On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
On October 28 2011 07:54 whoopadeedoo wrote: I made a similar thread (granted with fewer words) but it got closed. I also feel like SC2 is moving away from melee/range unit positioning and control and more towards spellcasting, gimmicks, and timing/combo exploitation.
I play SC2 a lot and am comfortable with every aspect of the game. However, this game is getting to the point of being unplayable to newcomers. There's so much you have to memorize/study for even basic 1v1 competitive gaming that it's extremely frustrating and daunting for those trying to get acquainted with all the units, spells, counters, timings, and map exploits. The mental checklists that run through my head every match is incredibly long, and I can only imagine what a new player feels like.
thats why there is team games and bronze league .... you can just do whatever and still win 50% of your games
On October 28 2011 20:29 TurboMaN wrote: That's why they'll test it in a beta. My guess is that most Pros will ask them to heavily change the announced changes and or to remove certain units.
In my opinion Blizzard has announced to many game changing units and changes in HotS.
Maybe that is Blizzard's plan, to develop plenty of new units bordering on too many so if some of them don't work out they can afford to cut a few. It's better to throw a lot at the wall and see what sticks than to have the entire expansion depend on a single new unit per race.
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
But....none of those have anything to do with the damage system!
Hellions suck against anything that isn't light, just like Firebats and Vultures, and while they don't reward micro as much as Vultures, they still die even to Speedlings unless controlled. What you say about Lurkers is true but has nothing to do with the damage system. Banelings aren't very micro intensive but they still suck against non-light units and can be kited. Archons are practically the same, they just don't attack as fast and don't have slidey movement anymore. Storm is definitely easier to cast now, but it's also weaker. I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your points.
Are these arguments meant to be seperate from your first point regarding the damage sytem? You should really qualify it when you say "it as quite a bit to do with the damage design".
On October 28 2011 14:03 PrinceXizor wrote: Oracles allow a REAL defenders advantage in PvP, phasing out pylons to prevent reinforcements is really a powerful powerful thing when alot of PvPs result in a big battle removing all hope of a comeback because of warpgate reinforcement.
You spend that much on one oracle (Rather than an immortal or colossus), and your opponent just makes another pylon. Meanwhile, all that gas isn't stalkers.
You do have some good points, but I don't entirely agree with parts of them. Yeah, arc shield and nexus recall let you expand out better, but the reason P couldn't in the first place was an inflexibility of their army. You had to ball up for the most part. That hasn't changed, and is a bigger issue for how PvX matchups play out - that's the issue that needs to be addressed. Yes, the Tempest hardcounters mutas, but the reason it was necessary is because the normal, non-capital units were ineffective. Yeah, the oracle allows some 'harass', but it doesn't fit into an army, unlike practically all other harass units that have flexible roles. The replicator follows the same logic in an obvious way.
It seems like so much of this is just patchwork that while providing interesting new play, doesn't change a lot. That might not be a bad thing, because you can argue races need distinctive aspects, but it might not be a good thing either.
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
Hellions are pretty micro intensive, and they definitely suck against non-Light units. You didn't really need to micro Lurkers, it's mostly the Terran that needs to micro and spread his marines, just like against Banelings.
Archons and Storm are the same tech level in both games. Archon range is about the same in both games, and Archons did fine against Dragoons/Hydralisks. Archons also cost the same in both games, and with no Sentries to make I might argue that they were cheaper in BW. Storm in BW is larger and does more damage, not sure how it's easier to dodge. I'm not sure how Templar were any easier to snipe except maybe with stacked Mutalisks, but Terran definitely has it easier to snipe them in SC2, between Marauders, BF Hellions and Ghosts.
It's funny that you would say in the same breath that the new pathing makes AoE AND balls ridiculously strong. If it makes AoE ridiculously strong, then units clumped up in balls are weak.
The ball syndrome is pretty similar to the congo line in BW, you just need to properly spread your units before a battle.
