|
On August 02 2011 11:18 Ketara wrote:
I can see how there are problems with Lurkers in SC2. Just from the way the SC2 Zergs tech tree is structured there are difficulties.
In BW Hydras were a hatch tech unit, so you could pop your lair and start your Lurker research right away. In SC2 you'd have to get a lair, then get a hydra den, then get Lurker tech. Having Lurkers before your opponent could have siege tanks or colossus or detection even if you rushed straight for them simply wouldn't happen.
In all honesty, Lurkers would probably make more sense for SC2 if they morphed from Roaches.
But anyway, neat interview. I'm pretty excited to see a HotS beta. I'm sure everybody is. I hope they'll have some more concrete multiplayer stuff for us by Blizzcon.
reading this got me thinking...
The baneling was supposed to repalce the lurkers role but failed...and in order to keep the tech structured...make roaches turn into "lurkers"...waht if you had that concept...but instead of the undergroundspines or whatever lurkers do, you have the upgraded roach launch pseudo banelings while burrowed since they both are acid based attacks. or maybe have like a kog'maw esque acid ball thing that is shot from underground
..just an idea
|
On August 02 2011 15:58 kodas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:55 acrimoneyius wrote:On August 02 2011 14:48 Gfox wrote:On August 02 2011 14:10 Inori wrote:On August 02 2011 13:49 Falcor wrote:
if p gets reavers its almost guranteed that p will lose colli, archons or ht..no way tehyd give prot 4 aoe units would they? I'd give away Colo for Reaver any day. With the unit pathing and how well units clump in sc2 the reaver would literally break the game... Stupid comments like this make me face palm. Yes, compare a reaver's shot that you can predict and react to the uninteresting, auto-move centric game play involved with colossus. We already see marine splitting against several splash units, how would reaver be any different? Do you really want all of Starcraft to be played around a razers edge? How about this, every time a unit leaves the base, it has a 50% of just exploding?
The game is already about razor edges on so many levels, entire matchup's are based on the smallest micro mistakes (PvP). So many zerg losses from timing attacks come down to slightly bad scouting or one less round of units (that were drones instead). The sarcasm seems unwarranted if you actually even play this game at all.
|
On August 02 2011 16:03 kodas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 16:00 Kipsate wrote:On August 02 2011 15:58 kodas wrote:On August 02 2011 15:55 acrimoneyius wrote:On August 02 2011 14:48 Gfox wrote:On August 02 2011 14:10 Inori wrote:On August 02 2011 13:49 Falcor wrote:
if p gets reavers its almost guranteed that p will lose colli, archons or ht..no way tehyd give prot 4 aoe units would they? I'd give away Colo for Reaver any day. With the unit pathing and how well units clump in sc2 the reaver would literally break the game... Stupid comments like this make me face palm. Yes, compare a reaver's shot that you can predict and react to the uninteresting, auto-move centric game play involved with colossus. We already see marine splitting against several splash units, how would reaver be any different? Do you really want all of Starcraft to be played around a razers edge? How about this, every time a unit leaves the base, it has a 50% of just exploding? Actually yes, I'd like more ''razor's edge'' units, where if you mismicro or your opponent mismicroes you SHOULD face the consequences. The reaver is such a unit. Reaver would still need to be redesigned, but the reaver, or a unit LIKE it would make Starcraft(and especially Protoss) more interesting. From my understanding the one of the things that makes a difference between a player like MVP,NesTea vs Combat EX, Deezer is their abilty to make good decisions over the period of a longer game, if you really wanted this just cheese everygame, A one shot mechanic has it's place but in no way should it be overused, we have plenty of that already 
It would have to have an incredibly high investment cost, or just mediocre damage. Either way I think you risk having many units rendered almost useless(Terran bio in BW).
|
finally a bit of sense coming from blizzard, we need this kinda thing more often
|
On August 02 2011 16:07 Vestige wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 11:18 Ketara wrote:
I can see how there are problems with Lurkers in SC2. Just from the way the SC2 Zergs tech tree is structured there are difficulties.
In BW Hydras were a hatch tech unit, so you could pop your lair and start your Lurker research right away. In SC2 you'd have to get a lair, then get a hydra den, then get Lurker tech. Having Lurkers before your opponent could have siege tanks or colossus or detection even if you rushed straight for them simply wouldn't happen.
In all honesty, Lurkers would probably make more sense for SC2 if they morphed from Roaches.
