|
On October 26 2011 13:35 ander wrote:Show nested quote +Replicant:
-Doesn't belong in SC2? It's the protoss, they have high tech, if they want to give other races over powered combos that can't be countered by toss than this is how to keep balance.
-I highly doubt it's for the 1/1/1. It costs 200/200, thats wayy too expensive for a siege tank. It's a ridiculous unit. It belongs in C&C. It's function has no coherency with sc.
Dark Archons are such a ridiculous unit, they belong in Age of Empires. Wololo wololo Mind Control a unit, that ability has no place in StarCraft. Why would I ever make a Siege Tank as Terran if the Protoss can just steal it?
|
tt1 i agree with what your saying for the most of it, i think its a little weird to add certain units just to counter certain builds or units. i feel like these new units like the replicants and vipers may cause alot of negative feeling towards hots during the release i to think its pretty annoying have one unit heavilly damage your army from a spell castor there should me mroe micro macro being involved, they should nurf spells so players have to focus more on micro. the only we can fix is this is if we talk to the blizzard and give them our feed back so they know how the players feel and try to change it because sometimes they do know about units being to op but dont do anything because they just wait for our feed back or see if players can coem up with a way to defeat it even though they wait like months...
|
So many of the units they proposed for HOTS either seem massively OP or just gimicky.
|
when HOTS comes out, i'm switching to zerg.
|
On October 26 2011 13:33 Hnnngg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 13:21 ander wrote:On October 26 2011 13:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 26 2011 13:00 ander wrote:On October 26 2011 12:50 Hnnngg wrote:On October 26 2011 12:44 ander wrote:This is actually annoying to see in SC2 threads, seeing BW babbies try to reason through nostalgia and self-efficacy. As if the people who started with BW can move on to SC2 and have an objective opinion about both. It's just not possible, no matter how hard you try. I'd be interested to hear where you would draw inspiration from if you were on the unit design team at Blizzard. Newsflash: SC1 and SC2 both have "StarCraft" in the title. When i saw the Replicant for the first time, it absolutely did not strike me as a unit that belongs in starcraft. It is a terrible unit design that wanders away from the fundamentals of what a starcraft unit should be. All of the HotS units are niche units that serve no purpose beyond countering a specific thing. They have the same name? Is that your serious thought process? Holy crap. Try to compare two games with the same name anywhere else. Try to compare WoW (Vanilla, TBC, WotLK, Cata, MoP), FF(1-14? with a double 13 or something insane), Halo(1-4 and CE and whatever), anything, you will see changes. There are no fundamentals for Starcraft2. This isn't Starcraft: Brood War 2, if they wanted to make Starcraft: Brood War 2 they would have. They do not want to make Brood War 2 and are trying to not make Brood War 2. That does not make Starcraft 2 a bad game just because Brood War was a good game, they can make a good game that is not Brood War. SC1 and SC2 having the same name obviously suggests that have a common thread that relates them. StarCraft is not WarCraft, and Halo is not Counter-Strike. Many of the units that were revealed in HotS are so far from that relating thread that they make no sense, and are completely out of place. They don't make sense, and they don't belong in this game. Of course there will be changes, and of course SC2=/=SC1; that's obvious. But you can't deny that they aren't related. There is something that makes a unit a good Starcraft unit, that has basic fundamentals that fit with the game. I agree that they can make a good game that is not BW, and aside from a few major shortcomings with WoL, they did a pretty good job; for the most part. Unfortunately, with what i've seen with HotS, i feel they are making StarCraft worse. They are taking away from what they've done. But you'd have a subjective opinion from BW experience. If people want Starcraft 2 to be it's own game, they need to not associate it with BW because of the wikipedia links I provided in my post. Nostalgia and self-efficacy will work against being objective and empirical. It's unavoidable and dangerous because of how they work together. Nostalgia making things appear better than they were in the past and self-efficacy making people think they are actually competent regardless of actual competency, basically working together to fill the wholes