|
On February 06 2010 09:43 Kimera757 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 08:40 Zona wrote:
The new Archon can also cast spells, can't it? I haven't been following all the changes they've been making. It hasn't cast spells since at least March 2008.
Yea...the archon's just pretty much a big ball of energy and damage. Although I believe it got a buff to its damage since the SCBW version.
Also, the reaver hasn't been completely removed from the game. I remember reading that they might bring the reaver back in a later expansion or something. If I find the link I'll be sure to post it...then again, it's been a while since I read that so perhaps Blizzard's decided that Colossus will replace reaver...I hope not anyways, lol.
|
the siege tank.
My favorite unit in SCbw.
my favorite unit in SC2.. or the Battlecruiser.. im not really sure. i love BCs and ghost
|
I really like what they have done with the TERRAN MARINE, it really feels like with the addition of the shield (they still have that right?) that they are really feeling more bulky and not something just to be torn apart so easily, its amazing the technology and work put into just a single terran marine and yet to see them get butchered so easily is a little disappointing, but now they will stand a better chance.
Edit: As for how this will effect game-play I am certain it will reinforce the fact that smaller "grunt type" units will remain useful throughout the entire course of the game, even more-so in this case.
|
On February 06 2010 07:13 Mikilatov wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?! Yeah I'm a bit perplexed by that one as well. The reaver was perhaps one of the most exciting units in SC1 from a spectator's point of view, and although the colossus is awesome, I fail to see how it will be nearly as exciting as a reaver scarabs.
I think it probably had something to do with the improved AI pathing. In BW, Reavers were balanced around the fact that the poor AI pathing could cause the Scarabs to dud and the targets to run away unharmed. Since this is no longer a factor, It is not a stretch to think that the Reaver was brutally effective in the early SC2 builds that used it. This probably prompted Blizzard to remove the unit altogether.
On February 06 2010 07:14 Quixoticism wrote:
I also miss the Wraith. As of now they've replaced/sliced it into two units: the AtG only Banshee and the part time AtA only Viking. I don't really like how either functions and they both look too Warcrafty.
I do love the new Dragoon Aka Stalker though. Definitely looking forward to warping some of those in.
...Putting attempts to understand how in the world can an aircraft and transforming mech look even remotely "WarCrafty" aside (just beacuse there are "spaceships" in WarCraft does not mean that they look like the Banshee and Viking...infact, they do not resemble Carriers either), I honestly think the Banshee and Viking have superior gameplay implications compared to the Wraith. Since Banshees have a dedicated AtG attack compared to the Wraith`s paltry laser, they have the potential of making Starport builds a lot more effective. Furthermore, people who played SC2 can attest to the fact that Vikings provide for an interesting dynamic in TvT.
On February 06 2010 06:40 Ryuu314 wrote:
I'm just kinda confused as to why they removed the DA from the game...because of the new archon creation mechanism the costs associated with an archon is incredibly varied dependent on whether you chose to merge two HT, two DTs, or one of each. The decision to allow this variability and also the removal of DAs (especially since they're only now seeing much more use/innovation in SCBW) confuses me :[
I don`t see how it can be difficult to understand why they removed the DA, considering that it saw limited use in BW. Yes, they had their uses and could be potentially powerful. However, all of their spells were very costly energy-wise and they had no practical uses outside of that.
At least the ability to morph into regular Archons provides Protoss players a viable transition from DT tech, something they need given that DT and HT tech is now split.
On February 06 2010 05:18 Shiladie wrote:
Mutalisk:
With muta stacking being a built in strat it seems like blizz is making more hard counters to it. I am concerned that after the initial build chaos, that people will be far too well equiped for a muta harrass to be a viable strategy. The ability to continually add mutas to your harrass in a much easier fasion however will allow for a lot more mass-muta strategies, though, with the broodlord a mutation from the corruptor instead of the mutalisk, it makes transitioning out of a mass mutalisk build into late game more difficult then it otherwise could be.
