TeamLiquid Heart of the Swarm Preview - Page 46

On June 01 2011 05:26 roymarthyup wrote:
i really dislike the idea of removing units


i cant think of any unit in the game right now that could be removed without completely wrecking balance in some way

On June 01 2011 05:24 Kezzer wrote:



To use an app you have to buy a phone and some kind of plan. I assure you it costs much more then WoL.

Yeah, and to use WoL you need a computer which I assure you costs much more than a phone.

The point is, most people have computers and phones so we can factor that out of the equation. The point is, you buy an app for anything from $1-$3 on average. These apps can be games or for general utility. An expansion to our current app priced at $60 (ok fine for a game, maybe for not pc but fine) that then forces us to pay for certain "premium maps" if we want them. And I know you people out there that are saying 'well just don't buy the maps'.

Do you not understand that we are then missing out on the experience on good maps? Whatabout ones to try? DotA, one of the greatest custom maps in existence has always been free. I absolutely hated the game before I tried it, because I saw DotA everywhere on the WC3 custom maps list. Had I not tried it I wouldn't have found that I loved it and then gone on to buy HoN to get an even better experience(imo). With this new system I have no doubt that a game like DotA where the devs put a lot of time into would be one of the premium maps, and as a result I probably wouldn't pay for it and never play it.


Not to mention, the kind of people that make excellent maps right now that don't charge for them are the people we want making the maps. The people that truly enjoy making maps and are self motivated to complete and balance them. We don't want a bunch of mapmakers who do it for the money...

On June 01 2011 05:37 _ING wrote:


"Carrier has arrived." Have you ever this outside of 4v4s, bronze league, or custom games? I'm fairly certain they could toss away the carrier and no one would even notice. Before the speed buff, the same thing could've been said about battlecruisers, although those have always been more viable than carriers.

On June 01 2011 05:44 Archerofaiur wrote:

Im as big of a fan of the Lurker as anyone but this type of statement isnt fair. The Lurker is not in the game currently and the Collossus is. The displeased are always more vocal than the pleased.

On June 01 2011 03:17 TheDougler wrote:


You actually think people would pay 400/25 on top of the original 100 for the overseer just for contaminate?

I think you'd see overseers even less than you do now. It's not THAT bad to build the overseer when you need to currently. Choosing between expanding and building an overseer tho? That's a pretty fricken easy choice.

On June 01 2011 05:41 Zelniq wrote:
Yeah removing the colossus entirely and adding another (hopefully better designed) unit would be the best and most sensible decision. I do wonder how many people would actually miss it. From what I've noticed, every player, even (or especially) protoss players, they dislike using the colossus and find it a very boring/poorly designed unit to either use or deal with.


In fact I just realized how interesting a comparison you can make between the colossus and the lurker. One unit is adored and constantly called for its return, whereas another is disliked by nearly all players/specatators alike (afaik). And yet they're similar enough (both powerful line-attack AoE ranged units) to make comparisons from, and make conclusions as to why the lurker was so successful as a well designed unit that made for exciting/good gameplay, and why the colossus failed on those accounts.

In terms of mobility, the colossus is the complete opposite of the lurker: the lurker requires good positioning and setup before it can be used to attack, then had to undergo a 1.5ish second vulnerable period where its not able to move or attack as it Burrows into the ground, and then becomes completely immobile and therefore very vulnerable. To help offset this weakness, is the cloaked nature while burrowed, providing some level of protection for a now immobile unit, adding a layer of depth with the dynamic of detection, getting detection, the strength or mobility of the detection, killing/targeting of detectors, etc. (I could write a whole article on the significance that cloaked units provided in BW, and should be providing in SC2. There's very good reasons why lurkers, DTs, spider mines, and even arbiters played such a crucial role to the game's success at the professional level. It added a much needed dimension to units beyond simply ground or air.).

Whereas the colossus is, on top of being able to simply move and attack whenever it wishes, also have no collision with their other units giving it unprecedented levels of freedom for a ground unit to move in battles. Not even taking their cliff-walking ability into account (mostly as an easy way to circumvent any well designed map terrain and reduce the potency of drops and multi-pronged attacks), add to that their much stronger durability and you get one of the toughest units to kill in the game that has eliminated nearly every vulnerability from the ground: the complete opposite of the immobile lurker. I'm sure at the time it seemed like a cool idea to Blizzard to have ridiculous levels of mobility for the most powerful splash/long-ranged unit in the game, but it turned out to be a poor combination of strengths for a single unit to have. There's good reasons why the 3 ground splash units in the game: the lurker, reaver, siege tank, all had strong aoe attacks offset by very low mobility. Blizzard seems to have missed the significance of that combination of attributes when designing the colossus.

Then of course there's the attack animation, the lurker had a nice straight line attack that could be dodged provided really good control and/or really good unit positioning. Of course there's yet another level of depth as the lurker player could use the map's terrain features to eliminate these issues, being able to hold key positions such as ramps or narrow chokes much stronger than open terrain. But you take the colossus whose attack is in a perpendicular line, is instantaneous and cannot be dodged whatsoever, and for the most part you get a unit that does not care how well you microed your units, what kind of terrain features are used, or where your army is positioned (relatively speaking).

On June 01 2011 05:50 Zelniq wrote:

ok then replace that with "One unit was very well designed, made for excellent gameplay, loved by players of all races, hard-countered no units provided excellent micro, and was exciting to watch for spectators, whereas the other was none of these things.

On June 01 2011 06:00 Archerofaiur wrote:

we are getting a bit off topic but the Lurker isnt in competition for the Collossi slot. Its in competition for the Baneling, Roach, Ultra slot. Reaver is what you should compare Collossi too.

On June 01 2011 05:37 _ING wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
"Carrier has arrived." Have you ever this outside of 4v4s, bronze league, or custom games? I'm fairly certain they could toss away the carrier and no one would even notice. Before the speed buff, the same thing could've been said about battlecruisers, although those have always been more viable than carriers.

On June 01 2011 05:33 Tor wrote:

The entire singleplayer is based around Kerrigan. Protoss campaign will probably be based around Zeratul or Artanis.

On June 01 2011 06:04 Keren wrote:
Did Blizzard ever actually say they would not change how the colossus functioned? Insofar as I can tell, the only concrete bit of multiplayer balance we got was a very insightful discussion by David Kim about early game scouting and the problems a lack of it might be causing. I see little reason to despair about multiplayer just yet.

On June 01 2011 06:02 Whitewing wrote:
Charging for maps worries me.

On June 01 2011 05:45 Tor wrote:


This approach is about creating different mechanics that could be used to make the game more interesting. It has flaws because it's not actively addressing a gameplay concern, however; designing units for fun and designing units to address gameplay don't necessarily cancel eachother out. You can do both at the same time.

Now i'm not saying blizzard is perfect and that they'll design a great unit every time. But I don't think you can immediately rule out blizzards design philosophy of fun first just because you think they're going to ignore healthy gameplay.