EPTNew Battle Report (10/19/2009) - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
2on2
United States142 Posts
| ||
|
Drk_ItachiX
Japan113 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 20 2009 22:20 blade55555 wrote: +1. I am seeing alot of people complaining about the new stuff and not really giving anything much of a chance because its not in sc1. I think people need to give it more of a chance and realize there is a reason this is called sc2 not sc1 in 3D -_- Except the units being complained about are generally BAD. Do you see anyone go "Omg the Phoenix is sucks, bring back the corsair"? No, because the phoenix is a fine replacement. Do you see anyone go "Omg the Viking sucks, bring back the goliath?" No, because the Viking is a fine replacement. Do you see anyone go "Omg the stalker/immortal/warp ray sucks, bring back the dragoon/dragoon/scout"? No, because the stalker/immortal/warp ray are fine replacements. People DO complain about the Thor, the Hellion, the Mothership, the Infested Terrans because these new units are really flawed. The Thor is just there. A huge clunking mecha with nothing special about it - I liked it when it was new. Constructed by SCVs, and capable of having its wreck revived. Sure it needed a bit of work, I thought, but it seemed fine. Seeing it in game now... I hated it. The mothership is meh. The arbiter is a better unit BUT I'm fine with them replacing it because I think they should replace as many units as they can. They just need a better replacement, is all. The Hellion should just be the vulture. I'm sorry but that's all there is to it lol Waaaaaay superior model too (see SC2 single player screenshots of their new vulture - it's bad ass). In fact I'm gonna make a list: New units - liked: Stalker Immortal Baneling Viking Infestor Warp Ray Phoenix Nullifiers Reapers New units - disliked: Thor Mothership Hellion New units - ambivalent (dunno if it's the right word, but basically I've seen people that like it, people that hate it, or I just haven't seen much talk at all about them): Medivac Corrupter Marauder Colossus Broodlord IMO, that's hardly indicative of a phobia of new units, as much as it's a dislike for inferior replacements. | ||
|
ggfobster
United States298 Posts
I think I'll be a father before beta is released. Btw, I don't have a girlfriend. | ||
|
ForTheSwarm
United States556 Posts
| ||
|
Drk_ItachiX
Japan113 Posts
Well of the 3 units that you say are flawed, I would only say that the mothership is in serious need of a rehaul. In my mind, the Thor has always existed to split the siege role with the tank. With this Battle report, Im convinced that it can be achieved. The Thor should be the mobile siege option for Terran, with the tank being a more robust armor pounding unit. Such a division also affects the Hellion too. Should you choose to use Siege Tanks(for better range and anti armor power), the Hellion needs to have some ability that restricts the movement of the opposition to capitalize on the tanks' range, much like spider mines. So while I dont want spider mines in SC2, the Hellion would need something like it. If you choose to use the Thor, you have a more versatile siege unit that has solid GtA ability, in that case, you need the Hellion to be more mobile and so a Spider Mine ability could only slow it down completely ruining the viability of traditional mech play as we know it oh so well in SC1. With that said, I would say all thats necessary is giving the Hellion a researchable spider mine-esque type ability and adding a little more raw power ot the siege tank(as it already gets a bonus against armored units). All of which is easily accomplished in beta. | ||
|
tancor
Barbados55 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.ressim.net/out.php/i208306_348.jpg.jpeg) just bring back to vulture... | ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
Drk_ItachiX: I'm not arguing with you completely, but I'd put it like this: the Thor looks like it's built to just smash stuff - a la Ultralisk, Battlecruiser, Archon, Carrier etc. (Incidentally, if we kept with mecha tradition it could totally be a short range near-brawler - Thor:Ultralisk::Firebat  ergling as far as range identity goes, although not balance obviously. That would be sweet.) I'm not sure why people hate it so much (the graphic was originally less-than-stellar, that didn't help), honestly: as long is it's a) properly priced and b) has a reasonable counter (aka is balanced) I don't see the problem.However, tanks are still tanks though - slightly handicapped vs P by the Immo, but otherwise they're still themselves. I'm really not seeing where you're getting your split from. | ||
|
Drk_ItachiX
Japan113 Posts
Well I also said that the Hellions would need some type of spider mine-like ability. Such an ability would have to be effective against the Immortals and could keep them at bay. My split is coming from the players choice to do one of 2 things with regards to mech play: 1) Use Siege Tanks in combo with Hellion Spidermine-like ability - Much to the same affect as in BW. 2) Use Thors with Hellions - A more dynamic harass style of mech. Thors fight much like how you mention it, perhaps Hellions should get a speed ability in this case. However, spider mines or anything of the kind would totally ruin this type of style, because it slows the Hellions down. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 20 2009 23:47 Musoeun wrote: For the record, I dislike the baneling - but I'm in the distinct minority. I just feel it's one of those units liable to end up either overpowered or useless. Drk_ItachiX: I'm not arguing with you completely, but I'd put it like this: the Thor looks like it's built to just smash stuff - a la Ultralisk, Battlecruiser, Archon, Carrier etc. (Incidentally, if we kept with mecha tradition it could totally be a short range near-brawler - Thor:Ultralisk::Firebat ergling as far as range identity goes, although not balance obviously. That would be sweet.) I'm not sure why people hate it so much (the graphic was originally less-than-stellar, that didn't help), honestly: as long is it's a) properly priced and b) has a reasonable counter (aka is balanced) I don't see the problem.However, tanks are still tanks though - slightly handicapped vs P by the Immo, but otherwise they're still themselves. I'm really not seeing where you're getting your split from. I've alawys been a proponent of the Thor having a giant buzzsaw.... It would be sweet. However, the Thor needs more than that, it needs some kind of identity. Something that big shouldn't just be a ranged unit with no distinguishing features :/ | ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
