| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
nvrs
Greece481 Posts
edit: It majes a point that a) there can be back and forth games with small, medium and large armies and b) players and play styles are still evolving. I do hope though that Blizzard adds more interesting units in the expansions but i dont' think the game is as broken as many of you imply. | ||
|
fant0m
964 Posts
On April 21 2011 20:52 nvrs wrote: To every1 whos arguing that the game has been figured out and there are not back and forth games etc etc, plz watch todays GSL match of MKP vs Alicia edit: It majes a point that a) there can be back and forth games with small, medium and large armies and b) players and play styles are still evolving. I do hope though that Blizzard adds more interesting units in the expansions but i dont' think the game is as broken as many of you imply. That's exactly what I was about to come say too.  Watch Alicia/NaDa (2 games after) too. It was much shorter and a bit more "1 big battle" ish, but I was still on the edge of my seat. Not nearly as much as Alicia/MKP, but both of those games today were extremely exciting. In fact, every game today (even the cheese) was exciting. It was some really great SC2 for entertainment purposes. (It helps to care about the players too! GOM had a great video backstory for MarineKing before his group started and it reminded me of all the reasons why I cheer for that kid to do well. He's so young!) | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
On April 21 2011 19:57 DjayEl wrote: I am an old school player, grown up with BW and I must say I really enjoyed this game but... I watched recent VODs of BW and SC2BW project, and compared them to SC2 games and I must say... well, BW games just seem to be very BORING for me to watch. Sure it's "art", because how difficult it was to control your troops (btw I think that if you take BW units with SC2 mechanics like in SW2BW you will just not have the same game, and the metgame would break completely), but honestly it should not be how SC2 must be. When SC2 came out, I really loved it outright because it removed so much flaws I was bored with when playing BW, and I'm not speaking about game mechanics being more easy. I speak about the feeling : in SC2 you get the REAL feeling of what races SHOULD be : Zerg feel very swarmy (see the mass speedling agressions, they are beautiful to watch), Protoss is so cool being high tech and using warp ins, its like ok, I play Zerg and I really hate 4 gate and I definitely think the game currently need a tweak with this warp in mechanics and the dethball problem, but god! its so cool ! This is the way protoss should have been since the beginning! Now when I look back at BW games and see gateways and see zeals and goons spawned one by one like marines from barracks, I cant help myself thinking "uuuh well, they cant even become warpgates lol so dumb". I knows its stupid. I too favor the game mechanics/ unit interactions to be far far far more important than just cool explosions/great graphics, otherwise I would play any modern random RTS games out there and be happy. I dont think cool stuff > balanced game. What I want now, in 2011, it having BOTH. I want stalkers to warp in, to blink, zerg to spawn shitloads of lings, queens being queens, AND the game to be balanced and fun to play somehow. I am not happy with the current deathball and I think colossus is now damaging the game greatly, but I strongly believe Blizzard will eventually work their way around it and fix everything, but NOT by puting back BW concept. I DONT WANT Zerg to have siege units like the Lurker ! I dont care it offers space control, slow down pushes, etc., it's not the way it should work in SC2. When I watch BW now I just see one race fighting the same exact race with different graphics: Z, T and P can control space, Z, T, P have heavy damage dealers that take time to set up, and I dont care if the lurker needs to burrow or the tank siege or the reaver being dropped at the right place, its basically the same overall thing with a slightly different mechanism, but for me its not enough to define a race. Zerg is basically a terran with a siege unit which has less range and that burrows? Ok of course I'm exagerating a lot here, but honestly I believe its a good thing that Zerg has no siege unit at all (now the infestor is a little bit of this, but that's it), Zerg is not made for performing sieges and controling space, they are made to SWARM THE FUCK OUT OF THE SCARED TERRAN who relies on big guns and statics defenses not to be overrun by a sea of claws. In the last BW games I saw, the terran player had more units than a zerg and was pushing their ass with swarms of marines while the zerg (jaedong) was desperately trying to contain the M&M with a couple lurkers and a handful of scared zerglings in hope to get a defiler in time not to be overrun. Yes, this might be extremely well balanced and everything, but it just feels lame. And YES I used to play BW a lot and enjoy it and I have a lot of respect for great BW players and everything, I just think that SC2 is trying to do exactly the right thing. Maybe it will not manage to achieve his goals, but hell I hope it will! Currently I enjoy watching the game between my bronze-gold mates (I play in high diamond) because I know that at their level they