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
Hellions are pretty micro intensive, and they definitely suck against non-Light units. You didn't really need to micro Lurkers, it's mostly the Terran that needs to micro and spread his marines, just like against Banelings.
Archons and Storm are the same tech level in both games. Archon range is about the same in both games, and Archons did fine against Dragoons/Hydralisks. Archons also cost the same in both games, and with no Sentries to make I might argue that they were cheaper in BW. Storm in BW is larger and does more damage, not sure how it's easier to dodge. I'm not sure how Templar were any easier to snipe except maybe with stacked Mutalisks, but Terran definitely has it easier to snipe them in SC2, between Marauders, BF Hellions and Ghosts.
It's funny that you would say in the same breath that the new pathing makes AoE AND balls ridiculously strong. If it makes AoE ridiculously strong, then units clumped up in balls are weak.
The ball syndrome is pretty similar to the congo line in BW, you just need to properly spread your units before a battle.
For a post that points out that someone else is wrong, I see lot of 'wrong' information in here too. Do your research, I don't even want to point out every single one of them.
Going back to TT1's OP: He does have valid point.
Remember the old days when you had a reaver drop in your main and you couldn't do anything but to micro away your workers and hope that the scarab doesn't fire (unless you had well placed cannons)? Remember how terran medivac drops were quite deadly when the units were out of position? Yeah, none of that in HotS now against Protoss because they can just transform buildings into cannons.
For some reason, I think HotS is gearing more towards unit specific roles with Protoss.
"You, only fight in battles" "You, only harass the mineral lines"
Sure, if we give HotS enough time people will start inventing new strategies which will get completely destroyed when new patches come out simply because blizzard thinks that's the best way to patch a game (not saying that its wrong; it just doesn't work under most situations)
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
Hellions are pretty micro intensive, and they definitely suck against non-Light units. You didn't really need to micro Lurkers, it's mostly the Terran that needs to micro and spread his marines, just like against Banelings.
Archons and Storm are the same tech level in both games. Archon range is about the same in both games, and Archons did fine against Dragoons/Hydralisks. Archons also cost the same in both games, and with no Sentries to make I might argue that they were cheaper in BW. Storm in BW is larger and does more damage, not sure how it's easier to dodge. I'm not sure how Templar were any easier to snipe except maybe with stacked Mutalisks, but Terran definitely has it easier to snipe them in SC2, between Marauders, BF Hellions and Ghosts.
It's funny that you would say in the same breath that the new pathing makes AoE AND balls ridiculously strong. If it makes AoE ridiculously strong, then units clumped up in balls are weak.
The ball syndrome is pretty similar to the congo line in BW, you just need to properly spread your units before a battle.
For a post that points out that someone else is wrong, I see lot of 'wrong' information in here too. Do your research, I don't even want to point out every single one of them.
Going back to TT1's OP: He does have valid point.
Remember the old days when you had a reaver drop in your main and you couldn't do anything but to micro away your workers and hope that the scarab doesn't fire (unless you had well placed cannons)? Remember how terran medivac drops were quite deadly when the units were out of position? Yeah, none of that in HotS now against Protoss because they can just transform buildings into cannons.
For some reason, I think HotS is gearing more towards unit specific roles with Protoss.
"You, only fight in battles" "You, only harass the mineral lines"
Sure, if we give HotS enough time people will start inventing new strategies which will get completely destroyed when new patches come out simply because blizzard thinks that's the best way to patch a game (not saying that its wrong; it just doesn't work under most situations)
I'm going to ignore the "I think you're wrong but I'm going to give absolutely no justification for my opinion".
How strong do you think the Arc Shield will be? Actual cannons don't even shut down drops (unless you build a huge amount), Arc Shields will be pretty useless in the midgame unless you're going to blow 200 Nexus energy on them.
From the way they've been described, an Arc Shield seems about as effective at defending a base as a Queen is, probably even weaker.
