|
On June 01 2011 00:52 Black Octopi wrote:
So basically my opinion is,
- spell casters should have just ONE specialized spell that is good against a certain composition
- other spells should just be "utility spells" nothing to merit the investment in the spellcaster by itself
- there should be more spellcasters rather then more spells on one spellcaster, to allow for casters to be scouted and countered, and also so that... (see next)
- spellcasters should (for the most part) be an aggressive choice. You should have plenty of viable options to survive with out them, and...
- mass spellcasters should always result into you auto-losing the game.
- spellcasters should be very very situational (ie. I need this caster to counter tanks, I need this caster to counter marine balls, I need this caster to counter heavy air, etc)
I almost completely disagree. Having spell casters be a situational hard counter just dumbs down the game. it also makes them boring because they wont be viable unless that certain situation comes out. that leads to people not playing a certain way because of the threat of that spell caster hard countering them, meaning spell casters will rarely ever be used.
|
Canada11349 Posts
On June 01 2011 16:52 ABAH wrote:
Another thread, that in essence - is talking about balance. Good stuff..
I fundamentally disagree. And if posters are going that way, they're off topic. This to me, is about what is fun for players to play and for spectators to spectate. What's the 'wow' factor when watching games. Amazing macro sure, but also goso micro at the same time. What units contribute to gosu skills and what units are simply a-move in a ball? BW had it's share of a-move units, but issues of positional control meant that even with 'a-move' units, you couldn't actually do that unless you wanted to lose your whole army. (Clumped zealots and dragoons into spread out tank force with vultures, mines, and turrets protecting. Goodbye 120 supply army.)
And that's what this thread should be promoting, ways that will allow players of skill to demonstrate that skill above and beyond others.
|
blizzard is unveiling single player but doesn't even have any clue of its plan for HOTS multiplayer?? not even knowing if they will be adding any units at all?? this is worrisome.
seems like they dread the work and re-balance work of it. which makes me frightened....
|
Bad design:
1. Raven, detection unit for 200 gas that sucks outside of a PDD, and it requires a tech lab on your starport, lol enough said about that.
2. Roach, zerg have no anti air early game, which makes this so frustrating to play zerg, having to build multiple queens and spore crawlers to defend vs it sucks. Terran and protoss are fine vs air without having to build turrets/cannons in the early stages of the game.
3. Sentry, you could maybe keep this unit in but i feel like in Hots you have to remove force field and balance protoss around not having it. I feel collosi may be hard to deal with but without forcefields i think its fine.
|
banelings are pretty stupid in zvt imo. the zerg strategy in a nutshell is, 'how many banelings can i afford?' playing this MU at both sides in masters league, i think the MU is ruined by the coinflip nature of baneling vs tank battles. the game is decided on the # of banelings that connect.
|
The number of banelings that connect, and the damage they cause, is a matter of skill.
|
On June 01 2011 17:10 Yaotzin wrote:
The number of banelings that connect, and the damage they cause, is a matter of skill.
Aggred, shame the same thing cant be said for Fungal growth.
|
6. Defenders Advantage
I think the concept that "you have an advantage, and you lose the advantage" is sound. However the fact that you can so easily "lose the advantage" early on in the game is not. Abilities like the warpgate which nulifies distance should possibly be moved all the way to fleet beacon. Simple reasoning: does protoss need warpgates to survive early game? probably not. If anything it makes what would be a all-in proxy, not that all-in.
I agree with the point, but perhaps the fleet beacon ought to be replace with a much longer upgrade time or so. I mean going for gateway units shouldnt require going for carriers or any other way.
Though having the robotics facility as it's building would be somewhat logic as the warp prism is in it. But that's probably still too much.
Turning it into something just for the midgame. And not having a different unit-training time between gateway and warpgate. I'd like to see that
|
On June 01 2011 17:13 Hypemeup wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 17:10 Yaotzin wrote:
The number of banelings that connect, and the damage they cause, is a matter of skill. Aggred, shame the same thing cant be said for Fungal growth.
Yes it can.
|
On June 01 2011 16:46 Big J wrote:
one thing I would like to mention in this thread:
if you just want to play BW... play BW!
You realize most of the units from SC2 are from SC1 right? The entire SC2 concept is BASED off BW right? You also realize that esports wouldn't exist w/o BW as the launching pad for SC2 right? Your "play bw if you like bw!" argument is absurd considering SC2 is MADE from BW. If you don't want ANYTHING SC1 related then we will have to remove zerglings, hydras, mutas, drones, ultras, marines, zealots, tanks, observers...ETC.
