|
I am not very impressed after checking back to this thread time and again. The prevalent arguments are around colossus being overpowered, star2 vs bw, lurker, mules are OP.. infestors are OP .. 1a2a3a versus 1a...
A great point thats been brought up has been about the HSM. Its a very rarely used on a unit that is also less frequently used. But science vessels weren't instantly part of the game. They were always this oddball unit until people learned how to use them in proper situations.
The attack move/1a2a3a is probably the worst argument anyone has made here though. You're complaining about increased unit selection and extended control over what you do? Really now.
I want a single new unit for each race and a few old ones to be reworked like the reaper but What I want to see in HotS is more of the same.
|
On June 04 2011 00:59 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 00:05 cekkmt wrote:Results in smaller army sizes compared to bw as more supply is used on workers which is disappointing to me. I was never that good at brood war but i always made 30-40 probes per base, which is way more than in starcraft 2 units in SC2 are not supply efficient Zerg The lurker takes up 2 supply, the roach takes up 2(overall better than roach)) the defiler took 2 supply(overall better than the infestor) the ultra took 4 rather than 6 supply(also better in broodwar) hydras took 1 supply(arguably, the hydra is more powerful in sc2, but not enough to take up double the supply) corrupter take 2 supply ( scourge took 1, you got 2 of them, and were arguably better) protoss immortals take 4(arguably the reaver at 4 was alot better) colossus are one of the few units that are supply efficient, possibly more so than reavers, but that's possibly a stretch zealots were arguably better in broodwar(same supply) dragoons are arguablly better than stalkers(same supply) High Templar were better(same supply) Terran Tank= 3 supply (2 in broodwar, and better) marauder= 2 supply( vulture 2 in broodwar, cheaper, and arguably better) hellion= 2 supply(vulture 2 in broodwar, cheaper, and better) thor = 6 supply(goliath only took 2, probably more supply efficient) raven =2 supply (science vessel 2 supply, arguably better) banshee= 3 supply( probably overall better unit, its just after you have the tools to deal with them, the supply isn't what is keeping the unit back) gas is also more hurtful on your economy due the the double gas system, not only in slowing tech down, but requiring double the SCVs to get the same gas in late game. things in broodwar are cheaper vulture versus marauder in relative price for supply baneling versus lurkers in relative price for supply tanks versus tanks in price per supply are all good examples so basically, units are extremely expensive for what they are, so they require more supply in workers to support an arguably weaker army than in broodwar. The Gas mechanic requires a greater supply of workers to support an economy. And in addition, units cost more supply overall while costing a lot of money. So that's why we have small armies, because armies in SC2 are EXPENSIVE, and you need a huge supply investment of an economy to support less units. thats why we cap out at 200 supply so fast in addition to the accelerated economy. in other words 100 supply in econ in sc2 is worse than 100 supply in econ in BW 100 supply of army in sc2 is worse and more expensive than 100 supply of army in BW
i agree everything you say in this  everything are fects...
Conclusion and point in this is SC1 BW = more biger army more efective galioth vs thor hellion vs velture.. seige tanks vs seige tanks..... and you can have BIGER army in BW...and betther..
in SC2 you can have less army but you can faster build army.....cronobus larva mules...Less army faster to get...and i think this is ok but it should be biger armys....
my opinion is Thors colloss banglings senturiys should be single player unites ...and for multiplayer they should add less POP unites... like gilaoth ...they can add lurker to be 3 pop np...
i think seige tanks with 3 pop insted of 2 isnt big diferenc.. only thing is dps i think they should buff dps in HOTS....for em...
probem with sc2 is there is plenty of single player unites( great look but or to easy to use or not efective at all ) in multiplayer . Direction of thinking that blizz shoud made bether unites then sc1 for sc2 multiplayer bether abilitys...
i think they should murge sc2 economic with sc1 unites or at lest simular to them.. for multiplayer..
|
Here's my opinion
- What 3 units in the game need to go into the redesign list?
1. Collosi - without a doubt the most boring unit in the game. it's so strong that you're pretty much forced into making them. Perhaps they are slightly too strongs and it's high tier counterparts slightly too weak? This sole unit, used in every matchup, makes any protoss player quite uninteresting in the later stages of the game.