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
But....none of those have anything to do with the damage system!
Hellions suck against anything that isn't light, just like Firebats and Vultures, and while they don't reward micro as much as Vultures, they still die even to Speedlings unless controlled. What you say about Lurkers is true but has nothing to do with the damage system. Banelings aren't very micro intensive but they still suck against non-light units and can be kited. Archons are practically the same, they just don't attack as fast and don't have slidey movement anymore. Storm is definitely easier to cast now, but it's also weaker. I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your points.
Are these arguments meant to be seperate from your first point regarding the damage sytem? You should really qualify it when you say "it as quite a bit to do with the damage design".
I agree I was kind of unclear.
First, I did mention, that my point didn't actually concern the system itself but how it is applied (damage design). What I wanted to say with the example was that the 3 units I mentioned do too much damage against T1.
-Hellions deal similar damage to light as a lurker, but also have high mobility. They simply deal too much damage vs. zealots/lings (maybe even marines, depending on situation). They already counter them without the blueflame upgrade.
-Banelings are pretty much the same: they are too damage and time efficient vs. zealots/lings. I don't know what do do with them, but probably changing their AoE to gradually weaken the further other units are away would help.
-Colossi also deal too much damage against light/small units. the question here is: what is their point, countering armored or light units? If armored, the damage should go down a lot and there should be bonus damage vs. armored. If light, the damage just should go down. because at the moment, they are a hard core counter vs. light, that is also very good against everything else.
(and as I mentioned, the main problems of the AoE of the 3 units lie with the pathing system. but disregarding the pathing system, it is the damage design that is the problem)
@Alzadar:
Everything you said is wrong.
most of my post was a description of BW units which was pretty accurate, I'd say.
Hellions are pretty micro intensive, and they definitely suck against non-Light units. You didn't really need to micro Lurkers, it's mostly the Terran that needs to micro and spread his marines, just like against Banelings.
Hellion --> see above Not microing lurker is like not microing tanks and you shouldn't forget that tanks have a higher range than lurkers (i.e. you have to make sure the tanks don't jsut kill 'em). The zerg has to do just as much micro with his lings/lurker than the terran has to with his marines. (and later he has tanks)
Archons and Storm are the same tech level in both games. Archon range is about the same in both games, and Archons did fine against Dragoons/Hydralisks. Archons also cost the same in both games, and with no Sentries to make I might argue that they were cheaper in BW. Storm in BW is larger and does more damage, not sure how it's easier to dodge. I'm not sure how Templar were any easier to snipe except maybe with stacked Mutalisks, but Terran definitely has it easier to snipe them in SC2, between Marauders, BF Hellions and Ghosts.
no, you have to research storm, archons are there earlier. (but if you really want to call it the same tech level then fine with me, it doesn't really change anything) Archons did fine against Hydralisk? what kind of BW did you play? (archons are also pretty different in the two games. mainly because of different damage, AoE, and shields) I mentioned the T1 counters in BW, I didn't say storm was easier to dodge. Templars were easier to snipe because the engine made it easier. the stood out more, were easier to make out and didn't clump with the rest.
It's funny that you would say in the same breath that the new pathing makes AoE AND balls ridiculously strong. If it makes AoE ridiculously strong, then units clumped up in balls are weak.
they don't always appear at the same time... (d'oh?).
ball = less attack surface, more firepower per point (lings/zealots die faster and less units can attack) AoE = hits a lot more units than before. AoE becomes extremely strong against small units that take up little space.
The ball syndrome is pretty similar to the congo line in BW, you just need to properly spread your units before a battle.
no, all you get is several small balls, it doesn't change that much. Both pathing systems are flawed in their way and a middle ground would be a lot better for the game and would kill a lot of the AoE/ball problems like the ones mentioned above.
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
But....none of those have anything to do with the damage system!
