|
On June 18 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:01 serge wrote:On June 18 2012 05:47 alexanderzero wrote:
Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again? The simple solution to that problem is to stop unit clumping. Blizzard's far too narrowminded to do something like that though. DBro feels he must maintain the status quo or risk destroying the game. This is patently retarded. Yes, he talks the talk about staying open-minded and being willing to change anything in terms of units and game design, but the reality is he'd rather just worry about unit concepts and will likely never touch those fundamental elements that would improve the game. I don't know why, he has two expansions that give him an excuse to do so. They'll be new games anyway, he might as well play with that stuff too.
I'm just hoping the community is willing to take it into their own hands if it does wind up being less than ideal for competitive play kind of like in BW. :S
|
On June 18 2012 05:28 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players.
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
|
On June 18 2012 06:09 D u o wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:06 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 06:01 serge wrote:On June 18 2012 05:47 alexanderzero wrote:
Well they tried putting a lot of those units into SC2 early on but they didn't work out. For example units clump up too much in SC2 making the lurker extremely overpowered, which is why it was removed. Besides who really wants to play the same game over again? The simple solution to that problem is to stop unit clumping. Blizzard's far too narrowminded to do something like that though. DBro feels he must maintain the status quo or risk destroying the game. This is patently retarded. Yes, he talks the talk about staying open-minded and being willing to change anything in terms of units and game design, but the reality is he'd rather just worry about unit concepts and will likely never touch those fundamental elements that would improve the game. I don't know why, he has two expansions that give him an excuse to do so. They'll be new games anyway, he might as well play with that stuff too. I'm just hoping the community is willing to take it into their own hands if it does wind up being less than ideal for competitive play kind of like in BW. :S
One can always look to AoE2 scene. They have a community-made expansion coming out with balance changes and two new races. Or is it already out? I have to check or someone can tell me.
|
Canada11583 Posts
On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 05:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players. I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up. The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability. The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank.
Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
|
On June 18 2012 06:19 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 05:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players. I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up. The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability. The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out. Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank. Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things.
Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebats used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here.
I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged and Terrans have also been given some other tools to accomplish what the Spider Mine used to in Sensor Towers and Planetary Fortresses.
As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech.
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
|
On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:19 Falling wrote:On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 05:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players. I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up. The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability. The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out. Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank. Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things. Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here. I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged. As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech. The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors. This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose.
|
On June 18 2012 06:59 D u o wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 06:19 Falling wrote:On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 05:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players. I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up. The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability. The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out. Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank. Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things. Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here. I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged. As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech. The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors. This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind. I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose.
This is more of a design argument than anything else.
The Baneling is designed to fulfill the same role as the Lurker. whether or not it does so effectively is a matter of debate. Personally I think Banelings are not as good of a defensive weapon as the Lurker was but are 10x as good as Lurkers were when used offensively. But the argument here is that the two cannot co-exist in Starcraft 2 because of their ability to complement each other as well as tread on each other's toes from a design standpoint.
In HoTS Zerg is getting another unit that's designed for the purpose of Zone control but it does it in a way that doesn't involve splash damage. I think there's a very clear reason for why that is and it goes back to what I'm talking about here.
|
On June 18 2012 07:06 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:59 D u o wrote:On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 06:19 Falling wrote:On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 05:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players. I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up. The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability. The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out. Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank. Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things. Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here. I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged. As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech. The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors. This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind. I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose. This is more of a design argument than anything else. The Baneling is designed to fulfill the same role as the Lurker. whether or not it does so effectively is a matter of debate. Personally I think Banelings are not as good of a defensive weapon as the Lurker was but are 10x as good as Lurkers were when used offensively. But the argument here is that the two cannot co-exist in Starcraft 2 because of their ability to complement each other as well as tread on each other's toes from a design standpoint. In HoTS Zerg is getting another unit that's designed for the purpose of Zone control but it does it in a way that doesn't involve splash damage. I think there's a very clear reason for why that is and it goes back to what I'm talking about here.