2. Hydra - they are terrible and used in none of the matchups.
3. Ultralisk - Again, incredibly underused unit because, well, it's terrible unless it has 3/5 upgrades and soft countered by t1 units *marines and zealots* (see morrow vs grubby in nasl; doesn't make sense that zealots survive so long to 2 ultras wailing at them)
- What mechanics do you find needing tweaks? or badly designed.
1. Chronoboost - I think it has too many uses compared to the terran and zerg comparision, and it's incredibly forgiving. Zerg inject larva is not versatile AT ALL and much less forgiving.
- What graphic/misc tweaks do you want to see?
Better music, obviously! The Terran music is the only one who's decent, and Zerg sounds are as if someone was playing with a pickle in a mayo jar. It's dumb.
- What type of new units/buildings would you like to see?
I'm not sure definitely some new zerg units to ad some versatility. Perhaps some 'gimmick' units like the banshee, hellion, dt that can make an unprepared opponent suffer, or some other air unit that has more than one boring spell. I also don't really like the pheonix I'd much rather see a caster air like the raven. Only terran seems like the complete race at this stage of the game.
|
On June 04 2011 03:00 Steel wrote:
1. Chronoboost - I think it has too many uses compared to the terran and zerg comparision, and it's incredibly forgiving. Zerg inject larva is not versatile AT ALL and much less forgiving.
Larva and creep tumors are both macro mechanics. MULEs and supply drops as well. I don see how CB can compare to that. In my eyes CB is the weakest of them all.
For the expansion I would like to see CB reworked a bit. For example:
- make it applicable to buildings under construction
- make it applicable to cannons
Yes, CB is more forgiving than Zerg mechanics, but also far less than Terran mechanics. It also provides the lowest utility of them all.
|
On June 04 2011 00:11 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2011 23:25 DARKHYDRA wrote:On June 03 2011 19:57 IVN wrote:On June 03 2011 19:38 Rococo wrote:On June 03 2011 19:13 AndAgain wrote:
replacing colos with either a weaker unit or one that takes more attention/skill would completely throw off the whole design of protoss. It's not feasible without drastic chances, and I don't know that Blizz has that in mind for HOTS. You're probably right on the first point (a weaker unit), but the second (a more micro intensive unit) is a bit of a non sequitur. It would definitely make the race harder to play, which may or may not be desirable, but I don't see how a few more key presses would necessitate drastic changes. There is no point arguing about the colossus, as long as roaches and marauders are in the game. Please explain. Well those two are the "problem units" for protoss, which necessitate an AOE monster in the protoss arsenal. Its simple: - ultra cheap, ultra effective units for T/Z + Colossus = balanced game - ultra cheap, ultra effective units for T/Z w/o Colossus = protoss are absurdly UP
Yeah I agree with that but I don't think anyone is saying just remove the colossus and don't replace it with anything. What everyone is asking for is a unit that performs the same role but is designed better.
Just the fact that an AtA unit can shoot this particular ground unit goes to show that there is a problem with its design.
|
I love this thread, and I hope Blizzard sees that the Colossus was just a bad idea plain and simple.
|
On June 04 2011 04:44 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 03:00 Steel wrote:
1. Chronoboost - I think it has too many uses compared to the terran and zerg comparision, and it's incredibly forgiving. Zerg inject larva is not versatile AT ALL and much less forgiving.
Larva and creep tumors are both macro mechanics. MULEs and supply drops as well. I don see how CB can compare to that. In my eyes CB is the weakest of them all. For the expansion I would like to see CB reworked a bit. For example: - make it applicable to buildings under construction - make it applicable to cannons Yes, CB is more forgiving than Zerg mechanics, but also far less than Terran mechanics. It also provides the lowest utility of them all.
I disagree. I'd rather have CB than either Mules or Larva inject. It's great being able to speed up critical units and upgrades. It really helps streamline my builds. Mules and Larva are just boring click this button every 30 seconds for free resources.