of what I like to call "BW Babby Syndrome". This makes it seem like BW will be the best thing ever, that every game should be like BW, and there is no way that the person could be wrong because they played BW. It's insane. The people who make the game are not BW maniacs (from what I've seen, looks like C&C and Redline). BW isn't completely absent but they need to have multiple perspectives, not just a BW perspective. When looking at the future of SC2, the comparison is drawn to SC1 because, quite simply, SC1 is the standard. It's not my nostalgia for BW that makes me say that. It's because I think few people would argue against that. BW is the standard. I don't look at SC2 and think "I hope that one day, it's just like BW." I think: "I hope one day, it's greater than BW." Also, i hope i haven't misled you; i think SC2 should be a different game. But there is a line where additions like the ones in HotS become so abstract that they have no coherency whatsoever, and that's what i'm afraid of. While you CAN make a game better than BW that is different, there are certain fundamentals that you cannot stray away from. HotS units that have single roles (he's making mutas? quick, tempest!) is a bad idea. Well, we have come to that weird point in discussion when we just agree with each other. So to the specifics, additions to HotS being bad. I'll go to the example you gave, the Tempest. The Tempest is actually good against Ground too. That's the point of the capital ship, to be added to the main army and add another layer of strength. But then, what distinguishes capital ships amongst races? Well, the carrier didn't do anything within a niche (probably why they removed it) so they added the Tempest and gave it a strong Anti-Air AoE attack. That's not the main idea behind the Tempest however, just like the Yamato Cannon is not the main idea of the Battlecruiser. The Battlecruiser is also good for adding another layer of strength to the main army and then also functioning as an "anti-massive" unit because of the Yamato Cannon. The Brood Lord is also good for adding to main army, they're extra strength adding Broodlings to the main army in order to provide a "Swarm" buffer to the enemies ground forces. I really don't know of any HotS units that have "single roles" other than the obvious (I don't know why people like the Shredder when it only has a single role). But if you look at WoL units, you could make the same argument. What does the Viking do? The Viking is for Anti-Air and that's it. Landing a Viking is terrible and will get smashed by anything with a ground attack. What does the Dark Templar do? It kills workers, queens, addons, pylons, other things. It can only harass and only if there is no detection. The Dark Templar is far more limited in use than the Protoss units introduced in HotS.
The idea about unit design that is bad is units that hard counter something else. Hard counters were introduced in WoL, and it makes for a very non-dynamic game. For example: immortals > siege tanks. Using your example, yeah the viking is anti air, but it's anti air in the worst way. The way it works is: "Broodlords? So then i make vikings and just kill them." There is nothing more to it than that. They are adding more: Warhound > mutalisks.
An example of how it should be is mutalisks currently in PvZ. Once they're at a certain mass, you can't just make phoenixes anymore. You need a combination of blink stalkers, archons, HT's and cannons that is effective with good micro. Most additions with HotS aren't like this however.
|
There is a huge, oft-repeated, fallacy that SC2 can only be popular if it is different from BW.
To give you four simple counterexamples:
1. DOTA2, will start as more or less a clone of DOTA
2. HON, started as clone of DOTA
3. QL, faithful to Q3
4. CS:GO, faithful to CSS
What these other companies understand, that Blizzard apparently does not, is that people will play a good product/game. Making it different, doesn't make it better by default.
In fact the game would be 10x better if Blizzard had started by cloning the BW multiplayer, and made adjustments to that based on the new engine. Expansions could expand on the new possibilities added by a modern engine.
Instead, they pretty much threw the baby out with the bathwater - and we are left with a game that is struggling to achieve the complexity that the original so effortlessly captured.
|
On October 26 2011 13:46 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 13:35 ander wrote:Replicant:
-Doesn't belong in SC2? It's the protoss, they have high tech, if they want to give other races over powered combos that can't be countered by toss than this is how to keep balance.