But anyway, neat interview. I'm pretty excited to see a HotS beta. I'm sure everybody is. I hope they'll have some more concrete multiplayer stuff for us by Blizzcon. reading this got me thinking... The baneling was supposed to repalce the lurkers role but failed...and in order to keep the tech structured...make roaches turn into "lurkers"...waht if you had that concept...but instead of the undergroundspines or whatever lurkers do, you have the upgraded roach launch pseudo banelings while burrowed since they both are acid based attacks. or maybe have like a kog'maw esque acid ball thing that is shot from underground ..just an idea
Can you point me to where they said banes are supposed to replace lurkers? Seems like a lot of people using a straw argument
|
I feel like most of the posts here are pretty much make SC2 to BW. Lol in my opinion i'd love to see them being creative and create new and unique units that does something different but is also viable in games..
|
On August 02 2011 16:15 SEA_GenesiS wrote:
I feel like most of the posts here are pretty much make SC2 to BW. Lol in my opinion i'd love to see them being creative and create new units..
The best part is that, before beta, everyone was complaining that SC2 would be exactly like BW. Now they're complaining that it isn't exactly like BW.
|
On August 02 2011 15:55 DystopiaX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:53 Glockateer wrote:On August 02 2011 15:09 Whitewing wrote:On August 02 2011 15:03 Glockateer wrote:
The only thing I think Terran might need is a more expendable anti-air unit for mech. Thors are kind of "meh" in comparison to the Goliath. The thor shines in that splash damage and their ground damage is great but I miss seeing a group of Goliaths. Thors are big and expensive. It is hard to say they're good anti-air when the real damage is more based on splash instead of single target. Vikings. Their range is just too good to really require any other unit for that role. I forgot how exciting viking vs corruptor and viking vs viking battles are! Vikings wouldn't lose their purpose but goliath-type units have their own purpose as well. Not to mention keeping upgrades having to be spread out or having 0/0 vikings, 0/0 marines to fight air units/brood lords. A goliath would add more options to combat the really strong broodlord/infestor play without having infestors/corruptors pooping on your marines and vikings all the time, for example. If your first sentence is sarcasm, you obviously haven't seen Boxer vs Rain MLG anaheim game 1.
That wasn't exciting, if Goody vs EU-Terran X ends in a way like thsi (which they kinda often do, compared to other people playing TvT at least  ) everyone would be like BOOOOORING...
|
A biased zerg OP complaining about collosus and hydra lol. Patches may change, but yeah you know the rest.
|
On August 02 2011 16:10 L3g3nd_ wrote:
finally a bit of sense coming from blizzard, we need this kinda thing more often
Blizzard is fairly sensible, but the most passionate fans are here on team liquid while the majority of people on bnet are casuals. And whenever they cater to casuals (or do something for their bottom line), they try to sell it as good for e-sportsers and look silly.
I'd prefer if Blizz were more honest, and it'd improve their rep, but that's actually INSANELY hard to do for a large corporation while maintaining any message control at all. I work in a tiny business that became a large one, so I know that pretty well ;_;
With the lurker, putting it in and making it useful would require moving the hydra to T1, which is a pretty huge design switch. Having something other than hydras morph to lurkers makes the lore sad, so they'd probably make roaches morph into blurkers that are basically the same thing (I like Terralisk as a name for them), and have lurkers proper in the campaign as lair tech because why not.
|
I liked alot of what Dustin's said here but the Blizzard's changes to PvP were not 'great' and haven't come close to fixing the matchup. 4 gate is still the 'go-to' strat even at pro level.
|
On August 02 2011 16:31 Scarecrow wrote:
I liked alot of what Dustin's said here but the Blizzard's changes to PvP were not 'great' and haven't come close to fixing the matchup. 4 gate is still the 'go-to' strat even at pro level.
Yeah, all that nerf did was allow zerg to be greedier in the beginning since there is no threat of any attack while the protoss is on one base that can't be held off with spore crawlers. Four gate was still easily defensible by zerg but they would have to be careful just in case.
On August 02 2011 15:52 DystopiaX wrote:
^I dunno, just theorycrafting here but if you use it mid/late game to send units in all directions, kind of like an MMA style multi pronged drop harass everywhere, and then send your main army in as well, it could be a good kill move.
You want toss to create an additional robo (200/100) to spend 2 supply per warp prism (200 mins) to separate their army into multiple areas, which is when it is weakest, none of which are that good at killing workers? And each of them are 2+ supply, opposed to 1 supply marines. I would much rather have 6 marines than 3 zealots in a mineral line any day. And then attack their army? The only toss unit good at killing workers is a dt, which can be defended against and you can send in to multiple locations without a warp prism in the first place.
|
«Hey, you know that unit that was fun and useful? Well, we ruined it, so now your race is balanced»
Sounds good to me.
|
Carriers definitely need a buff. The only time I ever see them these days is the occasional 4v4.
|
On August 02 2011 15:58 kodas wrote:
Do you really want all of Starcraft to be played around a razers edge? How about this, every time a unit leaves the base, it has a 50% of just exploding?