The Hellion isn't much better either. It's basically just a Vulture minus the mines, the fluid animations, and the futuristic design (seriously, buggys?). I'm almost positive that the only reason it's even in the game is because of the potential micro with the linear flames, but that's seriously not worth taking out mines and giving it horrible movement physics. The Hellion is just flat out inferior to the Vulture, and Blizzard should either revamp it or scrap it. I honestly wouldn't be so irritated with these units if not for the fact that Blizzard seems hellbent on keeping them in the game, especially the Thor. | ||
|
omnigol
United States166 Posts
1- Hellion movement is probably so awkward for the sake of micro. 2- Don't Nukes take up supply for the terran? I saw a few complaints about thors taking up so much supply I'll also say I think it's bad that marauders completely replace marines in most situations. And also if Terrans don't *need* the siege tanks awesome range and power for their main army, should they really get to have the siege tank for defense and cliff attacks. Now that nukes are fast, and the Ravens seeker missiles, just seems like way too much overlap. I think the reason nukes in SC1 suck is because siege tanks siege already fill the long range huge damage+splash role completely. | ||
|
KP_CollectoR
United States744 Posts
Terrible Damage Terran fighting!!! The bonjwa continues to dominate ^^ | ||
|
AdunToridas
Germany380 Posts
| ||
|
danieldrsa
Brazil522 Posts
Bring that unit that hovers (dont remember the name now), put the flamethrower on it and im ok with it. The role of the thor i think will only be determined on beta, after some serious playtest. Mothership is the only i kind of disliked, but the major problem i have with it is the size, its too big. (the arbiter was my favorite unit of SC1, but fine with it being on editor). | ||
|
da_head
Canada3350 Posts
IMBA | ||
|
lynx.oblige
Sierra Leone2268 Posts
| ||
|
Drk_ItachiX
Japan113 Posts
I dont think its as bad as you make it out to be. Blizzard just wants something new, theres nothing wrong with that. All the issues that people have with both the Hellion and the Thor are mostly about the smallest features, like supply and movement. You never really need to worry about that until beta. The only thing that really matters is the unit's niche in the race's army and as I stated earlier I think they easily could, so both the Thor and the Hellion are conceptually sound. @omnigol I dont think the overlap of units is so bad. When you think about it, If you choose to use tanks extensively, it only makes sense to use them over anything else to perform cliff harassment and the like. Sure you could use ghosts to use nukes to accomplish that same goal, but in PvT, if they are executing nukes, they can not be using EMP, so again its really just a stylistic choice. If you like mech with ghosts fine, because in this game it works(unlike BW), but you could always go the traditional route and accomplish the same goal. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On October 20 2009 17:33 zatic wrote: Funny how they changed the dropships just like they did in Broodwar. So far they used to stop and land to unload (as they did in Starcraft Beta), now they seem to work just like in Broodwar. Also I like the revised look of Terran building and animations. Glad to see that the game looks prettier every time. Now, if they could only figure out how to make units not stop while firing, we'd have ourselves a game... The viability of air units in broodwar I dare say are directly associated with their ability to fire without decelerating. You might argue against me by naming the valkyrie. But truth is valkyries are only used for defensive purposes in conjunction with a main army/base. You simply can't harass efficiently with an air unit that has to come to a stand still before firing... | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
1. Storm too fast. I mean seriously, just have it do 80 damage instantly because dodging it is not very practical. Or, have storm scale its damage the longer you're in it (and keep it super-fast) so damage piles on like 5-10-20-40-80 instead of linearly. This would be an interesting fix, making it always worth it to dodge storms (even if you're only going to avoid a quarter-second of damage) but keeping the payload fast and high. 2. Limited map control options. The loss of mines seems to have made terran a cookie-cutter army, at least in all the BRs and reports I've read from live play. It's not just mines though, as people have said, but map control tools and race differentiators in general. There need to be good, strong ways to control segments of the map if this mechanic is to be at all preserved. 3. Attack moving armies isn't cool. This is extremely weird, but it seems like the biggest problem in the most recent report is a lack of MICRO, not of macro. This is the exact opposite issue the community has bitched about for the last 5 years and it's hilarious to see it rear up - but regardless, it's a concern, and it's mostly due to point 2 above. Vulture/tank and shuttle/reaver remain the de-facto examples of great micro combat mechanics that also contribute to map control and positioning wars, and it would be very, very nice to see something that this role in SC2. | ||
| ||