Hellions suck against anything that isn't light, just like Firebats and Vultures, and while they don't reward micro as much as Vultures, they still die even to Speedlings unless controlled. What you say about Lurkers is true but has nothing to do with the damage system. Banelings aren't very micro intensive but they still suck against non-light units and can be kited. Archons are practically the same, they just don't attack as fast and don't have slidey movement anymore. Storm is definitely easier to cast now, but it's also weaker. I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your points.
Are these arguments meant to be seperate from your first point regarding the damage sytem? You should really qualify it when you say "it as quite a bit to do with the damage design".
I agree I was kind of unclear.
First, I did mention, that my point didn't actually concern the system itself but how it is applied (damage design). What I wanted to say with the example was that the 3 units I mentioned do too much damage against T1.
-Hellions deal similar damage to light as a lurker, but also have high mobility. They simply deal too much damage vs. zealots/lings (maybe even marines, depending on situation). They already counter them without the blueflame upgrade.
-Banelings are pretty much the same: they are too damage and time efficient vs. zealots/lings. I don't know what do do with them, but probably changing their AoE to gradually weaken the further other units are away would help.
-Colossi also deal too much damage against light/small units. the question here is: what is their point, countering armored or light units? If armored, the damage should go down a lot and there should be bonus damage vs. armored. If light, the damage just should go down. because at the moment, they are a hard core counter vs. light, that is also very good against everything else.
(and as I mentioned, the main problems of the AoE of the 3 units lie with the pathing system. but disregarding the pathing system, it is the damage design that is the problem)
But compare all those units to their counterparts in Brood War, and you'll see they aren't that different.
Vultures destroy Zerglings, Zealots and Marines. Speed Zealots can stand up to Vultures, but the same is true for charge Zealots to Hellions. Vultures don't do splash but their single-target damage is much, much higher than Hellions. A Hellion probably has to hit 4-5 targets to out DPS a Vulture, and that won't happen too often early game except with conga line'd Zerglings.
Banelings are quite different from anything in BW, but at the same time they have a very similar relationship with Marines. If you just A-move Marines into Banelings or Lurkers, you'll get destroyed. But with good micro and splitting, you will win easily.
Colossus dominate the ground in much the same way as Reavers did, they're just easier to control. A Colossus is essentially designed to be equivalent to a well micro'ed Shuttle-Reaver combination. Nobody caan micro 8 shuttle-reavers simultaneously, which is probably the true "problem" (are they really a problem? Complaining about Colossus deathballs is sooo 10 months ago): how many Colossus work just as well as a few.
If a BW Protoss ever got 5 Reavers out on the field, there was no way he would ever lose to a ground-based army.
------------------------------------
Are you under the impression you don't have to research Storm in SC2? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying.
I really have no idea why you think Archons are lower tech or come out earlier in SC2, if you rush straight for them, it takes 15 seconds less in SC2 (in-game time), but it's much less common to go straight for storm in SC2 than it was in BW. Archons are certainly tankier in SC2 than in BW, because of how Shields are affected by bonuses, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Archons definitely held their own against Hydralisks, they did about as well as Zealots and much better than Dragoons.
You specifically said "in BW, Storm could be dodged", seems to be implying that it can't be/is harder to dodge in SC2. Explain please if that's not what you meant. I'm not sure I agree about sniping Templar, but it's kind of irrelevant.
I don't think the pathing has anything to do with the strength of massed ranged units against units with no AoE support. It's the simple fact that range allows you to have more units attacking at once, and to switch targets immediately after one enemy goes down. Go make a BW map and try a-moving zerglings at a pack of 30 marines: whether in a line or in a ball, the zerglings will get mucked. There are mods of SC2 with different pathing AI, I'm sure if you tried it you would see that in engagements without splash damage, it wouldn't make a big difference on the outcome.