Now Scan I might be willing to trade for.
|
On June 04 2011 02:47 Probe1 wrote:
I am not very impressed after checking back to this thread time and again. The prevalent arguments are around colossus being overpowered, star2 vs bw, lurker, mules are OP.. infestors are OP .. 1a2a3a versus 1a...
A great point thats been brought up has been about the HSM. Its a very rarely used on a unit that is also less frequently used. But science vessels weren't instantly part of the game. They were always this oddball unit until people learned how to use them in proper situations.
The attack move/1a2a3a is probably the worst argument anyone has made here though. You're complaining about increased unit selection and extended control over what you do? Really now.
I want a single new unit for each race and a few old ones to be reworked like the reaper but What I want to see in HotS is more of the same.
Yeah. I think Raven have to be more usefull against zerg to make the match-up evolve. I don't know if HSM is too weak right now or not, but it's clearly not as good as iradiate. But since we don't have scourge anymore, blizzard need to be cautious with that.
|
On June 03 2011 02:48 absalom86 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2011 02:08 Zarahtra wrote:On June 01 2011 01:55 nvs. wrote:
Colossus.
It's the root of all SC2's problems.
>.> Maybe not root, but it is certainly up there. - What 3 units in the game need to go into the redesign list? Colossus Reaper Warp prism(not sure though) - What mechanics do you find needing tweaks? or badly designed. Forcefield - Remove this ability for the love of god. I mean I get impressed with good ffs like any other guy and I'm not going the route that they are to easy to do or anything, but they are still just dull and limit the game. Obviously toss needs a huge buff to compensate. Hunter seeker missile - HSM is awesome, there's no doubt about it. They are however only awesome if they can connect, if the raven gets in range, if you can survive while getting ravens+HSM aswell as waiting for the energy. It just doesn't really work, so change it to make it usable. Strike cannon - Ugh don't know what to say, the nerf was way to big. In general though, I just find the ability rather boring, so removing it or changing it would be nice too. - What graphic/misc tweaks do you want to see? Don't know really... - What type of new units/buildings would you like to see? Zerg gets more units, such as roach to 1 supply but worse in return. Obviously larvae and stuff need looking at. With the ghost buff tank play TvP isn't explored that much, but in general TvP in BW is pretty epic, wish the same thing could be said about TvP in WoL... Have you ever seen a gateway army fight the other 2 races without any forcefields ? Try it and come back and try say that again.
Have you ever learned to read? I said that obviously basically toss would need to be rebalanced, since forcefields are such a core ability of the race. My issue isn't with it being overpowered, it is with it being a "cast or die" spell aswell as it being retarded.
|
For me there are 5:
Collosus
Baneling
Infestor
Marauder
Sentry (More specifically forcefield)
|
1. colossus
2. corrupter (bring back its original ability that turned units it killed into temp. corrupted units)
3.Id like to see overseers contaminate be able to shut down terran AA turrets, and pylon power. Would make it easier to stop proxy pylons and stuff
|
For me there are 5:
Collosus
Baneling
Infestor
Marauder
Sentry (More specifically forcefield)
totaly agree with you !!! simply they could do much bether than that....
