|
On February 27 2010 21:43 ComradeDover wrote:
This thread is pretty useless. "Zerg is boring" or "Zerg is bland" are some pretty unquantifiable statements.
WRONG!
You can definitely see that some Units are more versatile than others, have more potential to be microed to fully utilize their potential, aren't Units that are easily countered by another Unit or counter-units themselves, aren't just limited to serving one porpuse etc.
just look at this Example of two different low- to mid-Tier-Units: (onfusingly enough, the Low-Tier Unit is more versatile than the Mid-Tier Unit, so the argument that the hihgher the Tier, the more Interesting the Unit is with all kinds of Spells and abilities isn't very viable)
Immortal VS Reaper:
Reaper
- Reaper can jump up and down cliffs, they die quickly but are great to harrass buildings, they can be utilized in big battles, but also to harrass, they are no counter-unit to anything and can by countered by so many different Units, IF the opponent pays attention and knows about the possibilities, that the Terran-User may go Reapers:
1) Protoss for example can turtle in base with cannons, or just leave a few Stalkers at home or other Units like Immortal or Colossus to protect the base.
2) Not only can he use different Units/defensive Structures, but also different Strategies to deal with the Reapers: Sm1 maybe defends perfectly, but has to stay on one Base and tech. Another player expands anyway, but maybe looses a few more Buildings/probes etc.
- Reapers have a lot of Micromanagement-possibilities: You can pay a lot of attention to your reapers and save every single one oft them when harrassing, you can Micro by jumping up and down of cliffs against Melee-Units or so your opponent doesn't see the Reapers if he's on lowground etc.
Immortals
- Immortals are a direct hard Counterunit to Units that deal heavy amounts of DMG with one shot, like Tanks. Because they are slow and can't jump cliffs, burrow or have any interesting skills, you can't really micro them on a level you can Micro other Units and because they have a lot of HP, you don't even need to that much. So basically Immortals are just good, if your opponent has the right Unit-Composition.
- You can't really go and harrass with Immortals if you're opponent hasn't much Tanks, but only Marines&Marauders&Medivacs, so they are a Hard-Counter Unit AND serve only one purpose: attacking the enemiy Army directly. Other Units may be also good at harrassing, scouting, countering other Units if you use them correctly etc. (take Valkyries from SC1 for example: Even though they are "just" Air-to-Air and are most effective against large Groups of Units balled up in one place (so ppl may or may not call them hard counter units), you could still scout around with them, go kill some overloards etc. if the Zerg switched from Mutas to Ground-Units)
Now tell me that this stuff mentioned above is just all about taste and personal opinion - Total BS! -.-°
|
On February 27 2010 22:33 kickinhead wrote:
WRONG!
...
just look at this Example of two different Tier1-Units:
Immortal VS Reaper:
Facepalm.jpg
|
On February 27 2010 22:40 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2010 22:33 kickinhead wrote:
WRONG!
...
just look at this Example of two different Tier1-Units:
Immortal VS Reaper:
Facepalm.jpg
Yeah, i've corrected it because I first wanted to use roach as an Example but then decided to use Immortal, but thanks for pointing this hugely important flaw in my argumentation out...
|
On February 27 2010 22:43 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2010 22:40 ComradeDover wrote:On February 27 2010 22:33 kickinhead wrote:
WRONG!
...
just look at this Example of two different Tier1-Units:
Immortal VS Reaper:
Facepalm.jpg Yeah, i've corrected it because I first wanted to use roach as an Example but then decided to use Immortal, but thanks for pointing this hugely important flaw in my argumentation out...
Is is important. Why not compare to the marine, and call the marine boring? The Muta is pretty boring too, all it does is fly and shoot and we can't micro it anymore, let's scrap that too. What is the point you're trying to make, anyway?
