|
On April 02 2013 09:33 TonberryBleu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 09:22 Hider wrote:On April 02 2013 09:14 TonberryBleu wrote:On April 02 2013 08:49 Hider wrote:On April 02 2013 08:47 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
Which is why we are testing out a gas Queen. It reduces the energy pool early to mid game, increasing energy tension. I don't think it will matter at midgame. Zerg will just choose to get their geysers earlier. "Just choose to get their geysers earlier"? The standard timing for a Zerg's SECOND gas geyser when not going for an all-in build like burrow roaches, baneling busts, etc. is 5:50-6 minutes. 50 gas is extremely significant, whether you want to believe it or not. I still have yet to have anyone answer my question: What warrants a 50 gas cost for Queens? What added utility was given for this? You added 5 HP (lol) and slammed a very detrimental Armored tag. Compare this to what you did to the Mothership Core. Where is the fairness in this? Why do you think I am talking about the second geyser timing? I am obiviously talking about when you take your geysers at your natural/3rd, or they will choose to get 11 mutas instead of 13 in the midgame etc. Basically this will have a relatively minor effect after the early game (in terms of effecting how many queens zerg will have). What warranted the 50 gas cost of the queen? If you read itwhospeaks response you will get a hint of their thought proces (it will make creep spread a decision for instance as you have less of it). Creep spread is done because it's a necessity for Zerg. Given that a majority of Zerg's units are short ranged, creep spread is needed to mitigate that by providing speed bonus to their units. Creep spread is already a decision and expression of skill in and of itself because you take away army supply by devoting Queens to spread creep around the map and it takes considerable multi-tasking ability to maintain creep. Compare the creep spread of an average diamond league player to that of a high masters. There's a very noticeable difference. Simply making it harder to creep spread by adding a 50 gas cost adds nothing positive to the game. I read their explanation for it. It's not logical. At least, not to anyone who has actual experience playing Zerg.
1) If creep spread is a neccesitty - lets rework how that works.
2) When you see zerg players have 10+ active creep tumours around the map almost all games it should be quite clear that it isn't an interesting decision at all. (there is no choice between which direction to go and there is no choice between how to spend your energy as you rather just build another queen than cutting into your larva injection. A +50 gas increase will help to make that more of an interesting choice.
3) This isn't about whether creep spread requires mechanics or not - Its about creating interesting decisions.
|
On April 02 2013 09:44 Hider wrote:
3) This isn't about whether creep spread requires mechanics or not - Its about creating interesting decisions.
Do I use my creep to defend / connect my bases, or do I extend my creep out into the map faster to get my army out and provide some extra vision. Just one example of how a limit on queen count can influence decision making involved with creep spread.
(Had some turkey, mac and cheese and greens  :zeof:  )
|
Not everything should be a decision. Sometimes things are always good. Like +1 upgrades or something. I'm fine with something that takes so much effort to be 100% advantageous.
|
On April 02 2013 10:27 Fishgle wrote:
Not everything should be a decision. Sometimes things are always good. Like +1 upgrades or something. I'm fine with something that takes so much effort to be 100% advantageous.
Stuff that is 100% advantageous must be visually appealing to watch (IMO). If its not, then its rather pointless (for instance no MBS is pointless). Basically I believe that if spectators can't see when a player does something that is really really good, then the game will do worse as an esport (ceteris paribus). Since macro mechanics in general are very difficult to make visual appealing, we should IMO design them with a focus on promoting interesting decisions rather than mechanics.