Actually, yes...SC2 is much more forgiving than BW. More HP, less DPS. In BW, you saw control-groups of hydras get blown in two from one psi-storm. You cleared spider-mines by running speedlots past them, or with fancy dragoon micro. And EMP removed ALL shields. And siege tanks...more range, more damage.
So yes, more razor's edge please.
|
I really hope they remove corruptors & baneling for zerg.
Corruptor are just boring.
Baneling looked like fun at the release of sc2 but i'm sick of those battles where banelings are trying to roll run into marines (compare to lurker against marine in BW). It's just dumb.
Lol@ terran comment. I really hope that they won't add one lame unit + useless upgrades for terran. They should reduce their mobility (I hate so much the medivac concept since it was announced) and focus on giving terran really stong units but not mobile.
I may be wrong on this if they remove corruptor for scourges.
The viking is a fail for me. In the first months, we saw some cool strategies with viking landing but it was because of dumb maps (hello kulas ravine). Now, I see them landing 80% of the time in viking vs viking battles.
Reaper & hellion are too close in role and tech.
Terran has a lot of room for changes too.
For protoss, removing colossus for a more exciting unit would be so cool. It's the baneling feeling.
|
I'd be really happy if they removed the marauder and gave terran something else to make up for it.
Because marauders aren't fun at all.
Or if they keep marauders, take away their rocket launchers and give them boxing gloves to make them melee units. Because the tanking damage part is neat, but the concussive shells and massive damage to armored units isn't.
|
So he thinks Terran is really really good eh?
Good interview, hoping for some great new units
|
I have always thought Toss should have some stuff reworked.
Like, having not all units in Gateway, Warpable. (Follow me on this.) Allow certain units to be able to wrap in, while others gateway units build in que. I thought of this awhile ago since I felt if Toss gets another Gateway unit, it'll pose a problem.
Then again maybe not, who knows what they have in mind. I would love to have a Raider though, not a focus on DTs. I would love to have the damn Colossus removed, and rebuff Storm, or maybe the damage scale on the Storm.
I think Zerg needs Lurkers back, or something close to it, I honestly do not like Banelings one bit. I have always thought of Zergs as my 2nd race. They need a bit of stuff re-worked as well. Terrans don't need jack. One more Mech Unit would make mech builds viable again outside of TvT, but that would give the race another damn option of which they have too many. (Sorry AJ) I don't hate Terrans but there just too open in builds.
Probably just culture wise though, Koreans always loved Terrans over the other 2 races. (maybe Zerg.)
|
On August 02 2011 16:34 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 16:31 Scarecrow wrote:
I liked alot of what Dustin's said here but the Blizzard's changes to PvP were not 'great' and haven't come close to fixing the matchup. 4 gate is still the 'go-to' strat even at pro level. Yeah, all that nerf did was allow zerg to be greedier in the beginning since there is no threat of any attack while the protoss is on one base that can't be held off with spore crawlers. Four gate was still easily defensible by zerg but they would have to be careful just in case. Show nested quote +On August 02 2011 15:52 DystopiaX wrote:
^I dunno, just theorycrafting here but if you use it mid/late game to send units in all directions, kind of like an MMA style multi pronged drop harass everywhere, and then send your main army in as well, it could be a good kill move. You want toss to create an additional robo (200/100) to spend 2 supply per warp prism (200 mins) to separate their army into multiple areas, which is when it is weakest, none of which are that good at killing workers? And each of them are 2+ supply, opposed to 1 supply marines. I would much rather have 6 marines than 3 zealots in a mineral line any day. And then attack their army? The only toss unit good at killing workers is a dt, which can be defended against and you can send in to multiple locations without a warp prism in the first place.
You say these things like it's hard. In the early game yeah, an additional 200/100 is alot but as the game progresses it's not that much; you have to build more buildings anyway. 2 supply isn't bad as it's comparable to medivacs, and 200 mins again isn't that bad in the mid to late game. On top of that, some tosses build a robo for an observer and then tech switch to HT anyway, or build collosus and tech switch, and then never use the robo again unless their observer gets killed. 200 mins isn't that much and you're not losing build time on anything anyway. Stop shitting on ideas before you actually try them, people have done that to current ideas/builds in the past and if anyone bothered to dig up those posts they'd look foolish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