will feel a great tension and that the game will LOOK epic and brutal and they will feel good about that. Playing BW when not at very high-super-class-level is just dumb and uninteresting. Blizzard just need to find a way to prevent the deathball syndrom to occur and everything will be fine with SC2. ZvT and TvT are great matchups to watch, maybe PvP and ZvP need a fix. But all in all, I prefer to see games when decision making seals the deal instead of pure mechanical skill. I always hated that concept with BW. I speak for myself in this post, no offense to anyone, but I now a bunch of guys who think the same way... I'm quoting this for emphasis, because I honestly believe this is very much the train of thought Dustin Browder and his team followed when designing SC2. And similarly, it's hard to point out anything wrong with this, until you actually play the game and see what these ideas imply for gameplay. "Warpgates are so cool, let's throw them in!"; "Zerg should be swarming, let's give them infinite larvae!"; "They should be swarming, not containing - remove Lurkers."; "Terran should have the best defense, let's allow them to resell bunkers.", and so forth. Thing is, none of these things were very well thought out before actually putting them in the game. The MO was "Let's throw in whatever cool ideas we have, and work out the balance through numbers later.". As it turns out, there are bad ideas out there, not just bad implementations. Warpgates are, for example, a terrible (albeit cool) idea, and probably inherently unbalancable - nothing that removes the defender's advantage to that extent can be good for the game. That's why we have deathballs, terrible Zealots/Stalkers, and extremely overpowered Sentries and Colossi. Spawn Larvae necessitated a huge Zergling nerf, 2 supply Roaches, no Hive tech spellcasters, and produced the playstyle of defending and macroing the whole game. So much for an aggressive Swarm and scared Terrans, I suppose. Instead we have Zergs twisting themselves into knots trying to prepare for everything that could come their way, just because their units aren't versatile enough. Finally, the notion of "this race should play like this" just constricts gameplay and makes the game shallow. I bet you agree with Terran being the "dropping race" too, and therefore drops should be niche for Zerg and Protoss, right? Well, enjoy your deathballs and passive macro games then. You say Blizzard should "fix" deathballs and PvP, but it's the design philosophy you support that makes the game play out this way. It's all connected. | ||
|
nvrs
Greece481 Posts
On April 21 2011 22:48 Toadvine wrote: I'm quoting this for emphasis, because I honestly believe this is very much the train of thought Dustin Browder and his team followed when designing SC2. And similarly, it's hard to point out anything wrong with this, until you actually play the game and see what these ideas imply for gameplay. "Warpgates are so cool, let's throw them in!"; "Zerg should be swarming, let's give them infinite larvae!"; "They should be swarming, not containing - remove Lurkers."; "Terran should have the best defense, let's allow them to resell bunkers.", and so forth. Thing is, none of these things were very well thought out before actually putting them in the game. The MO was "Let's throw in whatever cool ideas we have, and work out the balance through numbers later.". As it turns out, there are bad ideas out there, not just bad implementations. Warpgates are, for example, a terrible (albeit cool) idea, and probably inherently unbalancable - nothing that removes the defender's advantage to that extent can be good for the game. That's why we have deathballs, terrible Zealots/Stalkers, and extremely overpowered Sentries and Colossi. Spawn Larvae necessitated a huge Zergling nerf, 2 supply Roaches, no Hive tech spellcasters, and produced the playstyle of defending and macroing the whole game. So much for an aggressive Swarm and scared Terrans, I suppose. Instead we have Zergs twisting themselves into knots trying to prepare for everything that could come their way, just because their units aren't versatile enough. Finally, the notion of "this race should play like this" just constricts gameplay and makes the game shallow. I bet you agree with Terran being the "dropping race" too, and therefore drops should be niche for Zerg and Protoss, right? Well, enjoy your deathballs and passive macro games then. You say Blizzard should "fix" deathballs and PvP, but it's the design philosophy you support that makes the game play out this way. It's all connected. I disagree, the past matches in GSL, TSL, GSTL and to some extent NASL have proven that there can be great matches, back and forth with a lot of strategic playing by all races and not just deathball build up. I strongly believe that as players start to understand the MUs and unit compositions better we will se more of these attributes. Good Protoss players are proving that the deathball is not a requirement for a win and TvT / TvZ are great to watch. I also think that because of the faster than BW action in the game, players initially favoured deathballs cause its simpler to manage but eventually they will get a hold of it. | ||
|
sivadnivek
United States45 Posts
| ||
|
Samhax
1054 Posts