Enough of these bullshit "NO BW STUFF! BOO BW!!" comments...absolutely sick to death of reading them.
|
The stuff that makes the game uninteresting is things like:
Marauder concussive shells. "oh he's retreating and the terran just a-moved and gets free fleeing units" how boring, it would be so much more interesting if the player had to epic stutter step or something micro intensive to catch those units.
Colossus. This unit needs to be replaced by something like the reaver which was so slow yet so powerful. would also make warp-prisms used to transport them.
the 'deathball' (see this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=223889) With dynamic movement the game and battles would last longer, be more micro intensive and fun to watch. no more a-move oh gg deathball.
Fungal Growth. Another anti micro mechanic.
|
a) esports != BW. There are other esports, and it would exist without BW.
b) the annoyance is at people who want nothing BUT BW units. Of course it is SC2, of course it should have BW units. But it should also have different units.
|
On June 01 2011 17:24 Yaotzin wrote:
a) esports != BW. There are other esports, and it would exist without BW.
Oh really? Please enlighten me by telling me the story of how SC2 even got popular in the first place then. I've only been paying attention to competitive starcraft for 5 years now and I am slightly clueless.
|
On June 01 2011 17:28 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 17:24 Yaotzin wrote:
a) esports != BW. There are other esports, and it would exist without BW.
Oh really? Please enlighten me by telling me the story of how SC2 even got popular in the first place then. I've only been paying attention to competitive starcraft for 5 years now and I am slightly clueless.
The quoted comment is about esports, not SC2. You said esports wouldn't exist without BW, which is arrant nonsense.
|
On June 01 2011 17:19 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 17:13 Hypemeup wrote:On June 01 2011 17:10 Yaotzin wrote:
The number of banelings that connect, and the damage they cause, is a matter of skill. Aggred, shame the same thing cant be said for Fungal growth. Yes it can.
Nope, it really cant. Unless you play Zerg. But then Mutalisks firing nukes seem fair to you.
Oh really? Please enlighten me by telling me the story of how SC2 even got popular in the first place then. I've only been paying attention to competitive starcraft for 5 years now and I am slightly clueless.
I think he is talking about Esports as a whole. Not SC2.
Hard to have a sequel to a game that does not exist, yknow.
|
On June 01 2011 17:24 Yaotzin wrote:
a) esports != BW. There are other esports, and it would exist without BW.
b) the annoyance is at people who want nothing BUT BW units. Of course it is SC2, of course it should have BW units. But it should also have different units.
SC2 would not be anywhere near what it is today without BW. SC2 owes nearly all (not all, but nearly all) of its success to BW. Sorry, but that's just how it is.
|
On June 01 2011 17:32 Hypemeup wrote:
Nope, it really cant. Unless you play Zerg. But then Mutalisks firing nukes seem fair to you.
I play Protoss so nope. It is skill based because you can control how much damage the fungal causes by spreading your marines. Much like controlling the damage of a psi storm. It's impossible to completely avoid the damage of a storm, but you can minimise it by moving. For fungal, you spread your units. Different method, same result.
|
On June 01 2011 17:31 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 17:28 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:On June 01 2011 17:24 Yaotzin wrote:
a) esports != BW. There are other esports, and it would exist without BW.
Oh really? Please enlighten me by telling me the story of how SC2 even got popular in the first place then. I've only been paying attention to competitive starcraft for 5 years now and I am slightly clueless. The quoted comment is about esports, not SC2. You said esports wouldn't exist without BW, which is arrant nonsense.
Launching pad FOR sc2. You get my idea. Don't try to get caught up in specifics here and dodge the question, let's hear the story. I'd actually like a PM if you don't mind so we don't diverge this thread too far as mods probably won't like that. Really am looking forward to learning some history. Thanks!
|
one thing for sure, remove mothership.
why they gave a hero unit baffles me, it is simply too vulnerable in late game. bring back arbitor, its better for everyone, especially spectators.
i'd be butthurt if they gave zerg a hero unit -,.-
|
On June 01 2011 17:34 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 17:24 Yaotzin wrote:
a) esports != BW. There are other esports, and it would exist without BW.
b) the annoyance is at people who want nothing BUT BW units. Of course it is SC2, of course it should have BW units. But it should also have different units. SC2 would not be anywhere near what it is today without BW. SC2 owes nearly all (not all, but nearly all) of its success to BW. Sorry, but that's just how it is.
Why don't people read what they quote? I was talking about esports, not SC2. Of course SC2 is what it is because of BW, it's a fucking sequel.
Launching pad FOR sc2. You get my idea. Don't try to get caught up in specifics here and dodge the question, let's hear the story. I'd actually like a PM if you don't mind so we don't diverge this thread too far as mods probably won't like that. Really am looking forward to learning some history. Thanks!
I have no idea what you're going on about. You equated BW to esports, I corrected it, the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