Regarding +1 upgrades there are quite a few decisions involved, so that is not a good example I think.
|
On April 02 2013 09:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 09:33 TonberryBleu wrote:On April 02 2013 09:22 Hider wrote:On April 02 2013 09:14 TonberryBleu wrote:On April 02 2013 08:49 Hider wrote:On April 02 2013 08:47 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
Which is why we are testing out a gas Queen. It reduces the energy pool early to mid game, increasing energy tension. I don't think it will matter at midgame. Zerg will just choose to get their geysers earlier. "Just choose to get their geysers earlier"? The standard timing for a Zerg's SECOND gas geyser when not going for an all-in build like burrow roaches, baneling busts, etc. is 5:50-6 minutes. 50 gas is extremely significant, whether you want to believe it or not. I still have yet to have anyone answer my question: What warrants a 50 gas cost for Queens? What added utility was given for this? You added 5 HP (lol) and slammed a very detrimental Armored tag. Compare this to what you did to the Mothership Core. Where is the fairness in this? Why do you think I am talking about the second geyser timing? I am obiviously talking about when you take your geysers at your natural/3rd, or they will choose to get 11 mutas instead of 13 in the midgame etc. Basically this will have a relatively minor effect after the early game (in terms of effecting how many queens zerg will have). What warranted the 50 gas cost of the queen? If you read itwhospeaks response you will get a hint of their thought proces (it will make creep spread a decision for instance as you have less of it). Creep spread is done because it's a necessity for Zerg. Given that a majority of Zerg's units are short ranged, creep spread is needed to mitigate that by providing speed bonus to their units. Creep spread is already a decision and expression of skill in and of itself because you take away army supply by devoting Queens to spread creep around the map and it takes considerable multi-tasking ability to maintain creep. Compare the creep spread of an average diamond league player to that of a high masters. There's a very noticeable difference. Simply making it harder to creep spread by adding a 50 gas cost adds nothing positive to the game. I read their explanation for it. It's not logical. At least, not to anyone who has actual experience playing Zerg. 1) If creep spread is a neccesitty - lets rework how that works. 2) When you see zerg players have 10+ active creep tumours around the map almost all games it should be quite clear that it isn't an interesting decision at all. (there is no choice between which direction to go and there is no choice between how to spend your energy as you rather just build another queen than cutting into your larva injection. A +50 gas increase will help to make that more of an interesting choice. 3) This isn't about whether creep spread requires mechanics or not - Its about creating interesting decisions.
Adding a 50 gas cost to a Queen doesn't rework or make anything more interesting. It's a plain old nerf. If you gave Queens a new ability, then yes, there's reworking and decision making involved. But there isn't. You just added a 50 gas requirement. Using your logic, throwing a 50 gas requirement to upgrade Orbital Commands makes building an Orbital Command a more "interesting choice." Obviously it doesn't. That's just a nerf.
I already explained to you why creep tumors are so numerous. Did you ignore my entire post? Zerg has the most combat units with 4 range or less. Zerglings, Banelings, Roaches, Swarm Hosts, Mutalisks, Ultralisks...you get the picture. Until Zerg gets their entire army reworked, the necessity for creep spread is going to be there, and frankly, no one has any issue about it. There are always going to be things in the game that don't require split-second decision making, but rather, just strong mechanics. Creep spread is an example. Saying "it's not interesting to the viewer" is not a valid argument because not everything in the game has to be visually appealing.
The only thing potentially broken about the Queen is that it was given 5 range. You're approaching everything the wrong way. It's not Spawn Larva or Creep Tumors, it's the 5 range. Make it 4 range, and leave the rest alone. Nothing is being reworked here. It's a simple nerf to an aspect of the Queen that doesn't need nerfing.