They can add dota gameplay (aim single auto attack and aoe autoattack). Imagine for example if you have to choose manually the aoe shot for your siege tank but dodgeable, or the orientation of the flame line from your hellion, or choose the line of your lazer colossus, it's like the snipe of the ghost but with missile shots that you can dodge extended to more units. ofc they have to work on the unit design, counters, dynamics between units, etc. But i think this is what sc2 is missing because, more cool units, and the cooler units in the game from a spectator pov and even as a player, are the units that require micro (infestors, ht, ghost, etc.). I would love to see some crazy dance micro between units, with people dodging attacks or missing attacks but in a macro oriented game. | ||
|
Bebob
5 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
Two quick points. 1. MMA's series to kick off code A is a better example of the potential of SC2. + Show Spoiler + While no individual battle was inherently exciting, there were 3-4 going on at all times for quite a while in set two, as MMA set up a fortifited position with tanks, a plantery, and 3/4ths of his army, and used the remaining 1/4th of his army to drop all over the map at once, microing multiple battles. That's pretty hard, and pretty amazing to watch 2. Boxer vs Avenge. What a different casters can make + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 21 2011 22:48 Toadvine wrote: I'm quoting this for emphasis, because I honestly believe this is very much the train of thought Dustin Browder and his team followed when designing SC2. And similarly, it's hard to point out anything wrong with this, until you actually play the game and see what these ideas imply for gameplay. "Warpgates are so cool, let's throw them in!"; "Zerg should be swarming, let's give them infinite larvae!"; "They should be swarming, not containing - remove Lurkers."; "Terran should have the best defense, let's allow them to resell bunkers.", and so forth. Thing is, none of these things were very well thought out before actually putting them in the game. The MO was "Let's throw in whatever cool ideas we have, and work out the balance through numbers later.". As it turns out, there are bad ideas out there, not just bad implementations. That last sentence is Idra logic. Warpgates are, for example, a terrible (albeit cool) idea, and probably inherently unbalancable - nothing that removes the defender's advantage to that extent can be good for the game. That's why we have deathballs, terrible Zealots/Stalkers, and extremely overpowered Sentries and Colossi. Colossi are OP because they're OP. Blizzard has explicitly said they're too strong, but they need more data of toss without amulet before they can properly fix it. And there's plenty of ways to have your cake and eat it, too. Warp gates are awesome, but they remove the defender's advantage to much (assuming you consider that a problem, which I'm not sure Blizz does). Why don't you just, like, make spine crawlers really good? Or have non-Zerg ground units get damaged by the creep, as the ground itself is infested. That's a cool, Zerg-y idea. That makes bases harder to attack early on. Maybe make Zerg buildings covered in spikes, so that Zealots take damage attacking them. Would these ideas fix the game? Doubt it; I spent like ten seconds thinking about it. But if one cool idea is too strong, you can always give another race an equally cool idea to make up for it. Brood War had a bit of this going on. I remind you that late-game Zerg in BW could could cast a spell (swarm) on an area, and any Zerg in that area was literally invincible to most units. Spawn Larvae necessitated a huge Zergling nerf, 2 supply Roaches, no Hive tech spellcasters, and produced the playstyle of defending and macroing the whole game. No Hive tech casters? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Late game Zerg in BW had tons and tons of larva (I don't think any Zerg whose said "If I make units, I can't make drones" would agree larva is "unlimited"), too. They made macro hatches. The stylish ZvP opening right now is 3-hatch muta into 5-hatch hydra. 5 hatches is a lot of larva off two base, and taking a third gives you a sixth hatch. So much for an aggressive Swarm and scared Terrans, I suppose. Instead we have Zergs twisting themselves into knots trying to prepare for everything that could come their way, just because their units aren't versatile enough. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=207017 Finally, the notion of "this race should play like this" just constricts gameplay and makes the game shallow. I bet you agree with Terran being the "dropping race" too, and therefore drops should be niche for Zerg and Protoss, right? Well, enjoy your deathballs and passive macro games then. You say Blizzard should "fix" deathballs and PvP, but it's the design philosophy you support that makes the game play out this way. It's all connected. Not if you're creative as a designer. You're so pessimistic. Cheer up! | ||
|
ilmman
364 Posts
| ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