i would add : thor, reaven(raven can be revorked),reper.. hellion should get spider mines.. that is all
|
switch colo with reaver pls ^^it would make this game so much more awesome
i'd go with
1. colossus
2. corruptor
3. marauder
|
On June 04 2011 02:55 thebole1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2011 00:59 r_con wrote:On June 04 2011 00:05 cekkmt wrote:Results in smaller army sizes compared to bw as more supply is used on workers which is disappointing to me. I was never that good at brood war but i always made 30-40 probes per base, which is way more than in starcraft 2 units in SC2 are not supply efficient Zerg The lurker takes up 2 supply, the roach takes up 2(overall better than roach)) the defiler took 2 supply(overall better than the infestor) the ultra took 4 rather than 6 supply(also better in broodwar) hydras took 1 supply(arguably, the hydra is more powerful in sc2, but not enough to take up double the supply) corrupter take 2 supply ( scourge took 1, you got 2 of them, and were arguably better) protoss immortals take 4(arguably the reaver at 4 was alot better) colossus are one of the few units that are supply efficient, possibly more so than reavers, but that's possibly a stretch zealots were arguably better in broodwar(same supply) dragoons are arguablly better than stalkers(same supply) High Templar were better(same supply) Terran Tank= 3 supply (2 in broodwar, and better) marauder= 2 supply( vulture 2 in broodwar, cheaper, and arguably better) hellion= 2 supply(vulture 2 in broodwar, cheaper, and better) thor = 6 supply(goliath only took 2, probably more supply efficient) raven =2 supply (science vessel 2 supply, arguably better) banshee= 3 supply( probably overall better unit, its just after you have the tools to deal with them, the supply isn't what is keeping the unit back) gas is also more hurtful on your economy due the the double gas system, not only in slowing tech down, but requiring double the SCVs to get the same gas in late game. things in broodwar are cheaper vulture versus marauder in relative price for supply baneling versus lurkers in relative price for supply tanks versus tanks in price per supply are all good examples so basically, units are extremely expensive for what they are, so they require more supply in workers to support an arguably weaker army than in broodwar. The Gas mechanic requires a greater supply of workers to support an economy. And in addition, units cost more supply overall while costing a lot of money. So that's why we have small armies, because armies in SC2 are EXPENSIVE, and you need a huge supply investment of an economy to support less units. thats why we cap out at 200 supply so fast in addition to the accelerated economy. in other words 100 supply in econ in sc2 is worse than 100 supply in econ in BW 100 supply of army in sc2 is worse and more expensive than 100 supply of army in BW i agree everything you say in this everything are fects... Conclusion and point in this is SC1 BW = more biger army more efective galioth vs thor hellion vs velture.. seige tanks vs seige tanks..... and you can have BIGER army in BW...and betther.. in SC2 you can have less army but you can faster build army.....cronobus larva mules...Less army faster to get...and i think this is ok but it should be biger armys.... my opinion is Thors colloss banglings senturiys should be single player unites ...and for multiplayer they should add less POP unites... like gilaoth ...they can add lurker to be 3 pop np... i think seige tanks with 3 pop insted of 2 isnt big diferenc.. only thing is dps i think they should buff dps in HOTS....for em... probem with sc2 is there is plenty of single player unites( great look but or to easy to use or not efective at all ) in multiplayer . Direction of thinking that blizz shoud made bether unites then sc1 for sc2 multiplayer bether abilitys... i think they should murge sc2 economic with sc1 unites or at lest simular to them.. for multiplayer..
Yea I totally agree about the points for supply efficiency. You forgot Arbiter vs mothership, archon vs archon corsair vs phoenix, I think the bw versions were all more threatening .
|
I'd also like to see the return of the Dark Archon and maybe some kind of Templar/Dark Templar merge hybrid (in time for LoTV). This can properly be called a Twilight Archon.
|
On June 02 2011 02:30 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:21 Eknoid4 wrote:
HT storm is incredibly hard to use vs good micro. But it doesn't do much and it is actually quite easy to fill the screen with storms compared to BW. Hold t and start clicking. Obviously people don't want to get rid of smart-casting so storm's power has been nerfed. Compare it to the BW storm- storming mech actually put significant damage- 2 storms would take out tanks. Storming mineral lines took 1-2 storms rather than 3-4. That's where I'd rather have power over spam minimal damage storm. I actually wonder how armour effects BW and SC2's damage output. BW was 8 volleys of 14 damage. (112 damage). SC2 is 10 damage over ever half second. (80 damage) But BW maybe also has a bigger damage output thus overcoming armour a bit better?
2 storms do take out a tank in sc2, storming a mineral line only takes 1-2 storms if the opponent doesn't react, I would rather have the option to react and have more storms than the option to be totally screwed once the ht comes within about 10 range of the workers. One thing that I can't really look up is whether storm ignores armor, I thought that it did.
Also.... Someone else in this thread was complaining about siege tanks being less effective versus the new ai system. I would just like to point out that you are actually stupid. Like, literally mentally deficient. Units clump up more in sc2 so splash damage is more effective. WAYYYY more effective.
|
On June 02 2011 02:30 sysrpl wrote:
Buff zealots by making charge not only give them the dash but also improve their overall speed significantly.