On October 26 2011 11:34 TT1 wrote: SORRY ABOUT THE WALL OF TEXT;;
I felt like I had to give my thoughts on the new expansion because I'm worried about where our game is heading. For example, units like the newly introduced replicant go against what StarCraft is about. I'm pretty sure that one of the main reasons this unit was added was so that protoss could hard counter 1basing terrans (please note that I am not talking about how OP or UP the replicant may be, but rather about how its role/function has no place in SC). Adding a unit to the game just so that it can hard-counter a specific style is simply just horrible game design. Could you ever imagine someone trying to explain what the role of the replicant is to a player like Nal_rA?
Nal_rA: "wat does cute lil thing do?" Huge Nal_rA fanboy (aka me): "uhhhhhhh well kangmin hyung there was a certain build in sc2 that had a 90% winrate in tvp so blizzard decided to make a unit that allowed p users to copy a tank in order to defend it" Nal_rA: "LOL"
The beauty of sc1 was that the game revolved mostly around melee/ranged attacking units while a few spellcasters (granted they were extremely strong units) acted as supporting units. Players would focus more on micro battles with their attacking units rather than on their spellcasters. Obviously, spell usage still played a huge role but the emphasis was on unit vs unit engagements. I know that it's impossible to have the same type of unit on unit engagements as we did in sc1 simply because the unit ai is so good, but I feel like blizzard is trying to overcompensate for the lack of micro within the game by adding spellcasters.
I feel like they're going overboard with it. Starcraftt is not WoW, and our game should not revolve around a shitton of spellcasting units. I know that they're trying to promote more micro/skillsets to the game, but at the same time they're going against what they're aiming for by constantly removing key game mechanics that allow good players stand out. For example:
- allowing banelings to move burrowed removes ovie/bane drop vs gate unit/collo balls micro battles in PvZ. Having burrowed banes in the late game just makes ff's useless so zergs wont need to upgrade drop anymore.
- arc shield removes any sort of threat of muta harass or drop play (pvz and tvp). Being able to defend drops/muta harass with your units was a skill which tested your multitasking abilities, but now with arc shield Blizzard is just making the game much easier to play for protoss users.
I wont go too in depth, but I can name various changes Blizzard has made just for the sake of making the game easier to play. Even the in-game timer hurts, because having good game sense/timing was an important skillset in sc1. They need to stop adding useless spellcasters to the game and focus more on adding game mechanics that promote micro engagements, game sense, multitasking etc.(or at the very least stop removing them lol)
Also, I just wanted to briefly talk about the new protoss units in HOTS. It feels like each unit that we're getting is extremely role oriented as opposed to the new units from other races. For example, the viper/swarm host are good all-around units which are going to work well vs almost any unit compo. The same can be said for the terran units to an extent; the t/z army mixes are going to be vastly different from the ones that we've been seeing in WoL, but are the protoss army compositions going to be any different? The tempest is an extremely role-oriented unit (that is extremely expensive and supply heavy as well) which will only be made if a zerg goes for a heavy muta composition or lategame broodlords. The oracle is a harasser and the replicant is a horribly designed unit that I don't want to comment upon further. I promise you that a huge majority protoss users are still gonna stick to their gate unit/colo army comps. =/ Our unit variety seriously sucks.
edit: made readable by intrigue
God forbid someone controlling a fleet of battlecruisers, thors and siege tanks would have the technology of a stop watch.
Just no. Replicant has no place in SC2, this is not WoW. Stop adding gimmicks, fix the core issues first. They are getting close to balance with end of WoL, why not work "off" of it. I'm not implicating they just copy it, i'm saying bring the entire core that "works," and add to that instead of ignoring the OLD issues and introducing knew potential imbalances before you've fixed the previous ones. They're just delaying old balancing priorities into the neverending future. Does anyone else see what they're doing?
not to put words in whitera's mouth but on his stream he said that he thought that blizzard was adding too many spell-casters in the game and that he would like to see more gateway units instead.