|
On April 02 2013 11:42 TonberryBleu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2013 09:44 Hider wrote:On April 02 2013 09:33 TonberryBleu wrote:On April 02 2013 09:22 Hider wrote:On April 02 2013 09:14 TonberryBleu wrote:On April 02 2013 08:49 Hider wrote:On April 02 2013 08:47 ItWhoSpeaks wrote:
Which is why we are testing out a gas Queen. It reduces the energy pool early to mid game, increasing energy tension. I don't think it will matter at midgame. Zerg will just choose to get their geysers earlier. "Just choose to get their geysers earlier"? The standard timing for a Zerg's SECOND gas geyser when not going for an all-in build like burrow roaches, baneling busts, etc. is 5:50-6 minutes. 50 gas is extremely significant, whether you want to believe it or not. I still have yet to have anyone answer my question: What warrants a 50 gas cost for Queens? What added utility was given for this? You added 5 HP (lol) and slammed a very detrimental Armored tag. Compare this to what you did to the Mothership Core. Where is the fairness in this? Why do you think I am talking about the second geyser timing? I am obiviously talking about when you take your geysers at your natural/3rd, or they will choose to get 11 mutas instead of 13 in the midgame etc. Basically this will have a relatively minor effect after the early game (in terms of effecting how many queens zerg will have). What warranted the 50 gas cost of the queen? If you read itwhospeaks response you will get a hint of their thought proces (it will make creep spread a decision for instance as you have less of it). Creep spread is done because it's a necessity for Zerg. Given that a majority of Zerg's units are short ranged, creep spread is needed to mitigate that by providing speed bonus to their units. Creep spread is already a decision and expression of skill in and of itself because you take away army supply by devoting Queens to spread creep around the map and it takes considerable multi-tasking ability to maintain creep. Compare the creep spread of an average diamond league player to that of a high masters. There's a very noticeable difference. Simply making it harder to creep spread by adding a 50 gas cost adds nothing positive to the game. I read their explanation for it. It's not logical. At least, not to anyone who has actual experience playing Zerg. 1) If creep spread is a neccesitty - lets rework how that works. 2) When you see zerg players have 10+ active creep tumours around the map almost all games it should be quite clear that it isn't an interesting decision at all. (there is no choice between which direction to go and there is no choice between how to spend your energy as you rather just build another queen than cutting into your larva injection. A +50 gas increase will help to make that more of an interesting choice. 3) This isn't about whether creep spread requires mechanics or not - Its about creating interesting decisions. Adding a 50 gas cost to a Queen doesn't rework or make anything more interesting. It's a plain old nerf. If you gave Queens a new ability, then yes, there's reworking and decision making involved. But there isn't. You just added a 50 gas requirement. Using your logic, throwing a 50 gas requirement to upgrade Orbital Commands makes building an Orbital Command a more "interesting choice." Obviously it doesn't. That's just a nerf. I already explained to you why creep tumors are so numerous. Did you ignore my entire post? Zerg has the most combat units with 4 range or less. Zerglings, Banelings, Roaches, Swarm Hosts, Mutalisks, Ultralisks...you get the picture. Until Zerg gets their entire army reworked, the necessity for creep spread is going to be there, and frankly, no one has any issue about it. There are always going to be things in the game that don't require split-second decision making, but rather, just strong mechanics. Creep spread is an example. Saying "it's not interesting to the viewer" is not a valid argument because not everything in the game has to be visually appealing. The only thing potentially broken about the Queen is that it was given 5 range. You're approaching everything the wrong way. It's not Spawn Larva or Creep Tumors, it's the 5 range. Make it 4 range, and leave the rest alone. Nothing is being reworked here. It's a simple nerf to an aspect of the Queen that doesn't need nerfing.
Yes adding +50 gas cost to OC will make it a more interesting early game choice (not midgame - please note the difference).
No zerg doesn't need a sick creep spread in order to win. If they engage on creep they become like 5-10% more cost effective. That means that they still can engage off creep (its just not optimal). So everything else in the game doesn't need to be reworked, stats can just be slightly changed to take that change into account.
Saying "not everything in the game has to be visually appealing" is not an argument.
Actually its also a misunderstanding of my philosophy. Decision-oriented mechanics (as creep) doesn't have to be visually appealing, if they just add interesting choices into the game. Furthermore creep also isn't that bad in the visually appealing department as you indeed can notice the difference between a GM and a diamond player. But still, given how much APM zerg players spend on spreading creep the "visually appealling reward" isn't there for the spectators (IMO). But this is a completely different discussion.
