|
SC2 boards have been all serious recently with everyone moping around waiting for any word on beta.
This thread is where you take your favorite units from BW that has an equiv in SC2 and analyze how it's gameplay/usability will change and whether you think it will benefit or harm the awesomeness of that unit.
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.
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.
I invite anyone to casually discuss how they think their favorite unit's gameplay may change, keep the SC2 board going with some interesting discussion...
|
Hmmmm, seeing as the wraith was the icon for both SC and BW, I'm bummed it's not going to be making an appearance. Different wraiths also showed up in numerous cinematics, so while the unit was pretty situation in game, it was awesome in lore.
Bring back mah wraiths please!
|
Wait... if you can select unlimited units in SC2 and you can stack mutas... wtf? You can stack more than 11 mutas at once?
I'm a SC2 Noob.
|
Last thing I read was that you can select unlimited units but only hot-key a certain amount.
|
The medical dropship would be a bitch to counter.
Also, the hellion is too slow for terran users who are so used to vultures.
|
My understanding of the unit selection is that you can select and hotkey 255 units at once (essentially unlimited in non UMS maps)
I've heard helions, while different then vultures are going to be even more devestating if used correctly due to their splash damage. While they micro is different then vultures from what people are saying, once you get used to it, they can dance around lings and similar just as easily.
|
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.
Oooh, that makes sense.
|
On February 06 2010 05:40 Shiladie wrote:
My understanding of the unit selection is that you can select and hotkey 255 units at once (essentially unlimited in non UMS maps)
I've heard helions, while different then vultures are going to be even more devestating if used correctly due to their splash damage. While they micro is different then vultures from what people are saying, once you get used to it, they can dance around lings and similar just as easily.
Nvm. Wut. -.-
|
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 :[
|
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?!
|
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 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.
|
On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?!
I absolutely agree. The reaver was my favorite unit to use and watch, and I'm sure that it was for others. There needs to be an ability or unit that can do mine or scarab like damage. Since mines, mine drags, and scarabs are classic fan favorites of SC viewers.
|
I don't think you should even view SC2 as a continuation. It's only a continuation in terms of single player. In Multi player it's a new game.
|
On February 06 2010 07:14 Quixoticism wrote:
I don't really like how either functions and they both look too Warcrafty.
This, "Looks too much like WarCraft" thing is getting out of hand. Now spaceships look like they are from WarCraft?? Come on really?
|
This turned into a troll thread somehow
|
The new Archon can also cast spells, can't it? I haven't been following all the changes they've been making.
Anyways, a long ranged lurker will play an entirely different role in the game - and it seems it could be a fearsome weapon. Not only does it outrange base defenses and most of your normal units - you also need detection on top to get rid of it. And now even zerg has been stripped of its previous advantage of widespread detection as overlords have been gimped in that respect.
|
On February 06 2010 08:06 RyanS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 07:14 Quixoticism wrote:
I don't really like how either functions and they both look too Warcrafty.
This, "Looks too much like WarCraft" thing is getting out of hand. Now spaceships look like they are from WarCraft?? Come on really?
Theres spaceships in WoW, and tbh... they kinda look like carriers.
|
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.
|
On February 06 2010 09:39 Tump wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 08:06 RyanS wrote:On February 06 2010 07:14 Quixoticism wrote:
I don't really like how either functions and they both look too Warcrafty.
This, "Looks too much like WarCraft" thing is getting out of hand. Now spaceships look like they are from WarCraft?? Come on really? Theres spaceships in WoW, and tbh... they kinda look like carriers.
Well in SC, when say a zergling hit a marine, the marine doesn't move. One of the things SC2 got from warcraft is that the marine bounces back (which is more realistic), but it seems kinda strange after playing/watching so much SC to see units bounce around when hit.
|
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)
|
they should just have made the scarabs a little slower and targetable so that you could shoot them before they get to you and explode. That would've been the way to go imo. It would make the reaver even more exciting than in broodwar cuz someone shooting down a scarab before it gets to the mineral line would be cool to see. Thoughts?
|
On February 08 2010 02:15 pzea469 wrote:
they should just have made the scarabs a little slower and targetable so that you could shoot them before they get to you and explode. That would've been the way to go imo. It would make the reaver even more exciting than in broodwar cuz someone shooting down a scarab before it gets to the mineral line would be cool to see. Thoughts?
