| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On August 16 2012 12:33 Archerofaiur wrote: Even if beta starts it should be relatively simple for them to add it back in. It is still in the game after all. Once the beta is public, they'll be a lot more stubborn to swap units IMO. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On August 16 2012 12:00 Whitewing wrote: Um, 22 range. By the time the corrupters get within their what, 6, 7 range? You can easily defend the tempests without ever letting corrupters get close, and without getting in range of brood lords or infestors. Hell, keep an oracle with the tempests, don't let overseers near it (snipe them with tempests if they try, or just blink/feedback it or whatever), and then hit mass cloak if they threaten them. No way will anything on the ground get near it if you have your army protecting them. 22 range is pretty ridiculous, and I play Protoss. You need vision to use that effectively, and Broodlords or Corruptors (if an Observer) will demolish anything that gets close enough for the Tempest to gain vision. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 16 2012 13:41 Stratos_speAr wrote: You need vision to use that effectively, and Broodlords or Corruptors (if an Observer) will demolish anything that gets close enough for the Tempest to gain vision. Observers get vision all the time of the forces, and if zerg brings in overseers, 4 tempests kill an overseer instantly with one volley. | ||
|
Tao367
United Kingdom324 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:40 Whitewing wrote: Observers get vision all the time of the forces, and if zerg brings in overseers, 4 tempests kill an overseer instantly with one volley. 1200/1200 sure sounds like a good trade for an overseer 1 shot. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2012 00:42 Tao367 wrote: 1200/1200 sure sounds like a good trade for an overseer 1 shot. Way to completely miss the point. It's easy to have vision of zerg's army, and it's not hard to make sure that he can't snipe every observer repeatedly. More importantly, even if you don't have an observer in there, you don't have to be at max range to shoot. It's pretty easy to have vision of the brood lords if they are actually attacking anything. | ||
Mohdoo
United States15580 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
| ||
|
NeonGenesis
Norway260 Posts
Dustin Browder want a good argument for keeping the Carrier? It is a WAY more interesting unit, in every respect, than the Tempest. Just make it work. | ||
|
Roadog
Canada1670 Posts
On August 16 2012 12:00 Whitewing wrote: Um, 22 range. By the time the corrupters get within their what, 6, 7 range? You can easily defend the tempests without ever letting corrupters get close, and without getting in range of brood lords or infestors. Hell, keep an oracle with the tempests, don't let overseers near it (snipe them with tempests if they try, or just blink/feedback it or whatever), and then hit mass cloak if they threaten them. No way will anything on the ground get near it if you have your army protecting them. 22 range is pretty ridiculous, and I play Protoss. Um, 7-10 DPS (with no splash), depending on upgrades/armor. That is literally Stalker-like. The Tempest has (approximately) the same DPS as a Stalker! With the new Viper's range 9 Abduct ability, a Viper/Overseer/Corruptor hit squad can close from 22 range away to 6 in about 3 seconds. Tempests will be able to get 1 shot off before the Corruptors are on top of them. Any good Zerg would find a good flank with Viper/Overseer/Corruptor, packing more Overseers if there are Oracles (btw Oracles have 100 total health) around, Fungaling Stalkers with Infestors, etc. Save the Carrier! This is no capital ship! ![[image loading]](http://cdn.gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/starcraft-2-heart-of-the-swarm-tempest.jpg) Stupid, awful design! | ||
|
SaroVati
Canada280 Posts
Again I'd like to emphasize how not only will tempest be ridiculously hard to balance, but how carriers DO have their place in the game. Notice how my army during the first engagement died 3 times even with vortex? 3/3 blink stalker colo archon blah blah with mothership doesn't cut it versus zerg anymore. I had to spend a bank of 7k/4k and my 200/200 army to kill a single infestor BL army. Afterwards, I got carriers. Notice how the zerg army melts because he doesn't make a bunch of corruptors to counter the carriers. My army doesn't just die 3 times anymore :D | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3674 Posts
| ||
|
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
| ||
|
Protein
United States132 Posts
Essentially, the carrier is being replaced with a unit that is even worse. The idea of a unit that forces engagements is cute, but the Protoss army relies on higher tech. Forcing an engagement when your army is composed of lower tier (inferior to other race t1 units) and ridiculously expensive engagement forcers (tempest) is not useful... Granted, they look cool and I like the idea of 22 range but... It's frustrating that Blizzard hasn't even tried to do anything with the carrier... Especially when they've done so much to remove our abilities - Flux vanes, Khaydarin amulet... We need to fight this! Even the battle report showed that the Tempest is terrible. | ||
|
Crow!