5-range queen is the fundmenetal problem with the queen? I happen to disagree, though I wouldn't mind seeing a nerf in that regard.
The designphilosphy of Onegoal (as I interpret it after having read and watched everything) is based on promoting visually appealing stuff and making macrooriented mechanics more decisionbased. It seems to me that you completely disagree with that design philosophy and that is why I can't really understand why we are having this dicussion. I mean, either you stay out of the mod (as you believe the creaters will never be able to design a game you willl enjoy) or you try to convince them to change their design philosophy (which likely will be impossible).
On the other hand, my criticism of Onegoal is based on the implementation rather than the philosphy or endgame-goal, and I think (given I spend enough time) that I can convince them that some of their changes won't work in the intended way. But I think your criticism is directed at apples when it should be directed at oranges....
|
Big macro discusion with the design team tonight. We discussed the diference between hard and soft macro mechanics.
|
Yes adding +50 gas cost to OC will make it a more interesting early game choice (not midgame - please note the difference).
No zerg doesn't need a sick creep spread in order to win. If they engage on creep they become like 5-10% more cost effective. That means that they still can engage off creep (its just not optimal). So everything else in the game doesn't need to be reworked, stats can just be slightly changed to take that change into account.
Saying "not everything in the game has to be visually appealing" is not an argument.
Actually its also a misunderstanding of my philosophy. Decision-oriented mechanics (as creep) doesn't have to be visually appealing, if they just add interesting choices into the game. Furthermore creep also isn't that bad in the visually appealing department as you indeed can notice the difference between a GM and a diamond player. But still, given how much APM zerg players spend on spreading creep the "visually appealling reward" isn't there for the spectators (IMO). But this is a completely different discussion.
5-range queen is the fundmenetal problem with the queen? I happen to disagree, though I wouldn't mind seeing a nerf in that regard.
The designphilosphy of Onegoal (as I interpret it after having read and watched everything) is based on promoting visually appealing stuff and making macrooriented mechanics more decisionbased. It seems to me that you completely disagree with that design philosophy and that is why I can't really understand why we are having this dicussion. I mean, either you stay out of the mod (as you believe the creaters will never be able to design a game you willl enjoy) or you try to convince them to change their design philosophy (which likely will be impossible).
On the other hand, my criticism of Onegoal is based on the implementation rather than the philosphy or endgame-goal, and I think (given I spend enough time) that I can convince them that some of their changes won't work in the intended way. But I think your criticism is directed at apples when it should be directed at oranges....
Wow. Do you even play the game? "Makes an interesting early game choice"? Just adding a 50 gas cost to anything in the game without increasing utility by increasing stats, creating new abilities, etc. is nothing but a nerf.
I can't believe I even need to explain that to you.
Your second paragraph is so full of empty rhetoric. 5-10%? Zerg units generally get around a 1.3x speed multiplier on creep. Obviously creep spread is not the only deciding factor in battles, but creep spread is absolutely essential when engaging with units like Roaches, Banelings, and Hydralisks. I never said they can't engage off-creep (straw man argument much?) but rather, because Zerg units have low range and generally lower survivability (like I've already mentioned 1000 times and you still refuse to acknowledge it), the speed boost that creep offers is a lot more important than that arbitrary 5-10% number you just pulled out of thin air.
You disagree that 5 range is the fundamental problem with Queens. Fair enough. Doesn't mean anything when you consider the fact that it was exactly after Patch 1.4.3 when Zerg winrates went up, and ZvT turned into a mess, and people QQ'ed all over the forums about being unable to harass Zergs (and rightfully so). 5 range is what messed up ZvT, not Spawn Larva, or Spawn Creep Tumor. You have to be pretty oblivious if you don't think that was what was at the heart of the whole "patchzerg" trend in 2012.