The 2 things that keep SC2 from being that way: 1. What the OP discussed- the lack of units which force the opponent to go around them if he wants to engage. For example, lurkers forced terran to do drops in the back of the zerg's base and halted their tank advancement. In TvP, tanks force protoss to do drops or do recall. 2. Protoss is definitely the worst designed race in this regard. Basically, gateway units are weak to compensate for the warp-in ability, and then colossi are very mighty to compensate for the weak gateway units. As a result, gateway units are very weak in small numbers. Also colossi need the gateway units to tank so they can deal damage. What you get is the turtling into deathball style that we're seeing. Ironically, I think Blizz envisioned warpgates to make protoss the small skirmish race. | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
Put simply, just because you have a unit in a certain area doesn't mean you have map control of that area, it's that fact that you can actively deny movement in that area that makes it map control. It seems to me like all these ideas build upon one another and that if you want to be able to control the flow of the game you need to have map control, and if you want to have map control you need units that can do more than add DPS. You need units with map prescence. there are many a unit with map presence (in sc2) how easy is it for a terran to push out of his 2-base with a flock of mutas around how easy is it for a zerg to push out when a terran makes his first couple hellions how easy is it for a roach player to push out with only roaches against against an army of lings a terran cannot push out of his base when DTs are around until he saves up scans or gets a raven i dunno what you want will map control exist when lurkers and spider mines are in the game? | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 22 2011 16:16 ilmman wrote: suggestion: get rid of warp gate and replace it with something else or change the mechanics of warp gate.. maybe PVP can be more epic Your wish is Blizzard's command. Warp gates are going to be changed to make 4gate less dominant, particularly in PvP. Right now they're thinking "Make warpgate take longer to research, but make Gateways a little better so Protoss isn't over-nerfed", but aren't ready to commit to anything specific at this time. This would fix a lot of the problems people have with warp gate by making it come into play later on. | ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
One of the main things that helped balance the very powerful zealot early game in BW was simply the fact it's slow, now this aspect has been basically ignored and 'balanced around'. Every now and then it seems Blizzard does something which really makes you question how much they are thinking about things. The reaper was a big questionably designed unit, which at least they fixed. But how could they ever have thought, a cliff-jumping low tier unit that can kite everything is a good idea? Plus it has bonus damage to buildings, because..? It doesn't even fit the idea of Terran in the first place, to me at least, considering theres already a vulture replacement. So hopefully they can fix this too, but hopefully not remove because like people said it is infact a cool idea just the implementation doesn't make sense. On April 22 2011 17:05 SlapMySalami wrote: i disagree with the map control bullet there are many a unit with map presence (in sc2) how easy is it for a terran to push out of his 2-base with a flock of mutas around how easy is it for a zerg to push out when a terran makes his first couple hellions how easy is it for a roach player to push out with only roaches against against an army of lings a terran cannot push out of his base when DTs are around until he saves up scans or gets a raven i dunno what you want will map control exist when lurkers and spider mines are in the game? Those are all examples of what you might call 'soft' temporary methods of map control, or more like simply area control. You can't see how this differs from siege tanks/lurkers/spider mines? People get too defensive over SC2 and can't admit any points against the game. We're not even trying to say, put the BW units back in the game. But there's no new replacements either, there's little to no tactical depth to the units besides the obvious (put melee in front of ranged etc.). TvZ for example in BW is probably the best one to look at, because it was an amazing back and forth dance where you had to think about the area around your units the whole time. PvP in BW however was probably the one that lacked this the most, and most resembled an SC2 game. Except it didn't have balling mechanics so the battles were naturally more spread out, and the reavers and templars added a nice level of skill onto the 1a2a3a. But i do get the feeling of BW PvP in SC2 in quite a few matchups. Game very heavily decided by the few main engagements of the entire armies. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
 | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 22 2011 16:13 Ribbon wrote: That last sentence is Idra logic. Colossi are OP because they're OP. Blizzard has explicitly said they're too strong, but they need more data of toss without amulet before they can properly fix it. And there's plenty of ways to have your cake and eat it, too. Warp gates are awesome, but they remove the defender's advantage to much (assuming you consider that a problem, which I'm not sure Blizz does). Why don't you just, like, make spine crawlers really good? Or have non-Zerg ground units get damaged by the creep, as the ground itself is infested. That's a cool, Zerg-y idea. That makes bases harder to attack early on. Maybe make Zerg buildings covered in spikes, so that Zealots take damage attacking them. Would these ideas fix the game? Doubt it; I spent like ten seconds thinking about it. But if one cool idea is too strong, you can always give another race an equally cool idea to make up for it. Brood War had a bit of this going on. I remind you that late-game Zerg in BW could could cast a spell (swarm) on an area, and any Zerg in that area was literally invincible to most units. No Hive tech casters? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Late game Zerg in BW had tons and tons of larva (I don't think any Zerg whose said "If I make units, I can't make drones" would agree larva is "unlimited"), too. They made macro hatches. The stylish ZvP opening right now is 3-hatch muta into 5-hatch hydra. 5 hatches is a lot of larva off two base, and taking a third gives you a sixth hatch. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=207017 Not if you're creative as a designer. You're so pessimistic. Cheer up! Seriously you are wrong in almost everything you say. Quoting the ice fisher thread to respond to his concern about zerg who has to prepare for everything: that's exactly what the ice fisher is about; you counter everything and you sacrifice all possibility of early agression because of it. Saying "IdrA's logic" like it is an argument for itself... | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 22 2011 19:50 WhiteDog wrote: Seriously you are wrong in almost everything you say. Quoting the ice fisher thread to respond to his concern about zerg who has to prepare for everything: that's exactly what the ice fisher is about; you counter everything and you sacrifice all possibility of early agression because of it. Exactly! Zerg should be able to drone up super hard, be safe against any and all form of early aggression pretty simply, AND be able to put on a lot of pressure! He said Zerg was "tying themselves into knots". Spanishwa build has a simple build that hard-counters nearly all aggression, and is only soft countered by a super fast expo. Even Idra (IDRA!) has said that the build has the potential to be incredible with some tweaking, and that it was fantastic when playing against inferior players because it prevented them from cheesing you out. But hey. Tweaking builds to make them better is hard. | ||
|
teekesselchen
Germany886 Posts
- first time I watched BW again in a long time - I just feel like it's impossible to deny the fact that broodwar gameplay was a lot more beatiful than SC2 gameplay is. What Blizzard often spoke of was cutting out the "muddy" style of broodwar and sharpen it, and I think that ultimately paid a high price for Starcraft as a game. Banshees vs Wraiths? A sharp unit -killing fast, dying fast-, but actually that makes games rather worse than better imo. Colossi vs Reaver-Shuttle? Simplified, making fights a lot more boring. Scourge vs Corrupter? Replacing a micro-intense unit (for both sides) with a generic fighting units. Hellions vs Vultures? Taking out the positional and map-controlling aspect, making it a generic unit which however decides games in an annoying way within 2 seconds of a drop - either toasting 20 drones or not, also reducing micro. Then removing interesting units such as Arbiter (by replacing it with a useless, super slow hero unit). And Baneling vs Lurker, come on - few positional aspect left and 200-200 fights ending within less than 15 seconds... sucks. Adding Roaches, Marauders? Again, bringing in super simple quite stupid army backbone units which are just generic and are cost efficient without much of micro. And all of this just accumulates to the blob-syndrome and no highground advantage, reshaping the game into less spread-out, less tactical game into blob vs blob-fights anyways. Dunno if somebody mentioned, but ClouD once said that Goody's style - so positional combined with fast harassing units- is the last bit giving him hope for SC2 to become a game as awesome as Broodwar. Interestingly the one style relying on what was so important in broodwar: Positional units. Using the only positional unit left of Broodwar: Siege Tanks. You might argue now that Goody is playing a really boring camping style, but just imagine how it was in Broodwar, where Vultures where so much more versatile than Hellions and thus made the match more interesting. Just imagine Goody having Vultures with mines instead of Hellions. Suddenly it would all be back: Unit groups moving over the map (planting or destroying mines), probably more spread out matches, more action all the time. However, that would still need two more changes: Prolly a different map design (no Terminus RE with a free-to-take 3rd) and changing the worker mechanics as they were mentioned on a different thread, as having more than 3 bases just doesn't make any sense. By the way I also have the feeling that SC2 is much harder to balance than Broodwar, because units seem wayyyy less situational and positional. There basically mostly is only one decisive factor, and that is whether the fight is at a choke point or not and whether the army is decently positioned (Zealots in front), but that's about it. Also it is much easier to move all units into attacking position than it was in BW, because of blob syndrome. This makes attacking much easier than in BW. This means that a unit's power depends way more on it's statistical values than on it's situational strength, and this means that evening out the statistical values plays a much bigger role than in Broodwar. That might be a reason why units are more and more beeing boiled down to a "standard" (Roaches, Marauders: epitomes of standard units) rather than beeing as diverse as in BW. | ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