They do get a speed upgrade, they go from 2.25 to 2.75. I would say that making their speed equal to stalkers (2.95) warrants testing but the charge upgrade makes them faster.
|
On June 04 2011 15:11 ixi.genocide wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2011 02:30 sysrpl wrote:
Buff zealots by making charge not only give them the dash but also improve their overall speed significantly. They do get a speed upgrade, they go from 2.25 to 2.75. I would say that making their speed equal to stalkers (2.95) warrants testing but the charge upgrade makes them faster.
holy crap I didnt even know that
|
My take on what WoL units and/or mechanics are uninteresting are as follows-
Colossi- Quite simply this unit is too effective at what it does w/out any micro. It is a unit that does not need, nor want any more micro than A+ click. It is a design unit that doesn't fit the needs of a competitive follow up to bw. The saying "OP" truely does fit.
Hydra- The hydra is a tier 2 light unit with low health (equivalent to sentry) and is slow (for zerg it is extremely slow). It also was in a different tier in bw (and it makes sense in that tier). It fills a void and is malleable to boot. I would make the hydralisk....
75/25
1f
hydra den after pool
range upgrade (like it has now)
speed upgrade (+.5)
Base speed of 2.5
7dmg, .86 atk speed, +1 from ups
remove "light" from its unit status.
Keep it at 33 secs spawn time (was 28)
and ofc lurker aspect (obligated to mention lurker aspect because it is an upgrade for the hydra)
Roach- The roach is interesting, It started out as a 1f unit and was made to be 2f so now the unit that you mass w/ z gets u to 200f at 14 minutes instead of 16 like every other unit comp in all 3 races. This gives the illusion that Z is ahead in ZvP but in reality they are about the same. I would move the roach to tier 2,
150/100
3f
2 natural armor
have it's attack be like 15 (+5 to light) and it's upgrade be 2(+2)
health regen upgrade (above ground)
180 health
high priority
I guess my reasoning as to why it would do bonus to light is kind of convoluted (competitive wise). The general lore behind the roach is that it is effective versus light units and weaker versus heavy units. I think that 150/100 is a hefty price tag for a true tanking unit that only has 180 health (for reference, stalkers are 160 and tanks are 180). I don't know if I would keep the speed upgrade, on one hand a fast roach might be bad balance wise (don't know) but a slow roach might be useless.
Baneling- I also absolutely hate the baneling, it is too powerful in many situations but also it dies no matter what!, there is very little micro with it in most games (baneling micro vs marines is pretty cool). When you make a baneling you are effectively saying that you are trading 50/25(x) to blow up his army and lose yours, You could spend 150/75 and w/ 3 banes and blow up 20 marines or you could spend 1500/750 and almost always have nothing left over.
Thor- This unit does not do it's job well enough, it rewards gimmicky play and in general lacks the micro that you would want from a unit. I think that the goliath was a better unit in almost every way and would rather see it come back.
Corrupter- This unit irritates me right away because it is similar to the devourer from bw but needs to be produced by itself. This makes the mutalisk worse and you have to waste a lot of money and food if you want to do heavy air for most of the game. In more of a standard sc2 note, it really only has 1 job and that is to combat the colossi (yes, it morphs into brolords but if your plan was to get brolords you wouldn't need the corrupter would you). This means that the carrier is also useless later in the game and that you have a good 20 supply and 1500/1000 resources just sitting on the battlefield. If the colossi was removed (I would like to see it removed) then the corrupter would almost be more interesting of a unit. Zerg is a very logical race in what species it chooses, so it sounds appropriate to have a unit that is meant solely for AtA. 1 thing that a lot of ppl might have problems with is the corruption spell. Compared to vikings and more specifically phoenix, the corruption spell is like shooting confetti at your opponent. While I don't think that the corrupter needs to be a spellcaster itself, I would like to see the corruption ability either moved to another unit (or removed tbh) or made to be useful (like a single target dot maybe).
