| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zooper31
United States5710 Posts
On January 18 2012 18:43 spelhus wrote: I think Blink Stalkers are the scariest deathball in the game. I want goons back  No one in their right minds wants the retard AI that is the dragoon lol. | ||
|
YMCApylons
Taiwan359 Posts
High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On February 01 2012 10:44 Zooper31 wrote: No one in their right minds wants the retard AI that is the dragoon lol. if it meant having the dragoon back, I would take the AI as well... | ||
|
Scarbo
294 Posts
On February 01 2012 13:26 YMCApylons wrote: Read the OP, skipped the rest. Firepower is not a problem. In BW, the amount of firepower was ridiculous. Storms could one-shot hydras, and tank range was ungodly. Lings were way stronger and could tear down buildings faster. Three lurkers could shred marine/medic. The idea that terran bio could ever be viable against terran mech would have been laughable. High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now. Yeah but you forget that in BW units didn't clump up, so the firepower wasn't concentrated in a big ball of death like in SC2. And also two of your examples are regarding siege units, one of the OP points. | ||
|
anApple
Singapore275 Posts
On February 01 2012 13:26 YMCApylons wrote: Read the OP, skipped the rest. Firepower is not a problem. In BW, the amount of firepower was ridiculous. Storms could one-shot hydras, and tank range was ungodly. Lings were way stronger and could tear down buildings faster. Three lurkers could shred marine/medic. The idea that terran bio could ever be viable against terran mech would have been laughable. High firepower makes micro more important, and mistakes more costly. I think SC2 has a good balance right now. A bit debatable on whether you can really micro that much against these high damage and splash units. Also, units such as the collosus don't really require that much micro imo. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
| ||
|
Superdogmot
Australia20 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10650 Posts
On February 01 2012 14:34 tdt wrote: I always wonder if the pros like this game. Sure it's good money and everyone likes money but really like it as in would play 8 hours a day if they wernt paid. Terrible terrible damage, BO loses and poor defenders advatage/zone control bugs me as well and I play infrequently compared to BW and other games. Many don't.. At least not as much as they would like to. Cloud spoke a bit about this in the Podcast/INterview he gave after the Homestorycup (iirc). | ||
|
IIIOmegaIII
Sweden319 Posts
| ||
|
Hypz
Sweden25 Posts
On January 18 2012 20:01 OmniEulogy wrote: 6 supply vs 6 supply. 300/300 resource vs 300/200. One person micro's a little bit and one a-moves. Sorry what is the problem here? It's a 'soft' counter that gets beat by micro?? That fits into the OPs point about this game... if anything it supports his point and shouldn't be messed with... good work. Yeah ok, let's completely niglect that Mutas are air units that can fly with a speed faster then stimmed marines, and can cost effectively kill it's supposed to be counter unit. You know someone's ignorant when they try to discuss balance with pure supply and resources, Let's make my thors transform in to battleships with 3+ speed and bouncing damage so that i can harass?  | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10650 Posts
Marine, Hydra and Stalkers are "better" designed... They get countered HARD by certain units and excel against others. But they still can be (very) cost effective even against their counters when attacking from an advantageous position. Example: In general a Stalker/Colossus army will just walk over a very Hydra heavy army. But when that Hydra army is coming from 3 directions things can look very different very fast, suddenly the Hydras is kicking his counters ass because hes able to bring in his DPS.... Sadly this next to never happens thanks to retarded forcefields, mapdesign and in general to small armies... but it would at least be possible. | ||
|
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
On February 01 2012 13:56 Scarbo wrote: Yeah but you forget that in BW units didn't clump up, so the firepower wasn't concentrated in a big ball of death like in SC2. And also two of your examples are regarding siege units, one of the OP points. Yeah, BW units didn't move around in balls, which would basicly die to 2 storms or a few banelings (not in BW, but you get my point). I think unit clumping is both a huge problem - and also the main reason for this feeling of insane dps. Looking at bio balls and such it's just because you have ALOT of units in range firing at the same time. | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On February 01 2012 18:29 Velr wrote: Many don't.. At least not as much as they would like to. Cloud spoke a bit about this in the Podcast/INterview he gave after the Homestorycup (iirc). Cloud is Cloud though, he's really outspoken about the flaws of SC2 and anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. Not saying he's necessarily always wrong, but still. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10650 Posts
. | ||
|
251
United States1401 Posts
Even so, talking about firepower is kind of a moot point because its just relative to everything else in the game. The zone control and defender's advantage arguments are legit though, and I would like to see SC2 develop better mechanics for these. | ||
|
Biggun69
187 Posts