Actually, they tried something like that with the Reaper`s D-8 charges. But apparently, it did not work out, since they are indestructible again.
|
Two thing's I've noticed about SC2.
I really miss the reaver, truly I do. I think that they can take the total damage a reaver deals on average and make it the new reaver damage counter.
example: sc1 reaver does (lets just say) 100dmg per scarab shot, and misses once every 4 shots due to poor ai. That means then that for every 10 shots the reaver does on average 800 dmg. so with the new improved AI why not make it 80 dmg per scarab shot? that's just my proposition for working around THAT problem. This of course doesn't address any other problem.
What I am really starting to get tired of is this whole beam thing. Stalkers shoot beams. Mothership shoots beams. Phoenix shoots beams. Battlecruiser gets the beam upgrade. It's really starting to piss me off. Scouts had missles. Dragoons had bursts of energy instead of lasers. It's almost as if they're just reusing the base animation and then manipulating it to fit the situation. Havering everything as a laser seems very uncreative to me, even though it is reasonable to presume the future world has lasers in everything.
|
i'm happy someone else noticed that zerg looks like some monsters from WoW, sc2 is overall too bright and flashy for my taste, so far it looks like one of those 10 bucks 2.5d games you find on xbox arcade
i like that there are options for harass units weather you go mech or bio as terran, i'll miss spider mines, the dropship is cool and all, but it seems like terran is now all about siege tank/thor push and harass/drops, no bio ball, sucks becouse i liked my marines, now they'll be cast mostly useless in mid and late game, unless you feel like using a dropship purely for healing
|
On February 06 2010 05:18 Shiladie wrote:
SC2 boards have been all serious recently with everyone moping around waiting for any word on beta.
This thread is where you take your favorite units from BW that has an equiv in SC2 and analyze how it's gameplay/usability will change and whether you think it will benefit or harm the awesomeness of that unit.
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.
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.
I invite anyone to casually discuss how they think their favorite unit's gameplay may change, keep the SC2 board going with some interesting discussion...
I totally disagree with you on the mutalisks, it seems as if there are alot fewer units that do crazy splash damage to air. I mean in terms of whats new that is good against stacked mutas, you've got what, hunter seeker missile, thor, and battle cruiser. You've lost corsairs and valk's and terran will no longer have a bunch of medics to heal their marines. If anything mutas are going to be scary good until terran/protoss get tier 3 units.
Witht he lurker though I totally agree. It seems that they will be very effective late game, but it definitely overlaps hugely with the ultralisk. The fact that it has the range upgrade should play a significant role though. Perhaps it will become more of a base raiding unit? Perhaps it will be very effective when combined with ultralisks for ranged support? I'm not really sure, but what I do know is that the baneling will definitely help fill the role that lurkers took in SC1 to counter groups of smaller units.
|
I really like the Battlecruiser. Maybe with the new things we will see more of them 
|
Colossi have been the lamest unit since being announced. Reavers were one of the most iconic, dreaded units of SC. Its like when they planned to get rid of carriers and replace them with phoenix and warp rays and motherships, and people flipped shit.
|
The randomness of the reaver has no place in SC2 and personally I love the concept if removing as many random elements as possible to base the game more on skill. And the Reaver just would not be the same without it's random element. It is a very sad casualty of war.
|
On February 08 2010 00:52 TheAntZ wrote:
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)
For point #1, if that's exciting for spectators, then why isn't other randomness exciting for spectators?
For point #2, it would take a lot of skill to micro the reaver even if it had no miss chance. If the scarab is a dud, it's usually not due to the player missing out on a play.
And on that note, would reavers doing x% damage (based on miss chance, if someone could even calculate that) be a proper conversion?
|
On February 08 2010 08:51 Kimera757 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2010 00:52 TheAntZ wrote:
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) For point #1, if that's exciting for spectators, then why isn't other randomness exciting for spectators? For point #2, it would take a lot of skill to micro the reaver even if it had no miss chance. If the scarab is a dud, it's usually not due to the player missing out on a play. And on that note, would reavers doing x% damage (based on miss chance, if someone could even calculate that) be a proper conversion?
No because 100 dmg and 60 dmg reavers both 1 shot packs of workers.
|
let us remember that Bliz plan on recreating every unit from bw in the editor...