Mothership- Oh boy was this a colossal failure of a unit. This WoW/wc3 unit has been rejected by the competitive community and really only sees play in odd games. The abilities it has are interesting (vortex is broken, even if the toilet crap is gone, the ability is still unmicroable and swallows a good portion of the army and then later craps it all out in a ball (so you can't just put all of ur stuff in the vortex and be fine) but they aren't worth the fleat beacon plus time on your nexus to be built (not to mention the general cost for them). I would love to see this unit removed, AND THE HERO THOUGHT TO BE THROWN OUT. I'm sorry, sc is a different game, if you need to keep the unit, have it in the galaxy editor and the campaign.
So... First I would like to mention that the 2 changes I have would need testing and I would only advocate for them as a starting point. I am a zerg player, I don't know enough stats to change terran or protoss units but I would expect the game to be fair to all 3 races. In my opinion, sc was practically a fluke, blizz happened upon an extremely competitive game with a great map editor program. SC2 was not a fluke, it is the follow up game and should be designed with competition in mind. If this means that all races should have a unit that shoots up at tier 1/1.5 to prevent air cheese; Or units that can control space effectively while needing micro on both sides, then I am all for the game to be completely redesigned and built up correctly.
A lot of people in this thread (and others) have complained about bw fanatics wanting the return of the reaver and the lurker and the vulture and while I would agree with them saying the firebat can stay, some units are essential to the game being interesting in all matchups. With my suggested removal of the colossi I would hope that the stalker would be given the goons stats and the reaver be replaced and the immortal get +1 range and zealot charge would increase their speed to 2.95 naturally. I think that adding the lurker is important, as well as the arbiter, defiler and science vessel (I loved this unit so much, even though I was a zerg player).
Oh and to the ppl that don't want the bw units to be added to the game I have a little spoiler tag for you
+ Show Spoiler +Terran ________ marine- Core bio unit, transfered to sc2 firebat- good against light units, it did not transfer, but it's abilities were switched with the hellion medic- Did not transfer, but was combined with the dropship for the medivac ghost- Transferred and slightly redesigned vulture- did not transfer tank- transferred, cost increased, supply increased, damage decreased goliath- Did not transfer, its anti air was replaced by thor wraith- Did not transfer, it was replaced by the banshee and viking science vessel- Did not transfer  battlecruiser- transferred drop ship- did not transfer, was replaced by medivac valkyrie- did not transfer, was replaced by the viking Protoss __________ Zealot- transferred Dragoon- this unit did not transfer, but it was replaced by the stalker and lore wise it is the immortal High templar- transferred Dark templar- transferred Reaver- did not transfer Archon- transferred dark archon- did not transfer observer- transferred shuttle- was replaced by the warp prism scout- did not transfer carrier- transferred corsair- did not transfer arbiter- did not transfer Zerg ________ Zergling- transferred Hydralisk- technically transferred, changed the tech tier and food and cost and damage lurker- did not transfer ultralisk- trasferred defiler- did not transfer mutalisk- transferred scourge- did not transfer queen- in this form, did not transfer, the name did though guardian- did not transfer, this was replaced by corrupter devourer- effectively the broodlord, but did not transfer 13 units in total did not effectively transfer, this is including the queen and valkyrie but not including the wraith, or goon. 7/14 are not in contention, 6 out of 13 (lurker, reaver, science vessel, scourge, arbiter, defiler, goliath) are units that add a lot to the game. If you look at the list of units that I listed are wanted you see 3 spellcasters, 2 units that are comparable to the tank at controlling space and a proper GtA unit for mech play. This list isn't biased and would add a lot to the game.
I guess I would like to end this w/ saying that as a zerg player and a fan of starcraft and e-sports I would like a balanced game, something that the only innate advantages are the metagame and map pool. A game where strategy and micro are extremely important.
I would like to give a new challenge-
Design/nerf/buff your race to be equivalent to my zerg ideas (t/p onry). I would also like to know how far off i remade the roach or hydra (from being a fair unit, so 0 on the scale).
|
On June 02 2011 13:25 Meta wrote: I would also like to see tanks do their full damage to all units again
I would like to note that tanks did not do full damage to all units. Their damage was classified as "explosive", which is 100% damage to armored units and 50% damage to light units. So they did 35 damage initially to zealots ect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