I'm not the only one here who thinks the changes OneGoal have suggested to Queens is not the right way to go. It has nothing to do with me not caring about this mod, but rather, my excessive care for it. If I didn't give a crap about this mod, why would I be sitting here spending a good chunk of my day discussing problems with the mod? No one is spoonfeeding me this, I come here on my own free will, and I want to see it become successful. The OneGoal dev team has generally done a great job in creating interesting gameplay, but as a tester, I have every right to express concerns.
It's just mind-boggling how you keep saying that the changes to Queens make early-game decisions more interesting when all it is is a nerf. They've replaced Spawn Larva with a more limiting macro mechanic (half the larva, twice the MP cost, can only build army...can't build SH either??), slapped on a 50 gas cost, and slapped on a debilitating Armored tag. The only positive? 5 measly HP. That's called a straight-up nerf, buddy.
It's not like Hatcheries were improved so that Queens aren't needed as much, where people choose between a Queen or an extra Hatchery. Since AL can only be made into army units, all this change does is segment the Zerg macro mechanic and hamper Zerg macro since they then now can't compete with MULEs or chrono'd Probes.
|
Can we not be rude to one another? Until further notice, we are reverting the Queen (save for the change to Transfuse.)
|
On April 02 2013 10:27 Fishgle wrote:
Not everything should be a decision. Sometimes things are always good. Like +1 upgrades or something. I'm fine with something that takes so much effort to be 100% advantageous.
Plz stop reworking the whole game .Only fix things which are inherent broken! You really open pandora's box there.
And whats all this talk about every f-ing mechanic in this game has to be about decision making nowadays.
Cant just one mechanic only be fun to use and require some apm as a goal on its own.A good game is easy to learn and hard to master.And therefore it needs (it urges) for some simple gameplay mechanic for the beginners, which are just rewarding on its own, without 2 much decision making.On top of that/beside that you can add an complex layer of decision making mechanics, which can be utilized if the player gets better/a better understanding of the meta game.
Sc 2 is already complex on its own , its not a bad thing to make it more complex, but you need to keep an more simple core, with ability's like larva inject and cronoboost.
People need some things in the game, which have to be done every time the same way, so they can compare their quality of play to their last play. Its fundamental to have this guideposts.
In Sc 2 there are a ton of gameplay elements, which are non decision making related and only microintensiv on its own.
You are really running into a corner there (if you think the goal is, to change every single one of them) leaving a maze behind you, which you cant really get out balance-wise that easy.With every simple mechanic you change into something decision making related, you create new pathways into that maze. You can make that on top of simple non decision making mechanics, but not as an complete replacement for them.
I admit that there are famous games out there, like chess, which have only decision making related moves . There you have to decide in every move where 2 put your figure on the field. But even if sc2 is compered so often to chess, its really not like chess, for many reasons (good and bad ones ) ,which would take 2 long to explain and should be handled in one post on its own.
Topicswitch
About the infiltrator, my unitidea.
+ Show Spoiler +What zerg really needs is some guerrilla warfare unit which can sneak unseen behind enemy lines in the style of the changeling, some "super"-changeling which can actually do damage by spying, infecting buildings and blowing itself
up in the enemy army and distracting the enemy in his own area.It doesn't make so much physical damage but very much psychological damage , by distracting the enemy and bringing him out of his comfort zone.
Think about it, one thing which is totally underrepresented in the zerg gameplay of starcraft 2 is infesting the enemy base. Zerg is the perfect race implementing guerrilla warfare . As an genetic very adaptable race it really should have some parasite-gameplay beyond the infestors lame shenanigans.
The Zerg needs:
The infiltrator
-It should walk like a spider on the ground , and should be able to move under ground with the back of it showing out of the ground.The back can morph into some perfect imitation of an enemy turret,supply depot, cannon,pylon, spine, spore when you come near such an object by reaching the enemy base .And you can move with this imitation on your back burrowed under ground, but you should do it not in the middle of the enemy base , because a moving supply depot is a very obvious indicator for the enemy that something is not right.You can not be unveiled by scan or some detector like the changeling cant ether.