The OP is making a very specific claim about the Zerg race. Not that they lack interesting micro possibilities (Anyone who has seen moving roach burrows or has given the infestor serious use will be able to tell you that isn't the case), but that they feel boring and bland from a lore and design perspective. He might as well be complaining that he didn't like the story of the movie Avatar or something. If he said that, my response would be the same; "I'm sorry that this game/movie wasn't for you, but it can't and shouldn't be all things to all people".
|
These reactions are understandable, it's nostalgia for a large part, and people trying to rationalize it. I think zerg is looking pretty good in sc2 already.
|
On February 27 2010 22:48 ComradeDover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2010 22:43 kickinhead wrote:On February 27 2010 22:40 ComradeDover wrote:On February 27 2010 22:33 kickinhead wrote:
WRONG!
...
just look at this Example of two different Tier1-Units:
Immortal VS Reaper:
Facepalm.jpg Yeah, i've corrected it because I first wanted to use roach as an Example but then decided to use Immortal, but thanks for pointing this hugely important flaw in my argumentation out... Is is important. Why not compare to the marine, and call the marine boring? The Muta is pretty boring too, all it does is fly and shoot and we can't micro it anymore, let's scrap that too. What is the point you're trying to make, anyway? The OP is making a very specific claim about the Zerg race. Not that they lack interesting micro possibilities (Anyone who has seen moving roach burrows or has given the infestor serious use will be able to tell you that isn't the case), but that they feel boring and bland from a lore and design perspective. He might as well be complaining that he didn't like the story of the movie Avatar or something. If he said that, my response would be the same; "I'm sorry that this game/movie wasn't for you, but it can't and shouldn't be all things to all people".
About the first Part: Now your just being difficult... The Reaper is T1 and Immortal is T2, so if anything, the Reaper should be the "boring" Unit, right? And your example isn't really good either, because Marines aren't boring and you can put in more effort controlling them but also get more out of it, then with immortals. They're a more versatile and demanding Unit than Immortals/Colossus/Roach: they're more fragile, have the Stim-Ability, better synergies with other Units like Marauder&Medivac, aren't just counter-units and they can be upgraded and used from the first minute of the game till the last minute of a game of any length and pretty much against any unit-combination your opponent has.
As for the second part, you're of course partially right, you can't always make everything right, BUT with a community of People that have been playing SC and/or WC3 an/or various other Games for the Past 10+ years, even on a professional level, you can definetely find out what the things were that made SC1 such a huge success and for me, the biggest part is just it's complexity. That's pretty much the easiest way I can put it. I just think that SC2 is less complex and demanding than SC1, but here comes the catch: This stuff is not salient on a Beginner-Level and even on a Professional Level, SC2 will not be decided by Race, Map or anything, because all the players have maxed out the potential of the game (which will never happen, there will alwas be a better player!), but it will show in how games are played out: It will be like WC3, were you see basically the same Game over and over again, depening on the race and maybe the Map, because you can't really be creative or very different on how you play the game and on what aspect of the game you concentrate on what time.
To make those things possible, SC2 has to deliver complexity on every level there is. They did a good job making macro possible and viable even with MBS and AM, but with Micro-related stuff like better pathfinding, no air-unit-stacking and no proper H/P-Button Control, Intelligent Casting and some in my opinion unversatile und undemanding Units (micro-wise), they've made Micro much less complex and because the Community didn't RAGE like crazy (as they did against MBS and AA) Blizzard didn't realize that they have to put stuff in, that replaces the loss of the above mentioned micro-aspects to give the players more possibilities in micro, than they could ever actually do during a fight, so they had to prioritize, like in SC1.
Don't see my Critic as SC2-Bashing, but as helping Blizzard creating the best possible SC2 they can. I Mean: That Sc1 was so awesome, is a great deal just luck: We can't just hope that there will be a bug in Blizzard, that allows interesting Micro, like the Mutastacking-"bug" in SC1, because that probably won't happen. But what Blizzard can do to again create a RTS-Revolution, is to listen to the rich and enthusiastic Community and if the Community want's SC2 to be great, they should be open for suggestions and not opposed to anything anybody dares to say that aren't just praising chants about SC2, because we don't need a Beta for stuff like that.