It is possible with more practice with the new way muta micro works, that mutalisks will take an even more dominant role then in BW.
Actually, there are very few things that can be considered hard counters to mass mutalisks right now and even those are all high-tier tech (Thor`s splash air attack, Battlecruiser`s splash attack ability and Raven`s Seeker Missile). Infact, the only change that can be considered damaging towards Mutalisks is that Turrets do 4 more damage. Otherwise, the changes so far (such as the removal of Scourge, Corsairs and Irradiate) have been beneifical for Muta builds. Infact, I do not think Protoss currently have any reliable way of dealing with mass Muta.
I do not know. Maybe that is the reason why Blizzard does not want to give Muta builds an easy transition, beacuse they are fairly powerful in their own right.
On February 06 2010 05:18 Shiladie wrote:
Lurker:
With how it's been moved to hive tech and requires it's own full tech building I am unsure at what role lurkers will play. Their range upgrade and slightly faster burrow speeds, alone with the fact troops group up more may make them more devestating then I think, but it seems that what they counter (mass smaller units) is far better countered by ultralisks with their new cleave ability. And small armies of bigger units is better countered by the boordlord. I really hope lurkers have as dominant a position in the zerg army as they had in BW, because they are such an exciting unit to watch. I also wonder if they are going to allow for stop lurkers, as that was a bug they never bothered to fix in BW. Watching a full terran lategame army die in seconds to a stop lurker field, similar to how psi storm rips apart zerg in current ZvP would be amazing.
The effectiveness of a unit that's main function is that it attacks while cloaked, when it has been moved to a soley late-game position really removes the pressure to get detectors that was present in BW, and that concerns me.
Sadly, Blizzard has already confirmed that the Hold Position trick does not work in SC2. To be honest, I would not be suprised if that is the reason why they increased the Lurker`s range, to partially compensate for the lack of it. But that in turn probably caused the Lurker to be bumped higher in the tech tree.
So far, Lurkers are still a complete enigma, since it is hard to judge how much they could potentially be effective. That said, however, Hydralisks seem to be more effective against Bio builds this time around (they do 8 instead of 5 and also do an additional 4 damage against Armoured targets like Marauders). As such, Lurkers could represent a nice transition, at least for delaying for Ultralisks.
EDIT: Oh wow, forget what I said about Protoss lacking a counter against Mutalisks. Archons are insane in the current SC2 build. They do 20 more damage compared to the original and, since they a x2 attack, they will get a bigger bonus from weapon upgrades (although it is unknown currently just how much they will benefit from those). Last, but not least, they also do an additional +10 damage against Biological units.....and they still do splash. o.O
|
I'm really missing the spider mine, as they really defined Starcraft for me in many ways. Without them I can't see the same awesome positional strategy that happens in TvP (and in a less awesome way in TvT) happening in SC2 and I fear it'll turn into just another "here's a bunch of guys of this race and here's a bunch of guys of this race, now let's watch them run at eachother" matchup we see in every RTS known to man. I want terran to be slow but also able to cover a ton of ground.
Another thing I miss is the scourge, their removal really makes usage of aerial units less interesting and less risky vs. the zerg, in BW you can´t just go anywhere with any air units because you have to keep close attention to your most valuable units so they don't get countered by an incredibly cheap unit and that is how it should be; you have to babysit your sci vessels and so forth. Also, now the zerg is forced to counter any meaningful air fleet with some big air of their own, and I really don't want to see this be a game of massing air units on both sides, as that is by definition less interesting due to terrain not being an issue, lesser micro capability etc..
|
On February 07 2010 03:33 Tom Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 07:13 Mikilatov wrote:On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?! Yeah I'm a bit perplexed by that one as well. The reaver was perhaps one of the most exciting units in SC1 from a spectator's point of view, and although the colossus is awesome, I fail to see how it will be nearly as exciting as a reaver scarabs. I think it probably had something to do with the improved AI pathing. In BW, Reavers were balanced around the fact that the poor AI pathing could cause the Scarabs to dud and the targets to run away unharmed. Since this is no longer a factor, It is not a stretch to think that the Reaver was brutally effective in the early SC2 builds that used it. This probably prompted Blizzard to remove the unit altogether. Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 07:14 Quixoticism wrote:
I also miss the Wraith. As of now they've replaced/sliced it into two units: the AtG only Banshee and the part time AtA only Viking. I don't really like how either functions and they both look too Warcrafty.
