EPTWhat WoL units/mechanics are uninteresting? - Page 42
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
giuocob
United States149 Posts
| ||
|
Sueco
Sweden283 Posts
On June 05 2011 17:17 Pwnographics wrote: Given how long it takes for them to burrow and then unborrow I don't think it's very viable. Given that they are so cheap that it's worth more APM-wise to remacro roaches than saving existing ones, I doubt it. Let's face it, the roach is a failed unit concept in the same vein of the reaper, only it's being kept useful by it's ridiculous stats. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On June 08 2011 01:51 giuocob wrote: All the people in here saying that blizzard needs to make units clump less don't understand this game at all. It's not like Blizzard can write a couple lines of code and make units space out. The unit clumping is a result of the unit pathing (which, I may add, is unarguably the best pathing engine in any game ever by far). Causing the units to space out more while still retaining the incredible features the pathing offers us is either impossible or would require months and months of research and programming to work out. Yes and no. There are simple solutions they can take like simply making the collision radius larger, like the size of the model. | ||
|
zbedlam
Australia549 Posts
On June 08 2011 01:51 giuocob wrote: All the people in here saying that blizzard needs to make units clump less don't understand this game at all. It's not like Blizzard can write a couple lines of code and make units space out. The unit clumping is a result of the unit pathing (which, I may add, is unarguably the best pathing engine in any game ever by far). Causing the units to space out more while still retaining the incredible features the pathing offers us is either impossible or would require months and months of research and programming to work out. Blizzard is not short on time or money, I don't see how months and months of research is any problem for them. The pathing system in starcraft 2 is unarguably the best for movement in any rts so far. However whether it is the best for gameplay is definitely arguable. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
I like roaches a hell of a lot more than I like hydralisks. Since the neutering of the second most iconic zerg unit (Zergling, hydralisk, overlord) Zerg needs a strong do all unit and the roach fills that role. As long as they aren't asked to shoot up >,< If I were to say any unit in the game is a failed unit I'd say the .. .. .. There are no failed units, only units we haven't fully mastered yet. If you think overseers are trash then you haven't stopped a Protoss in ZvP or Terran in ZvT from getting out a thor/colossus. I wish we had parasite instead of changelings but we already have vastly easier creep spread mechanics. Okay, I do have one unit that is pretty fail. The Raven. If they were buffed to inherently be faster they might have a stronger usage rate but honestly HSM isn't strong enough, Auto Turrets are cute at best and PDDs can win fights but seldom games. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
opiemonster
Australia49 Posts
roach overseer infestor immortal warp prism mothership carrier Collosus thor maruder viking battlecruiser | ||
|
poopfeast666
11 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
|
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On June 08 2011 01:51 giuocob wrote: All the people in here saying that blizzard needs to make units clump less don't understand this game at all. It's not like Blizzard can write a couple lines of code and make units space out. The unit clumping is a result of the unit pathing (which, I may add, is unarguably the best pathing engine in any game ever by far). Causing the units to space out more while still retaining the incredible features the pathing offers us is either impossible or would require months and months of research and programming to work out. Let's just say that most of the people suggesting major balance changes aren't the sharpest knives the drawer. | ||
|
Sicky
United Kingdom121 Posts
As a note: I'd like to see the addition of Lurkers, give Zerg something on par with Tanks and Collosi. | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
This should go hand-in-hand with a nerf to macro mechanics. There needs to be a reason to take additional bases, the timing windows for punishing someone who is expanding need to be smaller, and you should have reason to fight for map control even if you can comfortably defend from atop a cliff. Units that obviously are crappy: 1. Colossus 2. Infestor (fungal growth is a 0-interest spell) 3. Reapers (have virtually no purpose past scouting with 1) Units that I think are really crappy in addition: 1. Sentry (a braindead spell that can instantly win games in mass, and is a crutch so blizzard doesn't have to implement real defender's advantage 2. Zealot (they are just bad against so many different comps. They should be more than a crappy meatshield/mineral sink) 3. Roaches (does anyone like this unit? It's like a hydra but boring in absolutely every way) 4. Hellions (like a Vulture but completely boring!) 5. Basically every air-to-air unit (Phoenixes might be alright because at least something is happening with them) Units that I can't fathom are not in the game: 1. Lurker 2. Vultures 3. Air units with moving shot | ||