With perfect imitation i mean if you morph it into a spinecrawler, for example ,it can attack like a spinecrawler the enemy base with exact the same damage like a spine can do.Think about it, how funny would it be, when the enemy sees how one of "his own" spinecrawler turns against him and starts attacking him.Same for turret,cannon,spore. You can also give the enemy control over the fake object, that it stands still and he can control it like his own and in the right moment
you take away the control.
-But that's just one ability of the infiltrator and not its best . It can also blow it self up in the middle of the enemy army (the damage should not be too big but noticeable).
-And the best ability is, that it can infect other units and buildings. It crawls onto the enemy building/unit explodes on it and sets free an fungal, which is growing on the building/unit rapidly . And if the enemy doesn't target fire the fungal on the building/unit quick enough than it gets corrupted.
Corrupted units can be controlled permanently by the zerg enemy, perhaps they have lower health than the unit had before infection.
Corrupted buildings are growing slowly creep on the ground and if that creep reaches another building this building is getting also infected by the fungal and the enemy has also some time to kill the fungal on this one,....
If you manage to connect the creep from your homebase with the creep of the corrupted buildings than you can slowly stomach it and gain minerals/ gas from it at a slowly but steady pace.
It would be perfect to add another raid ability to the zerg. And the enemy had to pay more attention whats happening in its own base.This would really fit the zerg gameplay well and add another layer of gameplaypossibilitys.And no, it should not been reveald by turrets and scan and detectors, after it imitates one of the enemy buildings. The enemy has to spot it on its own.No it would not be too unvorgiven, you can stop each of its actions if you spot them . And even if you dont spot them in time, you can minimize your damage with proper decision making(there are those 2 words again).
P.S: I know you are busy patching the mod, but can you make a short video on your media-section , which showcases all the changes you did for patch 3 , that people form countys ,where patch 3 is not aviable rigth now, can get a better view of how things are shaping up ?
|
Wow. Do you even play the game? "Makes an interesting early game choice"? Just adding a 50 gas cost to anything in the game without increasing utility by increasing stats, creating new abilities, etc. is nothing but a nerf.
I can't believe I even need to explain that to you.
Here is an interesting decision you need to take. You need to decide between whether you are here for a discussion or whether you are here to show off your E-Penis.
|
On April 02 2013 18:35 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Wow. Do you even play the game? "Makes an interesting early game choice"? Just adding a 50 gas cost to anything in the game without increasing utility by increasing stats, creating new abilities, etc. is nothing but a nerf.
I can't believe I even need to explain that to you. Here is an interesting decision you need to take. You need to decide between whether you are here for a discussion or whether you are here to show off your E-Penis.
...what?
I have already discussed all my views. I can't argue with someone who keeps insisting just adding a 50 gas cost to Orbital Commands without increasing its usefulness is not a nerf, but an "interesting decision." Or someone who just ignores the rest of someone's post because they can't actually refute it, and instead goes on a tangent about me trying to be an internet bully.
|
On April 02 2013 12:23 Archerofaiur wrote:
Big macro discusion with the design team tonight. We discussed the diference between hard and soft macro mechanics.
I wish you the best of luck in your decisions :D
(Note* Blizzard gets flack on every decision from hundreds -> thousands of ppl who think they know something. OG has about.... 10-20 ish? Welcome to multiplayer design  )
|
Let's get some games going tonight guys.  The discussion is great but I haven't seen all that much playing in the OneGoal channel.
|
On April 03 2013 00:43 MNdakota wrote:Let's get some games going tonight guys. The discussion is great but I haven't seen all that much playing in the OneGoal channel.
I kinda found myself disinclined to play with the zerg macro mechanics changed but all bugged out on the test build.. dunno if it's putting other people off too. If we're going back to Spawn Larva again though I'll probably start looking for games ... although how successful I'll be, given I'm in the EU (and hence constricted by timezone issues), I don't know.
|
Ok. Just to clarify.