I do love the new Dragoon Aka Stalker though. Definitely looking forward to warping some of those in. ...Putting attempts to understand how in the world can an aircraft and transforming mech look even remotely "WarCrafty" aside (just beacuse there are "spaceships" in WarCraft does not mean that they look like the Banshee and Viking...infact, they do not resemble Carriers either), I honestly think the Banshee and Viking have superior gameplay implications compared to the Wraith. Since Banshees have a dedicated AtG attack compared to the Wraith`s paltry laser, they have the potential of making Starport builds a lot more effective. Furthermore, people who played SC2 can attest to the fact that Vikings provide for an interesting dynamic in TvT. Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 06:40 Ryuu314 wrote:
I'm just kinda confused as to why they removed the DA from the game...because of the new archon creation mechanism the costs associated with an archon is incredibly varied dependent on whether you chose to merge two HT, two DTs, or one of each. The decision to allow this variability and also the removal of DAs (especially since they're only now seeing much more use/innovation in SCBW) confuses me :[ I don`t see how it can be difficult to understand why they removed the DA, considering that it saw limited use in BW. Yes, they had their uses and could be potentially powerful. However, all of their spells were very costly energy-wise and they had no practical uses outside of that. At least the ability to morph into regular Archons provides Protoss players a viable transition from DT tech, something they need given that DT and HT tech is now split. Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 05:18 Shiladie wrote:
Mutalisk:
With muta stacking being a built in strat it seems like blizz is making more hard counters to it. I am concerned that after the initial build chaos, that people will be far too well equiped for a muta harrass to be a viable strategy. The ability to continually add mutas to your harrass in a much easier fasion however will allow for a lot more mass-muta strategies, though, with the broodlord a mutation from the corruptor instead of the mutalisk, it makes transitioning out of a mass mutalisk build into late game more difficult then it otherwise could be.
It is possible with more practice with the new way muta micro works, that mutalisks will take an even more dominant role then in BW. Actually, there are very few things that can be considered hard counters to mass mutalisks right now and even those are all high-tier tech (Thor`s splash air attack, Battlecruiser`s splash attack ability and Raven`s Seeker Missile). Infact, the only change that can be considered damaging towards Mutalisks is that Turrets do 4 more damage. Otherwise, the changes so far (such as the removal of Scourge, Corsairs and Irradiate) have been beneifical for Muta builds. Infact, I do not think Protoss currently have any reliable way of dealing with mass Muta. I do not know. Maybe that is the reason why Blizzard does not want to give Muta builds an easy transition, beacuse they are fairly powerful in their own right. Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 05:18 Shiladie wrote:
Lurker:
With how it's been moved to hive tech and requires it's own full tech building I am unsure at what role lurkers will play. Their range upgrade and slightly faster burrow speeds, alone with the fact troops group up more may make them more devestating then I think, but it seems that what they counter (mass smaller units) is far better countered by ultralisks with their new cleave ability. And small armies of bigger units is better countered by the boordlord. I really hope lurkers have as dominant a position in the zerg army as they had in BW, because they are such an exciting unit to watch. I also wonder if they are going to allow for stop lurkers, as that was a bug they never bothered to fix in BW. Watching a full terran lategame army die in seconds to a stop lurker field, similar to how psi storm rips apart zerg in current ZvP would be amazing.