United States150 Posts
Faced with Carriers, a Terran with a Mech army has to pick between going massed Vikings (along with enough air upgrades to keep this cost efficient: i.e., he's going Sky Terran now and that Mech infrastructure is worthless) or going massed Marines (which requires both unit specific and generic E-Bay upgrades to be effective, at which point you're going Bio, not Mech, and again, you have a lot of wasted infrastructure). The Tempest, on the other hand, just floats harmlessly above the mech army as it levels your base. I think every Protoss player who has played a HoTS custom map has experienced this, and it was presented to everyone in a high profile way at the most recent battle report. Incidentally, removing the Carrier may well not fix this problem anyway. I suspect that having enough Tempests to snipe off Thors (Tempests do, at present, deal bonus damage to massive) will leave the Mech army helpless against waves of Phoenixes. While Phoenixes may not kill as fast as Carriers do, their superior mobility and build time probably make up for this enough to put a Meching Terran in the same disastrous position where their factories are irrelevant to winning the game. A smarter choice may be to make the Warhound's missiles capable of shooting air units (possibly for reduced damage?) while leaving the Carriers in place. | ||
|
Walnut_SC
Canada33 Posts
KEEP THE CARRIER! | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
Examples for good evolutions: - Zergling > Baneling - Hellion > Battle Hellion transformation - Mutalisk > Guardian/Devourer As always there is also a bad example for everything and in the case of transformations it is the mothership core. I also remember the short story about the mothership from Blizzard and the mothership core retcons this to something completely different. Another bad evolution is the evolution from Goliath to Thor (which is too big/expensive and mobility-impaired to be good). Thus Blizzard should work on more new uses (basically research upgrades) to potentially change the use of more units than they are adding. Examples: - flame turret bunker from the SC2 campaign - give Marauders a second choice for upgrade instead of concussive shells but you can have only one at a time! This second upgrade can be "AoE explosive shells" - give the Carrier some upgrades for the interceptors which might be "one in use at a time": Bomber, Phasing Interceptor (phase in and out half the time giving more defense against Fungal and attacks), ... - add some Napalm mines to the Hellion which create a small burning field when triggered (instead of the stupid "I can jump from burrowed onto a flying unit" Widow mines) as an alternative to battle hellion transformation - add a "power plant" building to Terrans which gives buildings it touches an electic fence - add close range defense fire attacks to siege tanks (how stupid are those weapons developers from earth in the future?) - add a "shutdown state" to Colossi where they sink to the ground becoming immune to AA-fire but cant fire themselves - why the hell did Protoss "outevolve" the Dark Archon and the Shield Battery? So the ideas are there to make HotS interesting (I made most of them up in 5 minutes), sadly they have the wrong "creative" captain at the helm IMO. ------ To all of the simpletons who keep repeating "but SC2 is a new game" I can only say that you cant have a new game called "version 2" of an older game and expect something completely different. Especially a game which has a story attached to it which connects both of them does make this sentiment totally ridiculous. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On August 17 2012 14:24 Rabiator wrote: As always there is also a bad example for everything and in the case of transformations it is the mothership core. I also remember the short story about the mothership from Blizzard and the mothership core retcons this to something completely different. ... so? The Mothership Core is a good thing. How Blizzard decides to justify it within the story is quite frankly irrelevant; what matters is that it makes the game better. Also, how does this retcon anything? Motherships were originally produced by the Protoss. They then stored them away, but now in their time of need, they're recalling them. All HotS is doing is saying that the Protoss are now once again building them. It fits quite well. It's so hard to make new Motherships that they have to build them in stages. And where do you start with building a new Mothership? It's core. On August 17 2012 14:24 Rabiator wrote: Another bad evolution is the evolution from Goliath to Thor (which is too big/expensive and mobility-impaired to be good). That's not an "evolution"; it's a new unit with an entirely different purpose. On August 17 2012 14:24 Rabiator wrote: Thus Blizzard should work on more new uses (basically research upgrades) to potentially change the use of more units than they are adding. While I don't disagree with this, I would point out that they already gave something to the Ultralisk, the Hydralisk, and the Battlecruiser. Plus, Brood War wasn't exactly overflowing with old unit upgrades itself. It had some, and some significant ones at that, but it only added about 4-5 upgrades. Futhermore, upgrades aren't the same as new units that you build from old ones (ie: Lurkers and Devourers). That was primarily a UI issue: Zerg make all their stuff from Larva, but there are only 9 slots on the UI for stuff. So it'd be hard to add new units without breaking the UI. Hence they added "evolutions" from old ones. On August 17 2012 14:24 Rabiator wrote: I made most of them up in 5 minutes They certainly look like it. The flame turret? Really? We need more worthless Terran upgrades from the campaign? And I'm shocked that a Terran player would come up with an idea like "electric fences