And yes, I haven't played the Beta, but I've watched tons of streams and read a lot and I have to be honest: If I was in the Beta right now, I probably wouldn't look at SC2 as critical as I do right now but would just be on cloud-9 and tear every "noob" up that besmurges the greatness that is SC2, but is this a good, or a bad thing? Or do we maybe need someone that maybe sounds a little more critical, but also the people giving good feddback, because Blizzard did a great job? Of course even the Blizzard-guys are just Humans and they need and want the Feedback, so even if I may sound more SC2-opposed, than I actually am, it's IMHO important stuff that sm1 speaks up about those things that COULD make SC2 an even better game!
|
Zerg are good, but admittedly the roaches can be more unique and different than the hydralisk.
The Queen is great, banelings seem great, the broodlord is great and the updated ultralisk is great.
|
On February 28 2010 00:00 member1987 wrote:
Zerg are good, but admittedly the roaches can be more unique and different than the hydralisk.
The Queen is great, banelings seem great, the broodlord is great and the updated ultralisk is great.
queen is pretty much nothing but a zerg cronoboost, broodlords are guardians with a living attack,ultras are ultras just buffed.
|
There is something about zerg that make them seem kind of bland compare to the other two races... the lack of an iconic and cool unit might be the cause of this. Queen is one, but a sort of stationary one.
I don't see any good replacements for the lurker, scourge or defilers yet... good as in "cool and iconic" as well as useful.
My biggest hope is that scourge and lurkers are implemented beacuse those are two units that truly fit Starcraft as an e-sport, both for spectators and players. How to get those two units balanced is obviously another issue.
|
Honestly I like the way they are going with Zerg. Having less spells and abilities on them, and making each single unit less game-changing as a result gives them a unique flavor. You have the ability to spawn an entire army quicker than any other race. Once you have some tech down you can design the mix of units for each wave you send at them continuing to adapt and change to counter their unitmix. It's more about calculated unit selection and positioning than it is about casting x spells and abusing y mechanics. To me it is even more Zergy than SC1.
|
queens suck because: 1base unitmassing with Zerg - R U SERIOUS BLIZZARD?
the idea to increase macro and aspects of th queen r nice, but she needs complete overhaul:
- scout dies immediately against queen - not SC-like at all and makes multitasking/micro in the early stages of the game less crucial when playing with or against Z.
- 1base-massing is sooooo baaaaaad. It's starcraft2, not warcraft 4 and on top of that its Zerg!
|
Have you guys noticed that zerg building spawn broodlings when they die?
|
On February 28 2010 00:14 kickinhead wrote:
queens suck because: 1base unitmassing with Zerg - R U SERIOUS BLIZZARD?
the idea to increase macro and aspects of th queen r nice, but she needs complete overhaul:
- scout dies immediately against queen - not SC-like at all and makes multitasking/micro in the early stages of the game less crucial when playing with or against Z.
- 1base-massing is sooooo baaaaaad. It's starcraft2, not warcraft 4 and on top of that its Zerg!
If one race deserves to feel massible off a single base it's Zerg. When your dealing with higher tech like Muta or higher they can pump out an initial 9 or so off one base, but if you drop their numbers they will struggle to continually replenish more gas heavy units.
|
On February 28 2010 00:18 sob3k wrote:
Have you guys noticed that zerg building spawn broodlings when they die?
Yes. My siege tanks killed my own marines because of that.
|
Not that I'm saying all discussions like this are useless, but why do you people have such a polarized opinion when it comes to sc1 vs sc2?^^; I mean I love sc1 too and I want to see a worthy successor but you're sounding like you know both games inside out! People keep calling the Roach boring and not "zerg-like". In terms of the whole "zerg should be swarming with lots of uniiiits!: Play some TvZ in sc1. You'll be losing to 6 lurkers, or maybe 11 mutalisks quite a bit (unless you're already very good at TvZ). Zerg in sc1 have beefy units, and they certainly don't swarm in every situation. In fact I find ling-all ins boring after they happen for the 10th time in a row.