Imagine OLD Protoss vs NEW Protoss or something similar
but not to change the subject entirely:
how the hell are you supposed to beat the new Terran push lol, holy shit, with the inclusion of sensor towers as well and siege on the ground and in the air :s
I guess I did change the subject entirely, so attempt 2:
I am also not fond of mines/scarabs making a departure from competitive starcraft....
maybe give the colossi a scarab spell?
or a terran unit a spider mine spell?
|
On February 08 2010 08:51 Kimera757 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2010 00:52 TheAntZ wrote:
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) For point #1, if that's exciting for spectators, then why isn't other randomness exciting for spectators? For point #2, it would take a lot of skill to micro the reaver even if it had no miss chance. If the scarab is a dud, it's usually not due to the player missing out on a play. And on that note, would reavers doing x% damage (based on miss chance, if someone could even calculate that) be a proper conversion?
Because of the tension it generates while its getting caught on the edges of minerals/buildings etc. Try to present to me another chance based situation that would be as tense
|
On February 08 2010 04:00 soultwister wrote:
i'm happy someone else noticed that zerg looks like some monsters from WoW, sc2 is overall too bright and flashy for my taste, so far it looks like one of those 10 bucks 2.5d games you find on xbox arcade
i like that there are options for harass units weather you go mech or bio as terran, i'll miss spider mines, the dropship is cool and all, but it seems like terran is now all about siege tank/thor push and harass/drops, no bio ball, sucks becouse i liked my marines, now they'll be cast mostly useless in mid and late game, unless you feel like using a dropship purely for healing
I feel the opposite of what you said about the bio ball. I think terren bio units got much better. For 1, you have much more variety, you can build 2 marines/mauralders at once, the reaper is freaken good, and ghost got a badly needed upgrade. IMO, terren bio units will be more used than mech, at least from the last blizzcon build.
|
Shiladie, thanks for covering my fav units =)
|
On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?!
Im agreeing with this, how the fuck do you get a crappy colosus out of a reaver........
I'd love to figure that out. I'm serious.
|
On February 08 2010 12:12 Broodie wrote:
let us remember that Bliz plan on recreating every unit from bw in the editor...
Imagine OLD Protoss vs NEW Protoss or something similar
Omg awesome!
I too will miss the explosive-beetle-launching-caterpillar, Protoss's most deadly weapon... T.T
|
On February 08 2010 15:13 dolo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?! Im agreeing with this, how the fuck do you get a crappy colosus out of a reaver........ I'd love to figure that out. I'm serious.
colossus is a pretty cool guy, why don't ya like him?
|
On February 08 2010 17:29 uberdeluxe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2010 15:13 dolo wrote:On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?! Im agreeing with this, how the fuck do you get a crappy colosus out of a reaver........ I'd love to figure that out. I'm serious. colossus is a pretty cool guy, why don't ya like him?
because eh looks like crap and shoots lasers, while not afraid of anything
|
im excited for the new ghosts. i think blizzard made an effort to make then slightly more usefull in SC2
hopefully mixing 1 or 2 in your army will have some benefits ;D
|
On February 08 2010 17:29 uberdeluxe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2010 15:13 dolo wrote:On February 06 2010 07:01 Manit0u wrote:
Casual discussion:
Reaver -> Colossus
WTF?! Im agreeing with this, how the fuck do you get a crappy colosus out of a reaver........ I'd love to figure that out. I'm serious. colossus is a pretty cool guy, why don't ya like him?
He looks like hes from war of the worlds, I don't like how he DPS things, and he takes less skill to play unlike the reaver. I mean this nigga can walk up hills/mountains aka you wanna callem cliffs?, i guess i find it more rewarding if you had to shuttle the reaver; Thats just me though, think I'm going to be ol school even after we all start playing sc2.  Im just saying reaver was on his grizzle
|
On February 07 2010 23:23 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +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?
It's more along the lines of giving a dragoon multishot. We're used to abilities being supplementary -- things like psionic storm and irridiate, not so much psuedo-passive adrenal-glands (in the form of ultracleave). I'd rather have units get abilities that augment mobility or add a new layer of depth, not simply get more damage.
That's one of those things I expect to get scrapped or nerfed once beta comes out.
|
What I want from blizzard is a defined intended role for each of the 3 T3 zerg units.