|
entrust
Poland196 Posts
| ||
|
chocorush
694 Posts
Roach- dragoon with 3 range and fast regeneration Stalker-wannabe dragoon that teleports. My suggestion to blizzard is to remove all these fake dragoons and bring the real ones back. To balance things out, they should make hydralisks cheaper, faster, and hatch tech, and replace hellions with something that fires fragmentation grenades and lays spider mines. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
Tedsters post is just.. well thats like your opinion, man. | ||
|
hizBALLIN
United States163 Posts
On June 12 2011 11:19 tedster wrote: The only thing i REALLY care about is defenders advantage. It needs to be way, wayyyyyyyy more significant than it currently is. This should go hand-in-hand with a nerf to macro mechanics. There needs to be a reason to take additional bases, the timing windows for punishing someone who is expanding need to be smaller, and you should have reason to fight for map control even if you can comfortably defend from atop a cliff. Units that obviously are crappy: 1. Colossus 2. Infestor (fungal growth is a 0-interest spell) 3. Reapers (have virtually no purpose past scouting with 1) Units that I think are really crappy in addition: 1. Sentry (a braindead spell that can instantly win games in mass, and is a crutch so blizzard doesn't have to implement real defender's advantage 2. Zealot (they are just bad against so many different comps. They should be more than a crappy meatshield/mineral sink) 3. Roaches (does anyone like this unit? It's like a hydra but boring in absolutely every way) 4. Hellions (like a Vulture but completely boring!) 5. Basically every air-to-air unit (Phoenixes might be alright because at least something is happening with them) Units that I can't fathom are not in the game: 1. Lurker 2. Vultures 3. Air units with moving shot I feel like you're really off-base with a bunch of these critiques. I won't go into them, but I will say this: Ravens and Ultralisks have a far greater reason for being on the "Obviously Crappy" list than Infestors and Reapers, given how little they contribute given their cost. More to the point, Zealots really change in roles a lot once they get charge, becoming a lot more offensively capable with the increased mobility and a couple attack ups. They become fun to play with and fun to watch once they can close the gap and effectively push an opponent's army around the map. Roaches are a unit most Zerg player's love, because they're massable and muscular. Once a Zerg player starts building up a significant number of roaches, Zerg can begin to feel "swarmy" again, with throngs of roaches washing over your opponents' dwindling (hopefully) forces. I'm not sure why you consider "not made out of glass" or "not painfully slow" or "actually massable" boring when you compare it to a hydralisk, but as the Zerg tech tree stands right now, the Roach -must- exist or Zerg becomes an almost inviable race. It would be really nice for Zerg to see Lurkers in the game, since it would force Terran to make Ravens on the regular, I can understand other reasons why they're not there. Given the availability of a quick factory for Terran, fast vultures (with spidermines) really have no place in Starcraft 2, and while things could obviously be changed to accommodate them, I really see that as something that would not enrich play, but rather weaken it given the presence of marauders and reapers in the terran repertoire. To the OP, I think you've written an incredible post that was clearly well-thought out in a lot of ways and very vast in it's depth and breadth of analysis. That said, the way you approach casting units has some "ups" and "downs" in my opinion. Diversifying caster units the way you do undermines their significance greatly. Taking transfuse off of queens and fungal growth off of infestors really neuters their roles as strong defenders and aggressors, leaving Zerg with two really "meh" casters that don't really fill any role (with the exception of early but defensive-only AA in the case of the queen). Taking away feedback from from High Templar makes them nothing but "half and archon" without storm, rather than potentially threatening to Thors, Medivacs, Infestors, and BCs with high energy because of feedback. With that logic, how can you say Ghosts are fine, since they have the ability to cloak, do high direct damage to bio, high AOE damage to all Protoss units AND casters with EMP, and incredibly high AOE damage with nukes? That seems to lack consistency and a strong justification, given how you seem to feel about other caster's. Given that all three races can have compositions where direct damage, AOE, or utility spells are necessary to combat it efficiently, how can you advocate changing the way casters offer these abilities without moving the game much closer to a rock/paper/scissors scenario on a racial level? | ||
| ||