The effectiveness of a unit that's main function is that it attacks while cloaked, when it has been moved to a soley late-game position really removes the pressure to get detectors that was present in BW, and that concerns me. Sadly, Blizzard has already confirmed that the Hold Position trick does not work in SC2. To be honest, I would not be suprised if that is the reason why they increased the Lurker`s range, to partially compensate for the lack of it. But that in turn probably caused the Lurker to be bumped higher in the tech tree. So far, Lurkers are still a complete enigma, since it is hard to judge how much they could potentially be effective. That said, however, Hydralisks seem to be more effective against Bio builds this time around (they do 8 instead of 5 and also do an additional 4 damage against Armoured targets like Marauders). As such, Lurkers could represent a nice transition, at least for delaying for Ultralisks. EDIT: Oh wow, forget what I said about Protoss lacking a counter against Mutalisks. Archons are insane in the current SC2 build. They do 20 more damage compared to the original and, since they a x2 attack, they will get a bigger bonus from weapon upgrades (although it is unknown currently just how much they will benefit from those). Last, but not least, they also do an additional +10 damage against Biological units.....and they still do splash. o.O
+100 :D
|
There are some things that definitely have their similarities. (cmon, propellers in space?)
The first StarCraft was criticized for looking like Warcraft in space and then they made some changes, why can't it happen again?
And I'm not saying I hate the game, SC2 is my #1 game I'm looking forward to. I can't wait to play it. I just think there are a few things that can be made to feel more like StarCraft.
I also think that the Viking would become alot cooler if they reversed how it worked and had GtA and AtG only attacks. It would help them fill the role of the goliath with the mobility of going into air mode with a weak Wraith-like AtG attack.
|
On February 07 2010 06:19 Quixoticism wrote:There are some things that definitely have their similarities. (cmon, propellers in space?) The first StarCraft was criticized for looking like Warcraft in space and then they made some changes, why can't it happen again? And I'm not saying I hate the game, SC2 is my #1 game I'm looking forward to. I can't wait to play it. I just think there are a few things that can be made to feel more like StarCraft. I also think that the Viking would become alot cooler if they reversed how it worked and had GtA and AtG only attacks. It would help them fill the role of the goliath with the mobility of going into air mode with a weak Wraith-like AtG attack.
If you are going to make a comparison, at least use the latest models:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 07 2010 06:19 Quixoticism wrote:
There are some things that definitely have their similarities. (cmon, propellers in space?)
cmon, Wings is space? If you have not researched the lore don't criticise.
Anyway... I highly doubt you will see any cut scenes with banshees flying from planet to planet. They do not appear to be designed for interplanetary travel. Like many Terran units they are stored in Battlecruisers for space travel and deployed within an atmosphere. Which is also what the Zerg do with mutalisks and all their other creatures. They travel within a Zerg creature known only as a Behemoth.
|
On February 06 2010 05:30 Ziph wrote:
Last thing I read was that you can select unlimited units but only hot-key a certain amount.
That would lead to awkwardness. What if you select max + 1 by mistake?
|
I really like wraith as a superiority fighter plane. Look so cool and sleek. Even the pilot looks cool with the eye visual!
|
On February 06 2010 07:13 Mikilatov wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?! Yeah I'm a bit perplexed by that one as well. The reaver was perhaps one of the most exciting units in SC1 from a spectator's point of view, and although the colossus is awesome, I fail to see how it will be nearly as exciting as a reaver scarabs.
Agreed. Seeing a shuttle drop in 1 (or even 2) reaver(s) next to an unwatched expansion is always so dramatic. As soon as that first scarab heads off into the direction of 10 scvs, everything seems to slow down until it finally explodes and you get to see if it is a dud or genocide... god what a moment... Colossus is so slow, and doesn't do that all-at-once damage that the reaver was capable of. Colossus is always going to be expecting, except for the cliff climbing ability... The reaver was the toss's go-to harass unit, that could take out an entire army when combined with a shuttle. The colossus just doesn't feel me with the same excitement. It just shoots a lot of enemies at once... whoop de doo. Reaver was just worried with taking its snipe, and then watching to see if the attack counts or not for huge huge points. Being a Z/T player, I have learned to respect the reaver lol.