Right now this is what I get from them:
Lurker:
Anti small ground units, eating them up with splash
siege ability with range upgrade
countered by air, siege tanks, thors (dunno if any of the P ground counters them)
Ultra:
Anti small ground units, eating them up with cleave and high armour
Siege ability with headbutt damage vs buildings
Countered by air, siege tanks, thors (dunno if any of the P ground counters them)
Broodlord:
Anti large ground units, eating them up with mantaling surround
Siege ability because of long range
countered by air and thors protected by some small-ground
bit of a trend here?
yes it's simplified, but it gets the point across, (and thors are still a stupid unit)
edit:
I realised it may be a bit harsh on the thor, so here's my reasoning for the counters spelled out
lurkers:
anything with a large amount of health taking up a large space by definition will role over lurkers unless you've got massively overwhelming numbers
ultras:
thor = the spelled out perfect counter, as they use their 500 damage + stun retardo rockets to essentially nullify your ultras
Broodlord:
thor has the same GTA range as the broodlord ATG range (or more), so just keep a few marines or w/e to clean up the mantalings being spawned, and keep the thors target firing the broodlords. The main advantage of broodlords is how hard it is to advance into range of to attack them with ground, because of all the manta-ling fodder being thrown between you and them, not an issue with thors.
|
As to the Reaver -> Colossus. There's something I just can't stress enough:
BOOMBOOM >>> PEWPEW
|
^must he turn pink when hes firing?
|
On February 09 2010 03:06 Wire wrote:
^must he turn pink when hes firing?
Yes, that's how science works, duh...
|
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).
....
Siegetank
Firebat
Reaver
Spidermines
Archon
Lurker
Corsair
Devourer (somewhat)
Yeah, this *cleaving/ae-dmg* thing is totally new in sc2 and wasn't in SC1 at all... ... ...
|
One unit I'm kinda concerned about is the Ghost. Because of the new "smart-casting" thing it should be very easy to get an army of ghost and just smart-cast/snipe down an entire army of T1 units or just smart-cast/EMP a bunch of Protoss units/spellcasters. I can already imagine some semi-cheese strats abusing the smart-casting capability in SC2.
|
On February 09 2010 02:30 Shiladie wrote:
What I want from blizzard is a defined intended role for each of the 3 T3 zerg units.
Right now this is what I get from them:
Lurker:
Anti small ground units, eating them up with splash
siege ability with range upgrade
countered by air, siege tanks, thors (dunno if any of the P ground counters them)
Ultra:
Anti small ground units, eating them up with cleave and high armour
Siege ability with headbutt damage vs buildings
Countered by air, siege tanks, thors (dunno if any of the P ground counters them)
Broodlord:
Anti large ground units, eating them up with mantaling surround
Siege ability because of long range
countered by air and thors protected by some small-ground
bit of a trend here?
yes it's simplified, but it gets the point across, (and thors are still a stupid unit)
edit:
I realised it may be a bit harsh on the thor, so here's my reasoning for the counters spelled out
lurkers:
anything with a large amount of health taking up a large space by definition will role over lurkers unless you've got massively overwhelming numbers
ultras:
thor = the spelled out perfect counter, as they use their 500 damage + stun retardo rockets to essentially nullify your ultras
Broodlord:
thor has the same GTA range as the broodlord ATG range (or more), so just keep a few marines or w/e to clean up the mantalings being spawned, and keep the thors target firing the broodlords. The main advantage of broodlords is how hard it is to advance into range of to attack them with ground, because of all the manta-ling fodder being thrown between you and them, not an issue with thors.
goliath is a good counter to most zerg units in sc1
i don't see how you can judge all this without playing the beta
|
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.
Funny.
Mutas and gargoyles, Zealots and Demon Hunter, the list goes on...
On February 07 2010 03:35 Bash wrote:
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.
When you think about it, Vulture could easily be the single most spectacular and game breaking unit in SC1, followed by the Reaver. How many games got every spectator shouting after one single mine killed 10 workers and 5 hydras?
I wouldn't mind at all the Vulture being gone if it was being replaced by something as interesting. Unfortunately, the Hellion has to be the most boring unit idea in the whole Starcraft universe, but Reapers' timed mines can be a good replacement for the spider mines. Only time will tell.
|
quix : there were propellors in sc1 , a doodad on space terrain i believe
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
![[image loading]](http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8334/bombjk2.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/847/wobombshn4.gif)
