|
I don't really think the whole "a-moving" aspect is a problem as players will grow to become more familiarized with the units and learn how to more effectively micro them. Also, so much has been said about the Hellion. I really don't think they should make it a Vulture clone, but yea, the movement animation needs to be changed.
Now, the Thor. The Thor is supposed to be utilized mainly for its AA splash attack, which is supposed to be phenomenal. However, its design (giant cannons all over it) suggests a different role. I do NOT want it to become a walking Seige Tank, that'd be stupid and make the beloved and hated seige tank completely worthless. I like the whole revamp that the Thor can no longer be built in the field 'cause that'd allow the terran to make a tech switch way to fast (pure ground power to dominating AA power). That said, the Thor really lacks a niche at the moment and hopefully it'll be worked out with the beta.
Anyways, I have an idea for the Thor; might be far-fetched but bear with me for a second. The new BCs in SC2 have the ability to become rather specialized with its choice of one of three tech switches (Yamato, splash damage missiles, or Dmatrix). So what if they made the BC even more specialized (say make it a mainly ATA battery or ATS or...something) and then make the Thor the ground version of the BC. In other words, powerful, but slow, resource and build time demanding, and higher up the tech tree. That way, the Thor will have more of a niche as a late-game changer (kind of the way the BC was) and remove it as a potential useless early-mid to mid game unit.
|
I wish there were vods of SC1 alpha games. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that alpha PvT didn't look much like Stork vs Fantasy. I wouldn't worry too much about how the big armies just massed up and a-moved into each other.
Besides, I thought this game looked the most staged of all the battle reports so far and took it as just a unit showcase. You do the hellion, then I'll blink up your base and bypass your choke, then you can drop on my cliff and we can show how highground and dropship micro works, then we can mass up and I'll psi-storm you, then I'll warp in on your island, then you can make nukes...
|
For those of you who want more static battles, the immortals could be game-breaking in that regard: wading through tank blasts while raping armored units on all sides effortlessly. Luckily though, terran does have a way to counter that: EMP. I think that the hellions fulfill the role of the old mines by splashing the zealots as they come in, and if their moving mechanic is fixed, they could provide a decent level of map control as well.
However, hellions look like shit, and their moving mechanic is terrible. If they fixed that, they could be very strong against light. Then what if they gave the hellions D8 charges to make them good against armored units?
Then they could scrap the reaper which is just a weak raiding unit and replace it with something cooler.
Actually i was always a fan of having the reaper be able to transform between air and ground. Imagine that! Instead of the viking, the reaper would get an upgrade later that let it use its jetpacks to fly for a short time.
Then they could give the viking something else (I guess this would leave the viking out to dry). but i just love the idea of a reaper being surrounded by 5 lings and then just flying away.
|
United States4471 Posts
Anyone think that the lack of "mobile static defense" units/features utilized is a result of the increased mobility of units overall? Once a P gets Blink, Sieged Tanks become a lot less attractive (just blink next to them or behind the support units) and I imagine mines wouldn't be that big a deal either as long as you use an observer to keep track of where they are (just blink past them). Add in the way P can warp in units anywhere they can put up a pylon or fly a Phase Prism, and it seems that T wouldn't be able to maintain map control with mines even if they were still in the game.
As for P, static defense like cannons seems less necessary with the way they can warp units to whatever expansion they have as long as they have pylons there. The above-mentioned overall mobility of their units also makes static defense seem less necessary. I think the reason why P was overwhelmed so much was simply because the T player was so much better at multi-tasking and harassment in general. If the T had been even a little less aggressive, the P could have continued to warp in HT on expan cliffs, and other units to any expansions, with the Prism, and been the aggressor himself, all while being able to warp in defending units (i.e. HT's with insta-cast storm) to fight off armies to buy time for the rest of the army to show up.
In the end, I think Blizzard wanted SC2 units to be more mobile and dynamic with their movement, i.e. cliff jumping, warping, etc., and that's causing the map control/static defense elements to become less prevalent. You can't just inch a siege line step by step in TvP anymore because P will just warp/blink/cliff-walk/etc. right around you to your expansions or main base. You can't just just cannon up the choke to an expan, or the T will cliff-jump/medivac-drop/nuke/etc. it while your army is away.
There is simply a LOT more mobility in the game, which has necessarily taken away from the strategic placement/map control elements. I think that's why control over the Xel'Naga towers is important, and playing aggressively being effective. Attack or be attacked seems to be the pattern in this Battle Report.
|
Quick question: at 15:38, what does give line of sight to Thor/Marauders to kill the Stalkers on the cliff?
Did i miss something with the new mechanic?
|
Russian Federation1613 Posts
On October 21 2009 03:19 Icks wrote:
Quick question: at 15:38, what does give line of sight to Thor/Marauders to kill the Stalkers on the cliff?
Did i miss something with the new mechanic?
Terran scanned them
|
Oh, yeah, that's what Simpson says... >_<
|
On October 21 2009 00:45 danieldrsa wrote:
Plz, no vulture back. No more SC1 units back.
