of affairs is generally considered desirable for Terran (see Bio vs. Mech). B. RTTs (MOBAs) manage to have dozens of characters that appear once a season, never to be seen again.
-Player understanding. When a player builds a building, being presented with a choice of 4 units to build might be a problem. Working out what unit compositions fit together could become a real difficulty but... Is there a huge difference between having to select 1 unit from 4 or 1 unit from 3? Aren't decision like "what units do I build?" supposed to be difficult and interesting questions to answer?
I'm not saying this doesn't deserve talking about. (Which seems to be the main points of this thread)
I'm not saying that there could never be such a thing as too many units. (There is a huge difference between having to select 1 unit from 4 and 1 unit from 20)
I'm saying that the start of the thread is poor. Questions about RTSs in general ("How many units is too many units?") or more a call to arms on a particular unit or two ("Remove tempests, vikings and corrupters.) might produce something worth reading. This is just going to be a bunch of people, with no point of reference, talking about what units might over lap, while another bunch of people say "Don't remove units" without giving any sort of coherent reason why/why not.
|
I want to jump on the removing units and talk about widow mines. It would be nice if widow mines did not: 1) kill interceptors, 2) oneshot sentries and HT in their splash.
It takes so much away from tanks and hellbats because it's such a superior option.
Maybe it comes too early. Being a tier 3 factory utility unit would be much more interesting for base defending, which is what stuff like the shredder was supposed to be in the first place.
|
This is the corollary of hardcounter units. sc2 prefers ten 50% units than five 100%.
|
On August 11 2015 21:40 Dapper_Cad wrote:
Setting aside the specifics of your analysis.
I'm struggling to see a cast iron reason to get rid of units because their roles overlap with other units. Am I missing something? The OP doesn't really provide one outside of "Blizzard said it was a good idea" and he manages to do that without a quote so we aren't told what their reasoning was.
Off the top of my head...
-Design elegance. Pretty much an aesthetic concern. It seems just generally ugly to have units sitting unused.
-Viewer understanding. I think you could argue that having units vary from game to game inside a single race is a problem for viewers understanding. I don't really buy it though as A. This exact state of affairs is generally considered desirable for Terran (see Bio vs. Mech). B. RTTs (MOBAs) manage to have dozens of characters that appear once a season, never to be seen again.
-Player understanding. When a player builds a building, being presented with a choice of 4 units to build might be a problem. Working out what unit compositions fit together could become a real difficulty but... Is there a huge difference between having to select 1 unit from 4 or 1 unit from 3? Aren't decision like "what units do I build?" supposed to be difficult and interesting questions to answer?
I'm not saying this doesn't deserve talking about. (Which seems to be the main points of this thread)
I'm not saying that there could never be such a thing as too many units. (There is a huge difference between having to select 1 unit from 4 and 1 unit from 20)
I'm saying that the start of the thread is poor. Questions about RTSs in general ("How many units is too many units?") or more a call to arms on a particular unit or two ("Remove tempests, vikings and corrupters.) might produce something worth reading. This is just going to be a bunch of people, with no point of reference, talking about what units might over lap, while another bunch of people say "Don't remove units" without giving any sort of coherent reason why/why not.
It's obviously dependent on the unit. But the core idea behind any unit is that it is unique and does something no other unit can do - at least in some way. So you start off by designing some units with good interactions and then you try to create more units and eventually the units start to become so different from the original ones that the interactions with them go bad. Eventually you start creating units that are solely there to counteract a specific opponent or even worse a specific opponent in a specific scenario. The result being that this unit is so strong for that scenario but so weak in others that neither the scenario, nor the counterunit are actually being played. (immortal - tank, tempest vs capital ships, marines - protoss air)
It's not something that couldn't be repaired most of the time, but the question is why you even provoke the situation when there is no real gain from it besides being a time (and money) sink for the developers that could be spent differently. And that often just isn't being repaired or just very late.
|
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.
|
On August 11 2015 22:35 nottapro wrote:
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.