-I highly doubt it's for the 1/1/1. It costs 200/200, thats wayy too expensive for a siege tank. It's a ridiculous unit. It belongs in C&C. It's function has no coherency with sc. Dark Archons are such a ridiculous unit, they belong in Age of Empires. Wololo wololo Mind Control a unit, that ability has no place in StarCraft. Why would I ever make a Siege Tank as Terran if the Protoss can just steal it?
The replicant has infinite range. The dark archon does not.
|
On October 26 2011 13:51 architecture wrote:
There is a huge, oft-repeated, fallacy that SC2 can only be popular if is different from BW.
To give you four simple examples:
1. DOTA2, will start as more or less a clone of DOTA
2. HON, started as clone of DOTA
3. QL, faithful to Q3
4. CS:GO, faithful to CSS
People will play a good product/game. Making it different, doesn't make it better by default.
In fact the game would be 10x better if Blizzard had started by cloning the BW multiplayer, and made adjustments to that based on the new engine. Expansions could expand on the new possibilities added by a modern engine.
Instead, they pretty much threw the baby out with the bathwater - and we are left with a game that is struggling with the complexity that the original so effortlessly captured.
Oh give me a break, you people are so melodramatic. SC2 is incredibly similar to BW, a few abilities are shuffled around, the pathing is a million times better and the interface isn't so counter-intuitive and demanding, but other than that it's good old StarCraft. The fundamental structure and feel of each race is the same, and games play out in similar fashion.
On October 26 2011 13:53 Corrosive wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 13:46 Alzadar wrote:On October 26 2011 13:35 ander wrote:Replicant:
-Doesn't belong in SC2? It's the protoss, they have high tech, if they want to give other races over powered combos that can't be countered by toss than this is how to keep balance.
-I highly doubt it's for the 1/1/1. It costs 200/200, thats wayy too expensive for a siege tank. It's a ridiculous unit. It belongs in C&C. It's function has no coherency with sc. Dark Archons are such a ridiculous unit, they belong in Age of Empires. Wololo wololo Mind Control a unit, that ability has no place in StarCraft. Why would I ever make a Siege Tank as Terran if the Protoss can just steal it? The replicant has infinite range. The dark archon does not.
So it's the infinite range that makes it unlike StarCraft? Not like that would be a big change if they find it's too strong during beta.
|
The firebat, goliath, lurker (somewhat), and defiler role-filling units make a return in the upcoming expansion -- BUT SC2 is moving in the wrong direction....?
|
Coming from a different perspective (not balance related), are these units going to make the game fun?
Look at some of the "power units" in the current game and tell me if you think they are fun to use:
-Colossus
-Ultra
-Broodlord
The reasons why some of these units and others are not fun vary. Generally though its because they only serve 1 function and can't really do much with them.
Now take the replicator, by design I think it is meant to prevent an engagement. So instead of having to pull off some sick control with your units to stop a 1/1/1 push, you just spawn a couple of tanks or cloaked banshees and then an engagement can't happen either way. This is not fun.
I found BW a very very fun game, even as a noob. SC2 is just nowhere near as fun for me purely because most of the units are sucky and you can't do much with them.
|
While I agree with the game going in the wrong direction overall, I still feel that this new wrong direction is better than the wrong direction WOL started at with boring uninspiring "1a" units like the colossus/marauder/roach/broodlord.
|
tt1, thats a joke you really come off just like another whiney forum goer. I feel like this is more of just complaining about the game and not even trying to make anything work.
I personally feel this is more of a blog, not really a sc2 discussion
|
On October 26 2011 13:56 Alzadar wrote:
but other than that it's good old StarCraft. The fundamental structure and feel of each race is the same, and games play out in similar fashion.
Can you find a single top player on this board that will vouch for this statement, that SC2 is not directly inferior in gameplay to SC1?
I'm pretty sure every top player thinks exactly the opposite, Idra being one of the most vocal.
|
On October 26 2011 14:00 Moldwood wrote:
The firebat, goliath, lurker (somewhat), and defiler role-filling units make a return in the upcoming expansion -- BUT SC2 is moving in the wrong direction....?
Don't forget the super Corsair and the mechanical Dark Archon.
