EPTI don't really play Zerg but I think that Ultras need some work, seeing that even with the speed upgrade they remain somehow "clunky" to micro, kind of like Thors.
[SC2B] Zerg: The Evolution (or Devolution) - Page 13
| Forum Index > News |
|
Al Bundy
7257 Posts
I don't really play Zerg but I think that Ultras need some work, seeing that even with the speed upgrade they remain somehow "clunky" to micro, kind of like Thors. | ||
|
slowmanrunning
Canada285 Posts
On April 21 2010 12:47 synapse wrote: Zerg needs defiler. "What strikes me most is that the vast majority of proposed changes to Zerg call for the revival of old units like the Lurker, Scourge, and Defiler, WITHOUT considering the fact that SC2 is an entirely new game, and those units just wouldn't work quite right anymore." Just to quote, and I agree with this. Though the thing I found most interesting is the mentioning of the dps dull in zerglings. I'm kind of noticing, they're taking away the aspect that made zerg so much fun to play. The units all have too much, and don't deal enough damage. This makes fast dramatic shifts in a fight not as common. Usually when you're about to watch an engagement in sc2 you can already tell who's going to win. Micro can't make an army beat one twice it's size like it used to be. This results in epic comebacks being not nearly as common. | ||
|
KillaCherry
United States7 Posts
| ||
|
trueg0x
South Africa86 Posts
| ||
|
NeoScout
United States103 Posts
| ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On April 22 2010 09:52 IdrA wrote: hydras and roaches serve very very different purposes. hydras are pure damage dealers that die if you look at them funny while roaches are much more sturdy with better harass value, but not nearly as good at dealing damage in a fight cuz of lower attack speed and much lower range. Since you quoted my post, I assume you actually read it, and having read it, realize that I already recognize the fact that roaches are heartier and hydras are more dangerous but fragile. In my mind though, while that makes them not identical, it doesn't really establish that they each have a practical niche within the game that couldn't simply be filled by SC1 hydralisks. In the end, they are both units which are ranged, have no special abilities, and no special counter unit properties (neither of them does additional damage vs light, armored, massive, psionic, etc). They both slither at average speed along the ground. Hydras are effectively the more specialized complement to roaches, capable of shooting over the top, and taking down air units. Yes, there are reasons to make both of them, and you will want to vary your composition according to what your opponent makes, but in the end you want them both because they form an efficient move-attack ranged damage concave. They are not really differentiated the way that zerglings were differentiated from hydras or hydras were differentiated from lurkers. While they are not the same, they have enough similarities that in many situations they simply blend together. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On April 22 2010 14:17 Wintermute wrote: Since you quoted my post, I assume you actually read it, and having read it, realize that I already recognize the fact that roaches are heartier and hydras are more dangerous but fragile. In my mind though, while that makes them not identical, it doesn't really establish that they each have a practical niche within the game that couldn't simply be filled by SC1 hydralisks. In the end, they are both units which are ranged, have no special abilities, and no special counter unit properties (neither of them does additional damage vs light, armored, massive, psionic, etc). They both slither at average speed along the ground. Hydras are effectively the more specialized complement to roaches, capable of shooting over the top, and taking down air units. Yes, there are reasons to make both of them, and you will want to vary your composition according to what your opponent makes, but in the end you want them both because they form an efficient move-attack ranged damage concave. They are not really differentiated the way that zerglings were differentiated from hydras or hydras were differentiated from lurkers. While they are not the same, they have enough similarities that in many situations they simply blend together. one is a glass cannon and the other gets you 145 hp and 1 base armor for 75 minerals/25 gas, plus the burrow regen. those fill very, very different roles. and they arent both average speed, hydras are ridiculously slow off creep while upgraded roaches are quite fast. in fact all they have in common is that theyre ranged units, and range is the roaches weakness while its one of the hydras strengths. just cuz blizzard didnt hang a big sign saying USE THESE UNITS IN THIS SITUATION around their necks doesnt mean they arent specialized. | ||
|
MIKE HUTN EASY
Canada35 Posts
| ||
|
splcer
United States166 Posts
| ||
|
Wintermute
United States427 Posts