And infinitely more interesting. I can only watch it at the moment - no beta access, but when I saw Hellions + Cyclones vs. Roaches I got pretty happy to see that it wasn't cookie-cutter Blizzard-approved comps.
|
I am not really against units overlapping, if multiple units are decent at a specific task it will increase diversity.
However currently the are some really big hard counters in the game so there is really no choice in what units to make.
As for your example
I for the most part agree with your protoss suggestions. The only thing I disagree with is that instead of removing the zealot remove the adept and buff zealot... (and exchange charge with a simple speed buff (and solve concussion shells some how)). People seriously unrated how much micro a "standard" unit takes+ it will be easier for newbies.
Terran
I would add tank to the list of units being overshadowed by the liberator. The liberator is what the siege tank should have been except that it is a air unit so it lacks a bunch of interesting strategic decision making.
Zerg
Don´t agree that banelings and lurkers overlap other than that I agree.
So if we are gonna keep all the hard countering going around then sure I wouldn´t mind removing some units.
The better choice is to tone down the hard countering imho.
|
I had a dream:
- Collosus is horrible in so many ways - Disruptor/Reaver will be a much better
- Tempest doesn't have or need to have a place
- Mothership Core and Mothership are singular - Arbiters please
- Zealot = tanky + fast - Adept = slower + semi anti-light + dps
- Viking is boring and it's ground transformation is pointless - swap for goliath
- Thor redesign required! - slow, fat, stupid
- Cyclone moving shot T_T - *see Viking ^^
- Swarm Host is horrible in so many ways - let it go
- Corruptor is *Yawn* - flying banelings might be more interesting (Scourge...)
|
So at the starport you just want to have a medivac and liberator? While we are at it lets give marines concussive shells and reaper speed and give the hellion siege mode and spider mines that attack both air and ground!!!!
Seriously though, if a unit can fill the role of 4 other units from the starport ( minus detection from raven ) maybe its that unit we should consider removing. That is basically the definition of an overpowered unit.
The mothership should have kept its offensive recall it had from the WoL days and maybe even change the other abilites on the mothership itself to really differentiate the two between offensive (Mothership) and defensive (Mothership Core) units.
It seems harsh to say the corruptor has little potential. I think removing the corruption ability just made the weakest AA unit even weaker. And we can't just say that zergs only option in dealing with air units is a spell casters ability.... It is slower than the other races AA and has worse range it has just needed some serious tweaks for a long time, but a unit not worth removing in my opinion.
|
As a Zerg player i can say that i use every unit in zerg arsenal and i like it. The diversity gives me the possibility to calculate the situation and choose the best unit possible to deal with it.
About those in specific. Banelings are cheap and mobile, gl trading evenly and defending drops with lurkers. Corruptors are tanky and faster to make and use in an emergency (read "liberator" emergency here). SH are good for harrassing and ending games. Often tryhards will mass defense on 2 base and refuse to leave the game.
|
P
Tempest - I kind of agree here
Zealot - Zealots and Adepts are not really that similar. Melee and ranged is a massive difference, as is charge and shadow-projection-thingy. This doesn't really make much sense.
Colossus - I think the colossus should be a much slower unit to differentiate it from the disruptor.
Void Ray - I don't really see any overlap with this unit honestly.
T
Viking - This is actually a really good point imo.
Hellbat/Marauder - I honestly don't see the overlap at all. Just because they both can be meatshields? Different techs, different attacks, different ranges...
Banshee - The main differentiator is that Banshees have cloak and more mobility, of course.
Thor - Thors are much much slower, and is very obviously differentiated in that way.
Raven - I don't see the overlap at all with the liberator. Liberators can't PDD or Heat-seeker? Just by their nature, I don't think spellcasters can overlap with non-caster units because of mana.
Z
Banelings - These are really not overlapped by lurkers at all imo. Hell, banelings are suicide units.
Corrupter - Once again, I don't think a unit can be overlapped by a spell.
Swarm Host - Clearly this unit was nerfed to the ground. It hasn't really found its place in the game, but it doesn't overlap with anything.