On October 26 2011 14:02 architecture wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 13:56 Alzadar wrote:
but other than that it's good old StarCraft. The fundamental structure and feel of each race is the same, and games play out in similar fashion.
Can you find a single top player on this board that will vouch for this statement, that SC2 is not directly inferior in gameplay to SC1? I'm pretty sure every top player thinks exactly the opposite, Idra being one of the most vocal.
What do you even mean, "directly inferior in gameplay"? I don't think anyone would disagree that BW is mechanically harder, mostly because of the evil interface that tries to kill you just as much as your opponent.
|
I love the direction, i think its more micro intensive and much more interesting. Love it love it love it 
|
I do agree with the amount of Spellcasting units, some people have made the comparison to WC3. I wish they wouldn't have introduced so many new units ... it's basically restarting the whole game and ignore the rest of this post I'm an idiot.
|
I think his point is that toss already has the most spells to cast in a battle.
FF, guardin shield, feedback, storm, blink, etc..
terran has stim and emp
zerg has fungal, neural, burrow (excuse me if i miss some)
it makes sense for us to receive less spellcasters and more units that simply dish out damage. the antiair unit is a good example, but we're still left with 2 more spellcasters.
maybe this is for the better, maybe not, but it just seems overwhelming. I simply loved how the battles in sc1 were complex to execute, yet simple to understand. Thats why the game had such a large viewership. Simple for the audience, complex for the players, win/win.
|
Read some of the posts on the first page and clearly over half of them missed the point that this post doesn't talk about balance =/
|
On October 26 2011 13:50 ander wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 13:33 Hnnngg wrote:On October 26 2011 13:21 ander wrote:On October 26 2011 13:11 Hnnngg wrote:On October 26 2011 13:00 ander wrote:On October 26 2011 12:50 Hnnngg wrote:On October 26 2011 12:44 ander wrote:This is actually annoying to see in SC2 threads, seeing BW babbies try to reason through nostalgia and self-efficacy. As if the people who started with BW can move on to SC2 and have an objective opinion about both. It's just not possible, no matter how hard you try. I'd be interested to hear where you would draw inspiration from if you were on the unit design team at Blizzard. Newsflash: SC1 and SC2 both have "StarCraft" in the title. When i saw the Replicant for the first time, it absolutely did not strike me as a unit that belongs in starcraft. It is a terrible unit design that wanders away from the fundamentals of what a starcraft unit should be. All of the HotS units are niche units that serve no purpose beyond countering a specific thing. They have the same name? Is that your serious thought process? Holy crap. Try to compare two games with the same name anywhere else. Try to compare WoW (Vanilla, TBC, WotLK, Cata, MoP), FF(1-14? with a double 13 or something insane), Halo(1-4 and CE and whatever), anything, you will see changes. There are no fundamentals for Starcraft2. This isn't Starcraft: Brood War 2, if they wanted to make Starcraft: Brood War 2 they would have. They do not want to make Brood War 2 and are trying to not make Brood War 2. That does not make Starcraft 2 a bad game just because Brood War was a good game, they can make a good game that is not Brood War. SC1 and SC2 having the same name obviously suggests that have a common thread that relates them. StarCraft is not WarCraft, and Halo is not Counter-Strike. Many of the units that were revealed in HotS are so far from that relating thread that they make no sense, and are completely out of place. They don't make sense, and they don't belong in this game. Of course there will be changes, and of course SC2=/=SC1; that's obvious. But you can't deny that they aren't related. There is something that makes a unit a good Starcraft unit, that has basic fundamentals that fit with the game. I agree that they can make a good game that is not BW, and aside from a few major shortcomings with WoL, they did a pretty good job; for the most part. Unfortunately, with what i've seen with HotS, i feel they are making StarCraft worse. They are taking away from what they've done. But you'd have a subjective opinion from BW experience. If people want Starcraft 2 to be it's own game, they need to not associate it with BW because of the wikipedia links I provided in my post. Nostalgia and self-efficacy will work against being objective and empirical. It's unavoidable and dangerous because of how they work together. Nostalgia making things appear better than