for Terran buildings"; naturally, they'd only affect melee units, which the Terrans don't have. On August 17 2012 14:24 Rabiator wrote: To all of the simpletons who keep repeating "but SC2 is a new game" I can only say that you cant have a new game called "version 2" of an older game and expect something completely different. Especially a game which has a story attached to it which connects both of them does make this sentiment totally ridiculous. Mass Effect 2. The gameplay is so fundamentally different (ME1 was an RPG-shooter, ME2 was a cover-based FPS) that the only thing they had in common was the story and setting. WarCraft III was also radically different from WC2. I can keep going, but my point is clear: sequels certainly can be different. Sometimes it's a complete gameplay shift, and sometimes it's just a few tweaks. Indeed, it's a sign of the current state of the gaming industry that sequels are expected to be just like the originals. I remember the days of Castlevania 2, Zelda 2, and Mario 2, when you had no idea what to expect from a sequel. Now, it's all just "do the same thing as before, just shuffled around a bit." | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/a/aa/Shuttle.png) | ||
|
revy
United States1524 Posts
On August 16 2012 09:02 Forikorder wrote: the carrier has no depth its the msot Amove unit in existance its exactly like a broodlords only worse since the intercepters can be shot down Perhaps the SC2 carrier, but the BW carrier, that was a wonderful unit. Required micro to use properly and was sufficiently powerful (against terran at least). | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On August 17 2012 19:13 NicolBolas wrote: ... so? The Mothership Core is a good thing. How Blizzard decides to justify it within the story is quite frankly irrelevant; what matters is that it makes the game better. Also, how does this retcon anything? Motherships were originally produced by the Protoss. They then stored them away, but now in their time of need, they're recalling them. All HotS is doing is saying that the Protoss are now once again building them. It fits quite well. It's so hard to make new Motherships that they have to build them in stages. And where do you start with building a new Mothership? It's core. That's not an "evolution"; it's a new unit with an entirely different purpose. While I don't disagree with this, I would point out that they already gave something to the Ultralisk, the Hydralisk, and the Battlecruiser. Plus, Brood War wasn't exactly overflowing with old unit upgrades itself. It had some, and some significant ones at that, but it only added about 4-5 upgrades. Futhermore, upgrades aren't the same as new units that you build from old ones (ie: Lurkers and Devourers). That was primarily a UI issue: Zerg make all their stuff from Larva, but there are only 9 slots on the UI for stuff. So it'd be hard to add new units without breaking the UI. Hence they added "evolutions" from old ones. They certainly look like it. The flame turret? Really? We need more worthless Terran upgrades from the campaign? And I'm shocked that a Terran player would come up with an idea like "electric fences for Terran buildings"; naturally, they'd only affect melee units, which the Terrans don't have. Mass Effect 2. The gameplay is so fundamentally different (ME1 was an RPG-shooter, ME2 was a cover-based FPS) that the only thing they had in common was the story and setting. WarCraft III was also radically different from WC2. I can keep going, but my point is clear: sequels certainly can be different. Sometimes it's a complete gameplay shift, and sometimes it's just a few tweaks. Indeed, it's a sign of the current state of the gaming industry that sequels are expected to be just like the originals. I remember the days of Castlevania 2, Zelda 2, and Mario 2, when you had no idea what to expect from a sequel. Now, it's all just "do the same thing as before, just shuffled around a bit." 1. The mothership core is an interesting twist, but having a recall very early in the game is possibly broken. The siege-tank-range-cannon ability and the donate-mana-to-unit ability are possibly broken as well since the first can possibly make early not-so-strong attacks quite useless and the second one really makes ONE Sentry extra powerful. PvP early engagements are really totally sent through the blender (speak: made useless) with these last two abilities. 2. The Thor is a bigger version of the Goliath and has exactly the same job description (mech AA support), thus it is a "just make everything bigger" evolution. 3. Even if BW wasnt full of unit upgrades there is one problem for any game like Starcraft: having too many different units which do the same thing. That increases the complexity of any balancing unnecessarily and just adding new skills to certain units gives something new while not adding new units to the balance table. 4. Yeah, the flame turret is pretty useless and a ground-attack rocket addon would be much better, but the thought is there and the devil is in the details, because the major weakness of Terran is that they have no useable ground defense which doesnt cost supply. The PF doesnt count, because it is not really useable as a choke-defense due to cost and size. 5. Oh come on ... Mass Effect is what kind of a game? And the technology leap between Warcraft II and III was quite big to justify a big change. Brood War already had a sufficiently evolved gameplay which was both complex and challenging, which doesnt really need "all new units" everywhere. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
SOOP
Cure vs Zoun
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
SOOP Global
Future vs MaNa
Harstem vs Cham
BSL: ProLeague
Sziky vs JDConan
Cross vs MadiNho
Hawk vs Bonyth
Circuito Brasileiro de…
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