Bring that unit that hovers (dont remember the name now), put the flamethrower on it and im ok with it.
...Vulture?
|
On October 21 2009 03:10 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
In the end, I think Blizzard wanted SC2 units to be more mobile and dynamic with their movement, i.e. cliff jumping, warping, etc., and that's causing the map control/static defense elements to become less prevalent. You can't just inch a siege line step by step in TvP anymore because P will just warp/blink/cliff-walk/etc. right around you to your expansions or main base. You can't just just cannon up the choke to an expan, or the T will cliff-jump/medivac-drop/nuke/etc. it while your army is away.
I think this issue needs to be looked at very very carefully. There are allot of mobile options for all the races right now. I think great care needs to be taken to determine if it is too much or where on the tech tree this mobility should be or how powerful static/mobile defense should be.
Personally, I think mobility is only as good as it is unique. As soon as every other unit has the ability to move freely around the map you have lost the very think that make mobility cool.
|
The only things that are bugging me right now are the Thor. The more and more I see it the uglier it gets to me. Seems out of place.
The Hellions is IMO bad designing all around. How about another bike concept because I don't like the four wheeler.
|
On October 21 2009 04:19 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2009 03:10 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
In the end, I think Blizzard wanted SC2 units to be more mobile and dynamic with their movement, i.e. cliff jumping, warping, etc., and that's causing the map control/static defense elements to become less prevalent. You can't just inch a siege line step by step in TvP anymore because P will just warp/blink/cliff-walk/etc. right around you to your expansions or main base. You can't just just cannon up the choke to an expan, or the T will cliff-jump/medivac-drop/nuke/etc. it while your army is away.
I think this issue needs to be looked at very very carefully. There are allot of mobile options for all the races right now. I think great care needs to be taken to determine if it is too much or where on the tech tree this mobility should be or how powerful static/mobile defense should be. Personally, I think mobility is only as good as it is unique. As soon as every other unit has the ability to move freely around the map you have lost the very think that make mobility cool.
i agree completely. the terran's biggest weakness in SC1 was its lack of mobility. If you take that weakness away you're looking at a potential imba.
|
Nice battle report! Game looks real smooth.
It seems nukes can be pulled off rather quickly. Or did they just focus on them late?
Psi storm looks epic. Looks really powerful too, from the report. Maybe too powerful. :O
As for mobility concerns, I don't think the point is to recreate the same balance of static/mobile defenses as SC1. The added mobility is there to provide new ways to counter old problems (like siege tank walls) and introduce new strategies to use against opponents. Speaking as a noob, I think it discourages just sitting at your base and building up a huge army, and forces players to think more aggressively and harass each other.
P.S. Terrible, terrible damage.
|
On October 21 2009 04:35 Ryuu314 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2009 04:19 Archerofaiur wrote:On October 21 2009 03:10 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
In the end, I think Blizzard wanted SC2 units to be more mobile and dynamic with their movement, i.e. cliff jumping, warping, etc., and that's causing the map control/static defense elements to become less prevalent. You can't just inch a siege line step by step in TvP anymore because P will just warp/blink/cliff-walk/etc. right around you to your expansions or main base. You can't just just cannon up the choke to an expan, or the T will cliff-jump/medivac-drop/nuke/etc. it while your army is away.
I think this issue needs to be looked at very very carefully. There are allot of mobile options for all the races right now. I think great care needs to be taken to determine if it is too much or where on the tech tree this mobility should be or how powerful static/mobile defense should be. Personally, I think mobility is only as good as it is unique. As soon as every other unit has the ability to move freely around the map you have lost the very think that make mobility cool. i agree completely. the terran's biggest weakness in SC1 was its lack of mobility. If you take that weakness away you're looking at a potential imba.
No we are not in agreement. It isnt a question of imbalance. Its a question of how the game plays. Its a question of too much of a good thing which is very easy to do in game design (oh this unit has a second ability and its cool lets give second abilities to all units. Oh this unit has splash damage and its cool lets give...)
|
I know people have stated this before already, but I wanted to throw in my few cents anyway.
1. Nukes. NUKES. NUKESSS? While it is very cool to see that nukes have actually become a viable strategy, that definitely was too much for my taste. They never showed how many nuclear silo's were built or how fast nukes can be produced, but so many nukes were thrown out in such a short period of time. The game (only) lasted 18,5 minutes and for the longest time I had the idea Protoss was gonna take it down, until David Kim started whipping his nukes out. Once a nuclear is being launched it seems pretty hard to defend against.
Imo nukes should be viable, but not that easy in usage. Protoss didn't play bad at all but now it looked he got humiliated and Terran knew what he was doing all along.
2. The islands have 2 gas mines, not a big fan of that. While I'm not sure how much they helped Terran, I guess it could be the reason the game turned around and that so many nukes followed.