they were in the past and self-efficacy making people think they are actually competent regardless of actual competency, basically working together to fill the wholes of what I like to call "BW Babby Syndrome". This makes it seem like BW will be the best thing ever, that every game should be like BW, and there is no way that the person could be wrong because they played BW. It's insane. The people who make the game are not BW maniacs (from what I've seen, looks like C&C and Redline). BW isn't completely absent but they need to have multiple perspectives, not just a BW perspective. When looking at the future of SC2, the comparison is drawn to SC1 because, quite simply, SC1 is the standard. It's not my nostalgia for BW that makes me say that. It's because I think few people would argue against that. BW is the standard. I don't look at SC2 and think "I hope that one day, it's just like BW." I think: "I hope one day, it's greater than BW." Also, i hope i haven't misled you; i think SC2 should be a different game. But there is a line where additions like the ones in HotS become so abstract that they have no coherency whatsoever, and that's what i'm afraid of. While you CAN make a game better than BW that is different, there are certain fundamentals that you cannot stray away from. HotS units that have single roles (he's making mutas? quick, tempest!) is a bad idea. Well, we have come to that weird point in discussion when we just agree with each other. So to the specifics, additions to HotS being bad. I'll go to the example you gave, the Tempest. The Tempest is actually good against Ground too. That's the point of the capital ship, to be added to the main army and add another layer of strength. But then, what distinguishes capital ships amongst races? Well, the carrier didn't do anything within a niche (probably why they removed it) so they added the Tempest and gave it a strong Anti-Air AoE attack. That's not the main idea behind the Tempest however, just like the Yamato Cannon is not the main idea of the Battlecruiser. The Battlecruiser is also good for adding another layer of strength to the main army and then also functioning as an "anti-massive" unit because of the Yamato Cannon. The Brood Lord is also good for adding to main army, they're extra strength adding Broodlings to the main army in order to provide a "Swarm" buffer to the enemies ground forces. I really don't know of any HotS units that have "single roles" other than the obvious (I don't know why people like the Shredder when it only has a single role). But if you look at WoL units, you could make the same argument. What does the Viking do? The Viking is for Anti-Air and that's it. Landing a Viking is terrible and will get smashed by anything with a ground attack. What does the Dark Templar do? It kills workers, queens, addons, pylons, other things. It can only harass and only if there is no detection. The Dark Templar is far more limited in use than the Protoss units introduced in HotS. The idea about unit design that is bad is units that hard counter something else. Hard counters were introduced in WoL, and it makes for a very non-dynamic game. For example: immortals > siege tanks. Using your example, yeah the viking is anti air, but it's anti air in the worst way. The way it works is: "Broodlords? So then i make vikings and just kill them." There is nothing more to it than that. They are adding more: Warhound > mutalisks. An example of how it should be is mutalisks currently in PvZ. Once they're at a certain mass, you can't just make phoenixes anymore. You need a combination of blink stalkers, archons, HT's and cannons that is effective with good micro. Most additions with HotS aren't like this however.
So the idea isn't new to HotS and has plagued WoL for the entirety of it's lifespan?
How will we survive when HotS hits? That example of Mutas in PvZ seems dangerous. Forcing that kind of unit composition with a single unit type punishes the Protoss into a composition the Zerg can exploit. So the choices of the Protoss seems to be either try to defend against Mutas or sacrifice and be pushed into a corner. Assuming the Zerg doesn't make a mistake, where is the point where the Protoss can win or gain a lead?
|
I agree, with regards to Protoss. I think the right direction to take Protoss is to get rid of the Collosus and replace it with a ground, power unit such as but not necessarily the Reaver. With the Protoss power unit no longer having the same counters as it's stargate power units Blizzard would be free to fix and tweak with the Mothership and Carrier to make them interesting and viable or even replace them but not with a single, boring capital ship and a Nexus ability. Also, the replicator is dumb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