WE ARE NOT CHANGING SPAWN LARVA RIGHT NOW the only change is on Transfuse, which allows for a stronger early game (especially ZvZ) and limits the amount you can spam Transfuse in battle on units like Hosts, Ultras, and BLs. This has been updated on the main page.
|
|
|
On a side note, why was the Diamondback removed? I loved the versatility and fun gameplay it brang to Terran mech.
|
Colossus
-Colossus now has a different attack that fires two vertical parallel lines away from it
-Damage is now 15x2
-Range is increased to 8
-Extended Thermal Lance upgrade removed
-Attack Speed [a.k.a ATTACK DELAY] reduced to 3 from 1.6
-New upgrade: Thermal Surge
-Cost is 200/200/100
-Colossi superheat the ground along its AoE, causing it to explode after 1.5 seconds and dealing 15x2 (+10x2 vs light) in the area
One of the main problems with a lot of the units in SC2 is their attack rate is too high making them more efficent when they are NOT microed. If I got that right (in the editor attack-speed actually refers to the delay between attacks) seems to exacerbate the problem by making them attack twice as fast.
SC2 would benefit immensely from lower attack speeds. Lowering the rate of fire for every unit would allow players to do other things while microing their units. For example, Mutalisk micro in BW is accompanied with making drones or tech structures while the Muta is moving away from the target and then going back to the mutas when the attack cooldown finishes and shooting again.
Mutas/Vultures/Reavers had very long cooldowns and high burst damage, which is why they are often used as opening units because they can be microed on their own against a large army (1 vulture vs infinite zerglings, 11 mutalisk vs 3 control groups of bio, 1 Reaver vs 3 hatch hydralisk allin), while being able to macro at 100% efficiency. Mutalisks in SC2 are microed a lot less because of their very much increased attack speed.
At a certain attack speed this becomes impossible, and you have to baby sit the units while sacrificing tech/economy, making micro-ing the unit not worthwhile at all (no its not a cost/contention situation, you will always see less micro in favor of macro, allowing players to do both at maximum efficiency allows units to be used at their maximal capacity all the time).
Probably should keep that in mind for all your units.
Really the colossus is an atrocious unit that needs to be removed. No amount of tweaking will fix its horrible design, even if you had a reaver with a colossus model it would still be terrible because it looks like a piece of crap. The way to fix the Colossus, is to just get rid of it.
Bring back the Reaver, I don't care if people say this isn't BW, getting rid of the reaver was like getting rid of the siege tank for Terran. If tanks were removed from SC2, I don't even know what the state of TvZ would be like.
You can pretty much blame the horrible state of every PvX matchup due to the removal of the Reaver.
|
On April 03 2013 12:27 TonberryBleu wrote:
On a side note, why was the Diamondback removed? I loved the versatility and fun gameplay it brang to Terran mech.
I would also prefer the diamondback over the goliath/warhound .
Diamondback was such a unique unit, it really stood out, in a good way.
Corect me if im wrong but it could shoot while moving, or?
It had something hit and run like, without being overpowerd.
It reminds me of phonix chaseing down mutas, but in
a good non overpowering way.
Personally i thougth it was the best unit you created with your dev team so far.
The visuals of his laser and the gameplay where very refreshing.
Plz bring it back.
Poll: Which unit would you prefer?The diamondback (6) 67% The goliath (3) 33% 9 total votes Your vote: Which unit would you prefer? (Vote): The diamondback
(Vote): The goliath
P.S: I also would love 2 see a revival of the reaver.
Perhaps with an mechanic that the protoss must decide to ether upgrate into colossus or reaver, but cant do both
in one game. So you can keep both units, the colossus and the reaver in the game.It would be a good mid til lategame
decision making mechanic. That would protoss gameplay so much more fun to watch.All that drop microdynamic with the reaver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