On April 22 2011 19:39 infinity2k9 wrote: Warp gates were definitely a big questionable design decision. Maps are, and were always balanced with regards to rush distance. Adding a mechanic that removes that is a big deal. Adding it at tier 1 and balancing everything around it, is nuts. We are all used to it being in the game already but it's not good for the game in my opinion. Defenders advantage is already lowered with lack of high ground mechanics and the general unit movement, now having an ability which can warp units in anywhere and completely negate the distance? One of the main things that helped balance the very powerful zealot early game in BW was simply the fact it's slow, now this aspect has been basically ignored and 'balanced around'. Every now and then it seems Blizzard does something which really makes you question how much they are thinking about things. The reaper was a big questionably designed unit, which at least they fixed. But how could they ever have thought, a cliff-jumping low tier unit that can kite everything is a good idea? Plus it has bonus damage to buildings, because..? It doesn't even fit the idea of Terran in the first place, to me at least, considering theres already a vulture replacement. So hopefully they can fix this too, but hopefully not remove because like people said it is infact a cool idea just the implementation doesn't make sense. Those are all examples of what you might call 'soft' temporary methods of map control, or more like simply area control. You can't see how this differs from siege tanks/lurkers/spider mines? People get too defensive over SC2 and can't admit any points against the game. We're not even trying to say, put the BW units back in the game. But there's no new replacements either, there's little to no tactical depth to the units besides the obvious (put melee in front of ranged etc.). TvZ for example in BW is probably the best one to look at, because it was an amazing back and forth dance where you had to think about the area around your units the whole time. PvP in BW however was probably the one that lacked this the most, and most resembled an SC2 game. Except it didn't have balling mechanics so the battles were naturally more spread out, and the reavers and templars added a nice level of skill onto the 1a2a3a. But i do get the feeling of BW PvP in SC2 in quite a few matchups. Game very heavily decided by the few main engagements of the entire armies. why does the unit have to be stationary (and possibly invisible) in order to be considered a map control unit | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On April 22 2011 16:13 Ribbon wrote: Colossi are OP because they're OP. Blizzard has explicitly said they're too strong, but they need more data of toss without amulet before they can properly fix it. And there's plenty of ways to have your cake and eat it, too. Warp gates are awesome, but they remove the defender's advantage to much (assuming you consider that a problem, which I'm not sure Blizz does). Why don't you just, like, make spine crawlers really good? Or have non-Zerg ground units get damaged by the creep, as the ground itself is infested. That's a cool, Zerg-y idea. That makes bases harder to attack early on. Maybe make Zerg buildings covered in spikes, so that Zealots take damage attacking them. Would these ideas fix the game? Doubt it; I spent like ten seconds thinking about it. But if one cool idea is too strong, you can always give another race an equally cool idea to make up for it. Brood War had a bit of this going on. I remind you that late-game Zerg in BW could could cast a spell (swarm) on an area, and any Zerg in that area was literally invincible to most units. Not if you're creative as a designer. You're so pessimistic. Cheer up! This is exactly the problem. Blizzard is NOT being creative at all. Almost every unit that replaced a unit from BW is far more boring and simpler than their counterpart from BW. Not only that, Blizzard's main response to any problem is "nerf this! nerf that!" All nerfing does is limit options and makes game more boring. What did removing KD do? Made Templar tech almost nonexistent compared to Robo tech. What will nerfing the Colossus do? It will potentially screw up another strategy for Protoss, possibly making it non-viable, while not giving Zerg or Terran the additional options they need to really make the game diverse and fun. Nerfing shit doesn't make the game better, it just makes the game far more boring, even if it does make the game more balanced, and nerfing is all Blizzard seems to be doing. | ||
| ||
|
|
Korean StarCraft League
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Cure
TBD vs Zoun
OSC
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Classic vs TBD
Online Event
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
