|
On October 08 2015 06:06 KawaiiSCV wrote:REMOVE CYCLONE AND THORGIVE US THE ODIN![[image loading]](http://gamersyndrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/thor.jpg) No, really, joking aside. Nobody likes the Cyclone and the Thor has become redundant with Liberators in place. The Odin was already planned in the Original HotS beta, and was actually pretty cool addition to both Mech and Bio armies.
Thors can advance much better than Liberators. In a mech ball I'll take thors over liberators any day to counter ultras since most just circumvent the firing radius of a liberator. Don't get me wrong 4-5 liberators are good for securing expansions, but advancing with them is a different story with the siege timing.
|
4713 Posts
What Iaguz wrote here was exactly how I felt regarding Cyclone the moment I saw them, a unit that is either to weak or too strong, nearly impossible to get right, dumb inorganic design. What saddens me most though, is that me, and several others were able to spot the bad design right from the get go, but Blizzard wasn't able to, and wasted so much time making a unit that doesn't really fill any role and is also by design stupidly hard to balance, and even if balanced probably wouldn't be fun to play against.
|
This is an awesome picture and article.
|
On October 08 2015 02:58 91matt wrote:
they should remove the liberator and cyclone and put in the goliath
IMHO they could remove "all HotS/LotV units" for their BW counterpart.
|
Part of the problem of discussing a better design of the Cyclone is that you can barely hear yourself talk over all the people who pointlessly demand the Goliath back.
|
As a Terran player I dont even know when to make a Cyclone -- their role is not obvious to me. I'd be happy if they scrapped the cyclone and the thor and brought back the Brood War Goliath w/ the range upgrade. The Thor does suck massively, even it is not really that useful outside of dealing with noobs that clump up their mutas.
Alas, I think we're too far down the beta path for anything to be drastically changed w/ the Cyclone other than its balanced numbers -- so we probably just need to focus on that for now.
Edit: Yeah, I guess Thors are for anti-Ultralisks and that's about it.
|
On October 08 2015 06:10 hitpoint wrote:
Yea I think it's a terrible unit. The Lockon nonsense feels contrived and out of place in sc2. But they are rarely made so who cares right? At least that's how I feel about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with having units that just don't see competitive play outside of extremely niche situations.
this. Just let them add units to advertise the new expansion but keep them out of competitive play.
Better no new units than terrible units. swarmhost, tempests and oracles were enough.
|
Iaguz has finally come around to the idea of criticizing bad game design in SC2? I'm pleasantly surprised and agree with the general opinion of the article.
|
On October 08 2015 08:53 iamcaustic wrote:
Iaguz has finally come around to the idea of criticizing bad game design in SC2? I'm pleasantly surprised and agree with the general opinion of the article.
It's more critical of bad design of a single unit amongst a few other gripes with new toys they're testing, rather than bad game design overall.
I think the article itself is an important one and iaguz makes several really poignant points. Hopefully it's not too late to revisit the unit before launch.
|
On October 08 2015 08:32 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2015 06:10 hitpoint wrote:
Yea I think it's a terrible unit. The Lockon nonsense feels contrived and out of place in sc2. But they are rarely made so who cares right? At least that's how I feel about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with having units that just don't see competitive play outside of extremely niche situations. this. Just let them add units to advertise the new expansion but keep them out of competitive play. Better no new units than terrible units. swarmhost, tempests and oracles were enough.
but blizzard doesnt work like that. There's going to be some point in the next year when terran struggles with something when DK will come out and say: "we would like to push the cyclone a little to help in these situations". like the way they are currently considering to buff SHs again.
but I guess you could say that blizzard doesnt scrap a unit either. at lest not at this stage. 
|
Remove lock-on, drop damage point to 0, add turret tracking, change damage to 20+10 armored, change range to 6 or 7, bump speed to stalker speed (2.93)
Done, you have your straightforward single-target skirmisher and poking unit, without the lock-on that everyone seems to hate so much. It's still not cost effective in straight-up fights, but it's can kill static-d and establish map control against slower units. In main army fights you can use it to poke and force engagements under the cover of your own positional units (Liberators, mines, tanks).
What really baffles me is that people prefer Thors to Cyclones (redesigned or not). The Thor is a clunky, unmicro-able, eyesore that was an embarrassment from day one. At least the Cyclone has some potential to be interesting.
|
On October 08 2015 09:27 Athenau wrote:
Remove lock-on, drop damage point to 0, add turret tracking, change damage to 20+10 armored, change range to 6 or 7, bump speed to stalker speed (2.93)
Done, you have your straightforward single-target skirmisher and poking unit, without the lock-on that everyone seems to hate so much. It's still not cost effective in straight-up fights, but it's can kill static-d and establish map control against slower units. In main army fights you can use it to poke and force engagements under the cover of your own positional units (Liberators, mines, tanks).
What really baffles me is that people prefer Thors to Cyclones (redesigned or not). The Thor is a clunky, unmicro-able, eyesore that was an embarrassment from day one. At least the Cyclone has some potential to be interesting.