It seems to me like your main problem is specifically the Liberator. Would you say that's accurate?
|
This could all be fixed by nerfing the Liberator.
Because what this whole list accurately points out is why build anything with Liberators in the game.
I know it's beta and things are OP because nobody really knows what to do but the unit is just blatant OP rofl it's literally good at anything and everything.
|
On August 11 2015 20:37 Connor5620 wrote:
Where did the Blizzard that made Brood War go?
Blizzard Entertainment is no longer around. It is Blizzard/Activision dont you know?
Look at the timeline of Starcraft 2 and compare it to the business models for the company. 2008, Activision/Blizzard "birth" and then SC2 and continued forward with the other titles.
Look at the reorg'ing the company took. How many of the original developers from SC/BW were on SC2?
This is the problem. Companies need to invest in actual focus groups of the community itself and not just CEO's and their kids like most tend to do. Companies that actually gauge the client base succeed and have successful aspects. Was SC2 successful? Sure why wouldn't it be, it had a name and brand already defined. Could it have been better? Absolutely.
|
What I'm getting from this thread is that the liberator is stupid.
And I agree
|
Liberator... Could have split its role to vikings/thors and tanks.
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 ><
|
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.
|
On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote: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 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.
|
On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote: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 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.
|
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.
|
On August 12 2015 03:43 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote: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 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.
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:Show nested quote +On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote: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 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.
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?
|
I think the colossus could be unnerfed. In the meta game in hots terrans are dealing with them better and better dropping units right on top of them. If you go hydra/roach/viper protoss don't even bother making colossus. After having played with the disruptor in the beta (albeit the current versions not the new one they're putting out) I find that the disruptor/colossus don't overlap as much as I thought. Disruptor is almost like an assassin; you send it in to one particular spot to blow up whereas the colossus is more consistent aoe damage, a move and forget. Disruptor also rewards multi-tasking ability a lot better, and is good on its own apart from the army. I was surprised that I felt that both the disruptor/colossus could easily co-exist. Maybe the colossus could keep its lower range but at least lower the cost by 20% or something.
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.
|
Change the Colossus to a space control unit a la the OneGoal Void Ray, remove the Swarm Host, swap Neural Parasite with Parasitic Bomb and change Fungal Growth to a slow instead of a root, and require Liberators to siege over pathable ground. Other than that, I think everything gets a little squishy and debateable.
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.
|
On August 12 2015 03:49 IntoTheheart wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2015 03:43 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote: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 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. 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. Show nested quote +On August 12 2015 03:43 Spyridon wrote:On August 12 2015 03:37 IntoTheheart wrote:On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote: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 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. 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
|
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.
|
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.
|
I can't believe people mix the role of Banshee and Libs... or ignore the new ability on Tempest and also its utility... as well how different are Vikings and Libs, where the Viking COUNTER the Libs (even without range, simply by spreading them or abuse when they are sieged)
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.
|
An update:
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On August 12 2015 07:57 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On August 12 2015 08:43 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
i disagree on so many points.. sorry
|
Vikings does NOT overlap with the liberator. Not only does it have a longer range, but it deals with massive and armored units while liberator is designed to shoot phoenix and mutas. They have different functions.
|
On August 12 2015 07:57 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
I think Colossus should be made a lot cheaper, faster, earlier, and will do less damage per swipe. It would make moving out as Protoss in the early/midgame better against Zerg and Terran. Protoss needs a more disposable splash unit in the early game to counter bio-ball or roaches without relying always on force field.
|
i never understood the rationale behind removing units. even if units are rarely used, as long as they dont weaken balance, there is absolutely no reason to remove them
|
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STARCRAFT
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
|
On August 12 2015 03:36 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
LotV is nothing like brood war not even close that goes for sc2 as a hole
|
I hate how Blizzard keeps pushing badly designed units. just get ride of Reapers and Swarmhosts already -_-.
And scrap the cyclone and just put a goliath. Cyclones are so poorly designed.
|
How are Reapers poorly designed? I'd say they're one of the best designed units out there at the moment.
|
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.
|
I agree with like half and the other half I don't.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