I'd also like you to sit a complete noob, or maybe a guy from a different RTS down as zerg on sc1 and have him play it. He won't Muta micro, he will deem the queen and scourge (and pretty much mutas) useless, he'll won't use defilers effectively at all and deem them crap. In short: zerg in sc1 are a boring race of "build zerglings and lurkers". At least to someone who hasn't spent a huge amount of time exploring the game.
Obviously a bit of an eggagerated way of saying it, but my point is you people play or see 100 games and you decide it's boring because it doesn't have the amount of possibilities of the other game that has been explored for 11 years.... quite frankly I can't take that argument seriously. On the surface sc2 looks to have tons of possibilities. Using changelings to spot the middle of a guys's base and plop down a nydus? Or bringing up the roach: regenerates like a madman underground and can move while burrowed? And you find this boring? You find there are no possibilities to micro a unit like that? Have you seen how many shots from an immortal a burrowed roach can take?
Watching all the noobs or even sc1 veterans play sc2 may look alot like a-moving compared to watching a sc1 pro play sc1, but come on.. you have to acknowledge that that's much MUCH more likely the case because people don't understand the game yet, not because the game itself is boring. If you can't even acknowledge that that is partially true then I don't think anyone will take these ramplings particularly serious. I won't.
Zerg have the ability to swarm, to kill someone's base with a handful of roaches if they micro them well, of sneaking doomdroppy nydus worms everywhere on the map, of burrowing banelings ala mass-minefield etc.
not...boring...
|
some units need finetunig but i really miss the lurker : (
|
The buildings look sweet! but no lurkers bah! i didnt know that
|
On February 27 2010 23:15 kickinhead wrote:
About the first Part: Now your just being difficult... The Reaper is T1 and Immortal is T2, so if anything, the Reaper should be the "boring" Unit, right?
Uh...no. What in the world would make you think that?
On February 27 2010 23:15 kickinhead wrote:
And your example isn't really good either, because Marines aren't boring and you can put in more effort controlling them but also get more out of it, then with immortals. They're a more versatile and demanding Unit than Immortals/Colossus/Roach: they're more fragile, have the Stim-Ability, better synergies with other Units like Marauder&Medivac, aren't just counter-units and they can be upgraded and used from the first minute of the game till the last minute of a game of any length and pretty much against any unit-combination your opponent has.
You're still arguing an irrelevant point. Zerg have plenty of interesting micro opportunities, see burrow movement and infestor shenanigans.
On February 27 2010 23:15 kickinhead wrote:
As for the second part, you're of course partially right, you can't always make everything right, BUT with a community of People that have been playing SC and/or WC3 an/or various other Games for the Past 10+ years, even on a professional level, you can definetely find out what the things were that made SC1 such a huge success and for me, the biggest part is just it's complexity. That's pretty much the easiest way I can put it.
Okay.
On February 27 2010 23:15 kickinhead wrote:
I just think that SC2 is less complex and demanding than SC1, but here comes the catch: This stuff is not salient on a Beginner-Level and even on a Professional Level, SC2 will not be decided by Race, Map or anything, because all the players have maxed out the potential of the game (which will never happen, there will alwas be a better player!), but it will show in how games are played out: It will be like WC3, were you see basically the same Game over and over again, depening on the race and maybe the Map, because you can't really be creative or very different on how you play the game and on what aspect of the game you concentrate on what time.
I guess you're entitled to your beliefs, and I can't really stop you from making bogus predictions, but you really shouldn't represent them as fact.
On February 27 2010 23:15 kickinhead wrote:
To make those things possible, SC2 has to deliver complexity on every level there is. They did a good job making macro possible and viable even with MBS and AM, but with Micro-related stuff like better pathfinding, no air-unit-stacking and no proper H/P-Button Control, Intelligent Casting and some in my opinion unversatile und undemanding Units (micro-wise), they've made Micro much less complex and because the Community didn't RAGE like crazy (as they did against MBS and AA) Blizzard didn't realize that they have to put stuff in, that replaces the loss of the above mentioned micro-aspects to give the players more possibilities in micro, than they could ever actually do during a fight, so they had to prioritize, like in SC1.