3. While there was some micro going on, I really missed pulling back those few units (In the way we are used to pulling back the damage dragoons/marines/hydras). The battles seemed a little hectic and there didn't really seem much that could be done about it after the engagement of 2 armies had started.
4. I guess in SC PvT mainly exists out of vulture/tank vs zeal/goon/shuttles/temps. But here it seemed each side only used 2 sort of units. They both were rather attack/move type of units, which made it seem sort of boring.
5. Terran units seemed sorta strong in general, while I would expect Protoss to have tougher units. Perhaps this was due to the bad unit mix? (I'm not too educated about SC2, but they mentioned it during the BR)
6. Cliff advantage is nice, but seems rather easy to overcome. Gave me an impression that it's really hard to defend certain positions by strategical advantage, once your opponent has a decent army.
7. Looks like a fun game to play! Good to have some classic maps in the mix 
|
On October 21 2009 03:10 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
Anyone think that the lack of "mobile static defense" units/features utilized is a result of the increased mobility of units overall? Once a P gets Blink, Sieged Tanks become a lot less attractive (just blink next to them or behind the support units) and I imagine mines wouldn't be that big a deal either as long as you use an observer to keep track of where they are (just blink past them). Add in the way P can warp in units anywhere they can put up a pylon or fly a Phase Prism, and it seems that T wouldn't be able to maintain map control with mines even if they were still in the game.
As for P, static defense like cannons seems less necessary with the way they can warp units to whatever expansion they have as long as they have pylons there. The above-mentioned overall mobility of their units also makes static defense seem less necessary. I think the reason why P was overwhelmed so much was simply because the T player was so much better at multi-tasking and harassment in general. If the T had been even a little less aggressive, the P could have continued to warp in HT on expan cliffs, and other units to any expansions, with the Prism, and been the aggressor himself, all while being able to warp in defending units (i.e. HT's with insta-cast storm) to fight off armies to buy time for the rest of the army to show up.
In the end, I think Blizzard wanted SC2 units to be more mobile and dynamic with their movement, i.e. cliff jumping, warping, etc., and that's causing the map control/static defense elements to become less prevalent. You can't just inch a siege line step by step in TvP anymore because P will just warp/blink/cliff-walk/etc. right around you to your expansions or main base. You can't just just cannon up the choke to an expan, or the T will cliff-jump/medivac-drop/nuke/etc. it while your army is away.
There is simply a LOT more mobility in the game, which has necessarily taken away from the strategic placement/map control elements. I think that's why control over the Xel'Naga towers is important, and playing aggressively being effective. Attack or be attacked seems to be the pattern in this Battle Report.
Excellent post. That puts quite a few of the posts above you in quite a different light
|
United States241 Posts
On October 20 2009 21:37 micropede wrote:
protoss buildings don't catch on fire before blowing up anymore?
If you full screen it, it looked to me like it was on fire.
|
On October 21 2009 05:14 Smorrie wrote:
2. The islands have 2 gas mines, not a big fan of that. While I'm not sure how much they helped Terran, I guess it could be the reason the game turned around and that so many nukes followed. Unless something changed very very recently, two gas at each base is standard, including your main. Also, gas is mined in increments of 4 now.
Edit: Yeah, re-watched part of the the video and every base I saw had 2 gas.
What I've read suggests your gas income is the same or slightly higher than SC:BW per base.
|
Are you guys honestly upset about the nukes? Kim was so far ahead for the entire game he could have massed marines and won at that point. PLEASE watch the game again and pay attention to supply and worker counts - he was thrashing the Protoss and decided to fuck around with him, so he flipped to nukes. That was NOT a close game, it wasn't even close to a close game. It was a superior opponent nuke rushing because it make him laugh.
|
On October 21 2009 05:14 Smorrie wrote:
I know people have stated this before already, but I wanted to throw in my few cents anyway.
1. Nukes. NUKES. NUKESSS? While it is very cool to see that nukes have actually become a viable strategy, that definitely was too much for my taste. They never showed how many nuclear silo's were built or how fast nukes can be produced, but so many nukes were thrown out in such a short period of time. The game (only) lasted 18,5 minutes and for the longest time I had the idea Protoss was gonna take it down, until David Kim started whipping his nukes out. Once a nuclear is being launched it seems pretty hard to defend against.
Imo nukes should be viable, but not that easy in usage. Protoss didn't play bad at all but now it looked he got humiliated and Terran knew what he was doing all along.
Well Kim has much more experience with the game than the toss user. He knows how hard is to defend against aggresion from the cliffs (so he clearly abused it) and how overpowered medivac + ghost is looking atm (stalkers cannot even kill that stupid dropship? xD). I hope the next time they show players with similar experience because even the commentator said the toss should have used the "other" ability from the HT to stop thors, and not use some units at all.
IMO the terran reapers being able to jump cliffs even when you don't have vision, while the toss cannot storm or blink, is full of nonsense and bs xd
|
I don't like the Xel'Naga watch towers. A pointless CnC idea. Very Gimmicky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