Also, I don't know if I like the cliff climbing abilities that a lot of the units have. Also, Blink feels a bit too WC3ish to me (yes, yes, Warden). I liked just having the arbiter's recall ability and the nydus canal even, for moving mass armies across terrain very quickly. Being able to jump up cliffs to harass, then run away seems like a dumbed down version of dropships + harassing unit (tank, reaver, goliaths) microing.
|
Hmmm, the lurker moving to tier 3 seems strange to me... Is Z supposed to sit on ling/hydra till tier 3? banelings seem lame to me. I see a lot of people hyped about them, but they just seem lame. They are like scourge with better AI that seem to not waste themselves.
|
The fact that there is no reaver in sc2 makes me so sad. The AI nerf and now this.. Blizzard's hatred for the reaver knows no boundaries.
|
what's the new cleave ability for ultras btw  ? havent heard about it
|
Vultures... have flamethrowers now.. w00t?
|
I don't really like the whole "ability" concept in attacking. In BW, all abilities are supplemental, but with abilities like Cleave, it just doesn't feel right, to use an ability in order to kill things faster, as directly as it seems right now (I guess similar to Lunge for zealots).
|
On February 07 2010 23:08 Archaic wrote:
I don't really like the whole "ability" concept in attacking. In BW, all abilities are supplemental, but with abilities like Cleave, it just doesn't feel right, to use an ability in order to kill things faster, as directly as it seems right now (I guess similar to Lunge for zealots).
The Protoss Archon in Broodwar had "Cleave" right?
|
On February 07 2010 03:33 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I think it probably had something to do with the improved AI pathing. In BW, Reavers were balanced around the fact that the poor AI pathing could cause the Scarabs to dud and the targets to run away unharmed. Since this is no longer a factor, It is not a stretch to think that the Reaver was brutally effective in the early SC2 builds that used it. This probably prompted Blizzard to remove the unit altogether.
Can this really be treated as balance in StarCraft I? The scarab would dud randomly, and sometimes (eg if fired from the "south") didn't even have siege range.
Lurker87: Agreed. Seeing a shuttle drop in 1 (or even 2) reaver(s) next to an unwatched expansion is always so dramatic. As soon as that first scarab heads off into the direction of 10 scvs, everything seems to slow down until it finally explodes and you get to see if it is a dud or genocide... god what a moment...
Fun, yes. Good competitiveness/gameplay? Probably not. I don't get why reaver randomness is tolerated when other kinds of randomness aren't.
|
On February 07 2010 23:49 Kimera757 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2010 03:33 Tom Phoenix wrote:
I think it probably had something to do with the improved AI pathing. In BW, Reavers were balanced around the fact that the poor AI pathing could cause the Scarabs to dud and the targets to run away unharmed. Since this is no longer a factor, It is not a stretch to think that the Reaver was brutally effective in the early SC2 builds that used it. This probably prompted Blizzard to remove the unit altogether. Can this really be treated as balance in StarCraft I? The scarab would dud randomly, and sometimes (eg if fired from the "south") didn't even have siege range. [quote=Lurker87]Agreed. Seeing a shuttle drop in 1 (or even 2) reaver(s) next to an unwatched expansion is always so dramatic. As soon as that first scarab heads off into the direction of 10 scvs, everything seems to slow down until it finally explodes and you get to see if it is a dud or genocide... god what a moment...
Fun, yes. Good competitiveness/gameplay? Probably not. I don't get why reaver randomness is tolerated when other kinds of randomness aren't.[/QUOTE]
Because
1) its exciting for spectators
2) it still takes a ridiculous amount of skill to micro a reaver well enough to cause a lot of damage (see: Jianfei's reavers)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/219/sc2w3cmprsn.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/0/0d/Banshee_SC2_DevRend2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/a/ac/VikingGroundMode_SC2_Game1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/9/9f/Stalker_SC2_render2.jpg)