Since this thread is specifically about the zerg, let me repeat myself: There are plenty of micro opportunities with the Zerg race. Really. I mean it. Go play the game.
On February 27 2010 23:15 kickinhead wrote:
Don't see my Critic as SC2-Bashing, but as helping Blizzard creating the best possible SC2 they can. I Mean: That Sc1 was so awesome, is a great deal just luck: We can't just hope that there will be a bug in Blizzard, that allows interesting Micro, like the Mutastacking-"bug" in SC1, because that probably won't happen. But what Blizzard can do to again create a RTS-Revolution, is to listen to the rich and enthusiastic Community and if the Community want's SC2 to be great, they should be open for suggestions and not opposed to anything anybody dares to say that aren't just praising chants about SC2, because we don't need a Beta for stuff like that.
wintergt's post above you summed it up pretty well. You're just pining for SC1. Nostalgia is fine, but please realize that this is a whole new game.
On February 27 2010 23:15 kickinhead wrote:
And yes, I haven't played the Beta, but I've watched tons of streams and read a lot and I have to be honest: If I was in the Beta right now, I probably wouldn't look at SC2 as critical as I do right now but would just be on cloud-9 and tear every "noob" up that besmurges the greatness that is SC2, but is this a good, or a bad thing? Or do we maybe need someone that maybe sounds a little more critical, but also the people giving good feddback, because Blizzard did a great job? Of course even the Blizzard-guys are just Humans and they need and want the Feedback, so even if I may sound more SC2-opposed, than I actually am, it's IMHO important stuff that sm1 speaks up about those things that COULD make SC2 an even better game!
No offense or anything, and I'm really not trying to be rude, but if you're making this huge speech and you're not even actually IN the beta, you need to shut the fuck up.
|
I gotta say I love the new creep. Creep spawning and the little extra benefits it gives you
|
Disclaimer: I'm not in beta.
But as a spectator, I think the greatest thing about SC1 was how unit mixes would complement one another, rather than simply counter the opponent's army. ZvT Lurker/Ling was exciting because while Zerglings were mobile and weak, Lurkers were position-dependent and strong. Add in Scourge that could easily destroy the only unit that made going against Lurkers easier, and you have a very intense and dynamic battle. Dynamic not in the sense that every unit is mobile, but dynamic in the feeling of tension. As a spectator, I really don't feel that same sense of dynamic tension in an SC2 battle because everything is just moving and attacking. Few things have to be positioned correctly to deal its damage, like the Reaver, Tank, or Lurker, without being vulnerable to its hard counter. It seems like SC2 units were designed around cute tactical possibilities rather than allowing for complex army control.
Example:
Stalker: It can warp around the map and back while sacrificing any semblence of being a solid unit. For being one of the staples of the protoss force, it's kind of unacceptable to cater to its concept of being a super mobile "base raider" tactical use rather than its actual usefullness in combat. It's like removing the marauder and forcing Terran to deal with the Reaper instead.
Roach: Fast regeneration tank. So why is there an Ultralisk? Roach makes Zerg less vulnerable at mid-game. What about the hydralisk? How about making the Roach's use more interesting within the context of the rest of the Zerg army?
Colossus: If this was meant to replace the Reaver/Shuttle, I can't see how it does so. It's not exciting to watch. There is no tension watching a Colossus march across the map, and there's little importance in positioning/control associated with the Colossus.
Immortal: It's way too strong to make mech viable within the context of the larger Protoss force. This discourages using the Seige Tank's positional advantage, which discourages army control beyond a-move. Maybe its strength is to make up for the Stalker's weakness whose weakness is to make up for its mobility which it has because somebody wanted Protoss to have a cute tactical unit that could warp around a lot. @&^*$#&^$*&
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