Hm, I guess I agree, at least with maybe 3 or 4 months of balance changes after release (when the Koreans start playing) it will be okay, it's at least able to be shaped into a decent unit I suppose where the Thor is just beyond saving.
|
On October 08 2015 09:27 Athenau wrote:
Remove lock-on, drop damage point to 0, add turret tracking, change damage to 20+10 armored, change range to 6 or 7, bump speed to stalker speed (2.93)
Done, you have your straightforward single-target skirmisher and poking unit, without the lock-on that everyone seems to hate so much. It's still not cost effective in straight-up fights, but it's can kill static-d and establish map control against slower units. In main army fights you can use it to poke and force engagements under the cover of your own positional units (Liberators, mines, tanks).
What really baffles me is that people prefer Thors to Cyclones (redesigned or not). The Thor is a clunky, unmicro-able, eyesore that was an embarrassment from day one. At least the Cyclone has some potential to be interesting.
Yeah, just some form of assault mech unit with decent mobility would be nice. Though I think it should have it's gascost dropped a bit in such a design, don't wanna trade 1:1 gas units against basic units.
|
Yet another atrociously designed unit in SC2 _ too bad it's a Terran one this time.
|
It's inorganic, it's not fun, and it's got more problems than benefits
Of course it's inorganic -- it's mech! huehuehue
In all seriousness, three comments:
1. Fantastic picture
2. Well written -- I like the conversational style
3. Ever since last year I've wondered what new units Terran would get. As a spectator/noob myself, they really did seem complete. After reading this I definitely think the cyclone should go, but like you I'm not sure what else Terran needs/could use. Maybe another caster? The ghost needs some love before that, though....
|
But the Cyclone is designed from the outset to be the ultimate kiting machine. Once it locks on it outranges anything short of a deployed Siege tank or a Tempest, assuming it can maintain line of sight, and can theoretically defeat any unit in a 1v1 situation so long as it can maintain that Lock On and remain out of their attack range. Iaguz
lol , that is all that one can say.
Blizzard reduce the strategies in SC2 for unit designs like this and widow mine? No wonder SC2 is so predictable and many games just played out the same way. This is why SC2 is not as strong as it should/could be.
I still play it, but I know I need to have the right build order, that is 90% of SC2, which is dull and predictable.
|
On October 08 2015 10:19 grogburg wrote:Of course it's inorganic -- it's mech! huehuehue In all seriousness, three comments: 1. Fantastic picture 2. Well written -- I like the conversational style 3. Ever since last year I've wondered what new units Terran would get. As a spectator/noob myself, they really did seem complete. After reading this I definitely think the cyclone should go, but like you I'm not sure what else Terran needs/could use. Maybe another caster? The ghost needs some love before that, though....
Mech AA (having to depend on Factory units for this makes many games develop into mass air strats, wich suck specially in TvT)
A fast skirmish unit that allows mech to be more rounded (try defending a drop with hellbats and unsieged tanks)
Are two very important roles to fill in terran ATM.
|
TBH, i don't understand this artcile when it talks about being unfun to play against? I myself have not experienced anyone being frustrated by cyclones and "unfairness". No streamers I have watched recently have voiced this concern either. I mean.... it just doesn't seem to be problematic to fight against and massing them isn't even effective... I will say however as a Terran player I have no desire to build this unit.
|
Like it or not cyclone is a necessary map control unit for mech against protoss.
It took years for Blizzard to accept that hellions and benshees can't do the job and some sort of vulture replacement is needed.
The current design may be questionable but we really have no idea if it works until TvP moves into post-adept era.
Right now you are asking the analogue of 'What are battlecruisers for when I end every game with a bunker rush?'.
|
The new units are not designed very well, especially Terran. This post sums it up for one unit, but I'd say there's still a lot of work to do all over the place for the new units.
I know the work "gimmick" gets thrown out a lot, but that's exactly what's going on again. It's what the Widow Mines and Swarm Hosts were at the beginning of HotS, and I'm afraid we might be in for a long wait before these units become practical additions to compositions.
The versatility that units are supposed to provide in an RTS seems to not be a design focus of this team. Instead of creating units that are simple to use and execute but still have a lot of room for growth within their depth of micro, these units are just specialized nonsensical additions to a game that wasn't asking for any of them.
Zerg is about the only exception here. Both the Ravager and Lurker have potential as additions to this game. Adepts are also a decent addition to gateway units, but still need to find their place. However, that's where it stops.
The Cyclone seems to be workaround unit to replace what the Goliath used to do, similar to how the Disruptor is a workaround for the Reaver. The problem is, that those Brood War units had versatility, and these new ones are much clunkier. They don't feel fun to use.. instead they feel more like a chore. The extent of their micro mostly makes them one-trick ponies.
This doesn't mean we need to scrap them, but they need to be overhauled.. that includes the Liberator as well. Look at the rest of the units in the game, and make them work well in tandem. If they're simple to use at face value but can provide depth by allowing room to breathe within their micro capabilities, these units might be able to someday find a niche within the game's compositions. Let's hope that's sooner than later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