On April 22 2010 14:21 IdrA wrote: just cuz blizzard didnt hang a big sign saying USE THESE UNITS IN THIS SITUATION around their necks doesnt mean they arent specialized. There are degrees of specialization. IMO the difference between a hydra and a roach is not as great as the difference between a hydra and a lurker, or a hydra and a zergling. It is like saying that purple is a different color than blue is. Yes, it is a different color, and between blue and purple there are all sorts of even finer variations. Some one with a discerning eye can differentiate a hundred very similar colors. Even so, that doesn't mean that blue and purple are as different as blue and yellow, or any two primary colors. While striking contrasts are not as organic and true to life, they are often far more eye catching and (to many people) more aesthetically pleasing. For this reason you rarely see corporate logos or national flags that contain different hues of the same color. The preference instead is for a striking contrast between colors, often primary colors. Similarly, the more easily units are differentiated in an RTS, the more pleasing the game play might be to the mind of the observer or the player. For some one who is very discerning, the roach and the hydra may seem very different in role and function, but having at least some similarities, they can never be as different as two units which have no similarities at all. The more that Blizzard crowds units together or allows for an overlap in mechanics or role, the less distinct the units become, and the more feeling of sameness ensues. Whether or not there is too much similarity is largely a matter of opinion, but I don't see how any one can argue against the idea that the roach and hydra overlap more than any two units in SCBW ever overlapped. I think something similar can be said with regard to all the ranged units in SC2. The stalker, sentry and immortal all overlap in a way that a zealot and a dragoon never did. Similarly for the marauder and marine vs marine/firebat or marine/vulture, or whatever other comparison you want to make. The desire to add more units requires either new roles, or a greater similarity in roles. You can only play around with numbers so much before we are differentiating between shades of the same color and trying to find a vanishing level of contrast. My original point was essentially just this: SC2 in general has a noticeable lack of contrast between many units, and zerg, having a smaller pool of units to draw from, yet no greater level of differentiation, suffers most greatly from this feeling of sameness. That doesn't mean that any units are the same, only that there is less design space between them, and in the interest of balance, units seem to be getting more tightly grouped together instead of farther apart. The more the roach gets nerfed, the more it looks like a zealot. It's not a zealot, but it's more like a zealot today than it was a month ago. It is my sincere desire that they can find a way to shake things up and make these units feel more different and distinct. To that end, I'd love to see the lurker brought back, and the roach moved to a more specialized role, even if that means that they get used less often. | ||
|
leonghk12
13 Posts
However I feel that Blizzard did not promise to deliver a remake of BW. It is called starcraft 2 because its a different game which might or might not retain the BW traits. As with all game sequels, there is always people who like the changes, embrace them, and there is also those who resent them. I feel that Blizzard has definitely done a great job in introducing the game to the average players. You no longer need to dish out hours of practice and still get owned by experienced players. I feel that I'm REALLY enjoying the game instead of getting stressed over what is the best build, or how to master micro-ing certain units, etc. Let us not forget that this is only the Beta and I'm sure Blizzard would seek to improve the game as we go along. I think eventually people would grow to accept SC2 as it is and it will still be an epic game. Afterall if you didn't like it you can always go back to BW or something else. | ||
|
Iri
150 Posts
On April 22 2010 13:17 KillaCherry wrote: Could a zergling tier 2 or 3 hp upgrade like marines be a viable option? im not sure of the pros and cons just throwing out ideas... The thought is they melt in late game so why not approach that directly? It would have to be an armor buff, not hp. Past a certain point, a group of ranged units can melt attacking melee faster than the melee can deal effective damage... especially with auto-cluster ensuring that the ranged group will now present the minimum amount of attack surface. There are only 2 ways to change that: make the melee actually take less damage per attack so that they last longer, or add an ability (like dark swarm in BW) that ensures that they don't take damage for at least part of the attack run. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
I dont think its so bad. Broodlords are powerful and interesting, and infestors will quite surely play important part once people get decent at this game. | ||
|
r0yale
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
Evilbringer
Czech Republic84 Posts
1) I am not Zerg player, but must agree with You almost in all what You said. 2) Sadly - it's not only Zergs... | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
On April 22 2010 15:09 Wintermute wrote: Similarly, the more easily units are differentiated in an RTS, the more pleasing the game play might be to the mind of the observer or the player. This is simply not true. Its quite pleasing to do a subtle choice between similar but still different units, if you know you can squeeze a subtle advantages from such choices. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11095 Posts
| ||
|
Clownz
Finland53 Posts
| ||
|
pakerposay
India1 Post
Get Best Deals at Your Fingertips | ||
|
Latham
9589 Posts
I also agree about Zergs. They are just not fun to play anymore. The only units that give you a rush of adrenaline while playing are banelings >.<. It used to be so fun with muta stacking and hydras and lurks =(. I never realised they were really the joy of every zerg player. Being a son of the swarm, I can't bring myself to play Z in sc2 =(. T is way too much more fun than Z to play now. | ||
| ||