On October 29 2011 07:07 archonOOid wrote: not to put words in whitera's mouth but on his stream he said that he thought that blizzard was adding too many spell-casters in the game and that he would like to see more gateway units instead.
Then I agree. As TT1 stead, it was great to watch and a great demonstration of skill to micro your units in BW. Adding a bunch of quarky spells in place of real micro, makes battle become like wow, a bunch of button mashing face-rolling is the the direction SC2 should REALLY be heading, how can people be okay with a WoW direction. I don't know what this world has come to. WoW is a game purely about dumbing down things for players. I played it, experienced it, that's what happened exp to exp. High skill ceiling to differentiate players, do it. No spell caster battling -_-
On October 28 2011 12:42 DTX180 wrote: Again, it goes back to the damage system. SC2's damage system makes battles insanely fast and are focused mostly on can you get that first strike in position. Which is because SC1's damage system made certain units good vs others because they were taking less damage. Surviving longer, and making battles slower. However, this allowed much much more micro opportunities.
SC2's battles are over within a small fraction of time compared to SC1's.
It literally has nothing to do with the damage system, damage is both games is the same, just in SC2 it is expressed in a much more legible fashion.
10 (+10 vs Armored) is the same as 20 (50% damage vs non-Armored).
In fact a lot of things do much less damage in SC2 than they did in BW. Stalkers do less than Dragoons, Psionic Storm does 2/3rds the damage it did in BW, the burst damage of Colossus is a joke compared to Reavers, cracklings do much less damage, Siege Tanks do significantly less, etc.
it as quite a bit to do with the damage design. And although the SC2s system COULD emulate BW's damage system, It doesn't.
one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW: -Firebats sucked against anything else -Vultures were VERY micro intensive, and sucked against anything else (excluding mines) -Lurkers were Tier 2 and had to depoly/needed micro, and could be dodged -Archons were T3, short range, expensive and sucked against ranged unit -Storm was T3.5, needed micro, could be dodged, templars were easy to snipe
the main problems are of course the horrible new pathing/movement system (making AoE and balls ridiculously strong) and bad unit design. But it's still quite a bit of bad damage design that lies as the bottom of this.
But....none of those have anything to do with the damage system!
Hellions suck against anything that isn't light, just like Firebats and Vultures, and while they don't reward micro as much as Vultures, they still die even to Speedlings unless controlled. What you say about Lurkers is true but has nothing to do with the damage system. Banelings aren't very micro intensive but they still suck against non-light units and can be kited. Archons are practically the same, they just don't attack as fast and don't have slidey movement anymore. Storm is definitely easier to cast now, but it's also weaker. I don't see what this has to do with the rest of your points.
Are these arguments meant to be seperate from your first point regarding the damage sytem? You should really qualify it when you say "it as quite a bit to do with the damage design".
I agree I was kind of unclear.
First, I did mention, that my point didn't actually concern the system itself but how it is applied (damage design). What I wanted to say with the example was that the 3 units I mentioned do too much damage against T1.
-Hellions deal similar damage to light as a lurker, but also have high mobility. They simply deal too much damage vs. zealots/lings (maybe even marines, depending on situation). They already counter them without the blueflame upgrade.
-Banelings are pretty much the same: they are too damage and time efficient vs. zealots/lings. I don't know what do do with them, but probably changing their AoE to gradually weaken the further other units are away would help.
-Colossi also deal too much damage against light/small units. the question here is: what is their point, countering armored or light units? If armored, the damage should go down a lot and there should be bonus damage vs. armored. If light, the damage just should go down. because at the moment, they are a hard core counter vs. light, that is also very good against everything else.
(and as I mentioned, the main problems of the AoE of the 3 units lie with the pathing system. but disregarding the pathing system, it is the damage design that is the problem)
But compare all those units to their counterparts in Brood War, and you'll see they aren't that different.