On February 01 2012 14:34 tdt wrote: I always wonder if the pros like this game. Sure it's good money and everyone likes money but really like it as in would play 8 hours a day if they wernt paid. Terrible terrible damage, BO loses and poor defenders advatage/zone control bugs me as well and I play infrequently compared to BW and other games. Noone except the very top pros actually make enough money to sustain themselves on sc2 alone. If they didnt enjoy sc2 they would have quit a long time ago. | ||
|
KULA_u
Switzerland107 Posts
On January 18 2012 18:46 bokeevboke wrote: there is endless list of issues and flaws in sc2 design. funny that people only now started to discuss it. I was crying about it since the beginning. I hope blizzard will take some notes and improve in HotS. Otherwise I already lost interest in stacraft 2. I think these are the most important things to work on: - defender's advantage and zone controlling (this is the reason TvT is very good matchup) - unit clumping (need to spread a bit) - terrible terrible damage syndrome. a majority of the design flaws were so extremely obvious, many people saw them at first glance. there is a however the problem that quite a few people are opposed to remove these flaws, because they think it would the game more like broodwar (which is made out to be a bad thing...). And, sadly, Blizzard belongs to these people. Instead of striving to make the best game ever, they want to reinvent the wheel with mechanics that have been prooven to be bad game design in many many other RTS games. (they are basicially arguing that a good wheel doesn't have to be round but that it can also be square.) quite a few significant changes would have to be made to the game to take it to the next level (i.e. make it more interesting and fun to watch and play) and blizzard is afraid of this. I guess they fear to lose a lot of players or even to destroy the pro gaming community. or maybe they also just want something of their own, and not something that was created by other designers (i.e. SC/BW). maybe they really don't know what to do, because they lack the understanding of the problems. maybe it's just activision meddling with the studio, forcing them to focus their manpower on money making additions like the marketplace, add-ons that draw in casual players, etc. | ||
|
Biggun69
187 Posts
On February 01 2012 19:26 Hypz wrote: Yeah ok, let's completely niglect that Mutas are air units that can fly with a speed faster then stimmed marines, and can cost effectively kill it's supposed to be counter unit. You know someone's ignorant when they try to discuss balance with pure supply and resources, Let's make my thors transform in to battleships with 3+ speed and bouncing damage so that i can harass? What the hell? Why should one unit stop a huge amount of mutalisks? If you want to stop mutas you needs turrets + thors or marines + thors. It's not rocket science. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 01 2012 20:05 Velr wrote: Well.. I have more problems finding a Pro stating that SC2 is better than WC3 or SC/BW or even a "truely good game" than finding pros that don't seem too happy with many things in it .Still they don't play WC3 or SC:BW. You will always find far more people complaining about how things they are involved in are, than complaining about things that don't influence them at all. As long as SC2 is more popular in e-sports and play, the most important factors for success are in its hands. Everything else will always be argumentations of taste. On February 01 2012 20:25 Biggun69 wrote: What the hell? Why should one unit stop a huge amount of mutalisks? If you want to stop mutas you needs turrets + thors or marines + thors. It's not rocket science. and the even better argument is, that hardly anyone plays mutalisks against mass thor builds, but mass thor builds are being played succesfully against zerg. That's when you really know someone is ignorant. On February 01 2012 19:26 Velr wrote: He is speaking about things like an Immortal or, even worse, the Corruptor. Units which have very specific roles and are only viable against certain targets due to certain characteristics of themselves or their targets. This creates a nearly purely "reactive" unit... There is next to no possible situation, whiteout getting ridiculous, where you can make your Immortals truely "pay off" against Mairnes or Zerglings.. You can just try to keep em alive to break the enemies base down faster, else? They are basically useless no matter "how" you use them now. They are very one dimensional units. I can't think about an RTS game without such units... BW: Firebats, Valkyries, Corsairs, Scourge, Devourer, high templar, archon... The unit design of some of those is probably even worse than their SC2 counterparts. The difference is not in the unit design, but once again in the amount of units attacking in a battle. In BW less units shoot (and splash doesn't hit as many units), so the "exponential grow" component of "unit X counters unit Y" gets nearly neglected. But it has nothing to do with unit design, just with pathing and AI. | ||
|
Biggun69
187 Posts
On February 01 2012 14:02 CeroFail wrote: A bit debatable on whether you can really micro that much against these high damage and splash units. Also, units such as the collosus don't really require that much micro imo. Well because of the AI your units clump up. It means you need to spread your units out a lot before a big engagement and make sure you have a good concave. There is still micro but in different ways. | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