Vultures destroy Zerglings, Zealots and Marines. Speed Zealots can stand up to Vultures, but the same is true for charge Zealots to Hellions. Vultures don't do splash but their single-target damage is much, much higher than Hellions. A Hellion probably has to hit 4-5 targets to out DPS a Vulture, and that won't happen too often early game except with conga line'd Zerglings.
Banelings are quite different from anything in BW, but at the same time they have a very similar relationship with Marines. If you just A-move Marines into Banelings or Lurkers, you'll get destroyed. But with good micro and splitting, you will win easily.
Colossus dominate the ground in much the same way as Reavers did, they're just easier to control. A Colossus is essentially designed to be equivalent to a well micro'ed Shuttle-Reaver combination. Nobody caan micro 8 shuttle-reavers simultaneously, which is probably the true "problem" (are they really a problem? Complaining about Colossus deathballs is sooo 10 months ago): how many Colossus work just as well as a few.
If a BW Protoss ever got 5 Reavers out on the field, there was no way he would ever lose to a ground-based army.
------------------------------------
Are you under the impression you don't have to research Storm in SC2? Otherwise I'm not sure what you're saying.
I really have no idea why you think Archons are lower tech or come out earlier in SC2, if you rush straight for them, it takes 15 seconds less in SC2 (in-game time), but it's much less common to go straight for storm in SC2 than it was in BW. Archons are certainly tankier in SC2 than in BW, because of how Shields are affected by bonuses, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Archons definitely held their own against Hydralisks, they did about as well as Zealots and much better than Dragoons.
You specifically said "in BW, Storm could be dodged", seems to be implying that it can't be/is harder to dodge in SC2. Explain please if that's not what you meant. I'm not sure I agree about sniping Templar, but it's kind of irrelevant.
I don't think the pathing has anything to do with the strength of massed ranged units against units with no AoE support. It's the simple fact that range allows you to have more units attacking at once, and to switch targets immediately after one enemy goes down. Go make a BW map and try a-moving zerglings at a pack of 30 marines: whether in a line or in a ball, the zerglings will get mucked. There are mods of SC2 with different pathing AI, I'm sure if you tried it you would see that in engagements without splash damage, it wouldn't make a big difference on the outcome.
Hellion: probably doesn't need more than 2 targets to deal as much damage as a vulture. and you hit a lot more when you fight zealots/lings. Baneling: what about zealots and zerglings? (microed marines are kinda imba, I agree) Colossus: with the exception of AoE and being built in the Robo, the reaver has no similarity to the colossus. they have pretty different roles in the game.
Archons: you get them as soon as you have templars, for storm you have to wait for he upgrade to finish. getting kind of annoyed though... the templar etc. are irrelevant, the argument was about the three units mentioned and that there were no similar units in BW. you might just read what i wrote:
"one of the main problems are T1/small hardcounters: hellions, banelings, colossi there was nothing compareable in BW:"
there is no similar unit to the 3 units I mentioned. the hellion might seem to be similar to the vulture but it really isnt. AoE makes quite a difference here.
It's a fact that the pathing makes sure units stand a lot closer together in sc2. while it is present in both games, it is much more pronounced in SC2.
Just no. Replicant has no place in SC2, this is not WoW. Stop adding gimmicks, fix the core issues first. They are getting close to balance with end of WoL, why not work "off" of it. I'm not implicating they just copy it, i'm saying bring the entire core that "works," and add to that instead of ignoring the OLD issues and introducing knew potential imbalances before you've fixed the previous ones. They're just delaying old balancing priorities into the neverending future. Does anyone else see what they're doing?
WoW has replicants? Didn't know that. WoW is not a gimmicky game, stop comparing Starcraft to a totally unrelated game.
They did bring the entire core that works. They took out units that didn't work(Carriers, overseers), modified existing units to better fit the game(corruptor, thor), and added a bunch of new units to help the races(tempest, battle hellion, viper). I don't see why on earth people are getting worked up about a 200/200 unit that really only is viable as a tech option in the late game.
EPT
replicant