The swarm host is meant for sieging positions they cant break. DB has said that, it spawns things too slow, you can scan and have a few units kill it before it has the chance to fight back, i think its 2 every 10 seconds right? you just wait kill the 2 and then scan and stim 3 marine or send 2 zealots, its not good at controlling space at all. Think of it as a zerg siege tank how it burrows like seiging and then slowly shoots dealing damage.
|
On June 18 2012 07:11 D u o wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 07:06 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 06:59 D u o wrote:On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 06:19 Falling wrote:On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 18 2012 05:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 05:22 Vindicare605 wrote:
Well no it's a different situation entirely because Hellion splash replaces Spider Mines which were available on Vultures and do so with a higher price tag than Vultures had 100minerals vs 75.
Did you mean that Hellion splash was meant to replace spider mines, or that it has the same role in SC2 currently? Because neither is true. Hellions are a bastardized vulture that got a modified firebat attack. They can't be patrol microed, their speed upgrade was removed so SC2 mech has no mobility, and their attack was nerfed to hell because Dustin Browder was worried about bronze players' worker lines getting their feelings hurt. So, tell me, how is that progress? That's not even sideways iteration, it's regression as an e-sport and for players. I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up. The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability. The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out. Well firebats are also out, so then does it still balance out? Honestly the only way vultures and hellions are the same is the raider/ cannon fodder part. The mines vs hellion attack are completely different. Mines are spread out to completely shut down or else delay entire paths of movement for no cost of supply. The opponent needs to spend time clearing the mine field while Terran mech is able to reposition their seige tanks to block an attempted flank. Mines were about preventing runbys and flanks and guarding positions where the army was not. That and if the mines were placed far enough ahead, it created defence in depth- siege down the units trying to clear the mines. (If it was too close, it was your own worst enemy.) Hellions don't do any of those things. Well the firebat got replaced moreso by the Marauder than the Hellion. Marauders don't have the splash of the Firebat true, but they have anti-armor, concussive shells and are a beefier unit that can tank for Marines the way they do currently the way firebat used to in Brood War, but again there's give and take here. I get your point about how mines function differently than Hellions do, but my argument has more to do with why Lurkers are a different situation than Vultures and Siege Tanks. As far as Terran mech goes, there's been some give and take since Brood War. Hellions and Vultures both have their own respective advantages that the other lacks, while Siege Tanks have remained largely unchanged. As far as Zerg goes, there's also been give and take. The Baneling is a sort of zone control unit, that when combined with creep makes armies crossing into Zerg territory very cautious because of how quickly everything can die if they are caught in a bad position very similar to how Lurkers functioned. Terrans specifically have to use scans to scout ahead in order to move forward giving Zerg plenty of time to prepare for the attack. Lurkers accomplished this in a much more straightforward way at lair tech while Banelings do it much differently but do it at hatchery tech. The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors. This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind. I disagree, I think you're forgetting about the resource part of this game, if you spend your money on bling tech with burrow early on you're hindering how quickly you can get your lurkers. As stated before bling don't do close to enough of a job as lurker do but they're earlier in the tech tree. Which is why infestor are the next tier of splash damage/support unit and it kind of is supplemental for how a few lurkers would've worked I suppose. This is more of a design argument than anything else. The Baneling is designed to fulfill the same role as the Lurker. whether or not it does so effectively is a matter of debate. Personally I think Banelings are not as good of a defensive weapon as the Lurker was but are 10x as good as Lurkers were when used offensively. But the argument here is that the two cannot co-exist in Starcraft 2 because of their ability to complement each other as well as tread on each other's toes from a design standpoint. In HoTS Zerg is getting another unit that's designed for the purpose of Zone control but it does it in a way that doesn't involve splash damage. I think there's a very clear reason for why that is and it goes back to what I'm talking about here. The swarm host is meant for sieging positions they cant break. DB has said that, it spawns things too slow, you can scan and have a few units kill it before it has the chance to fight back, i think its 2 every 10 seconds right? you just wait kill the 2 and then scan and stim 3 marine or send 2 zealots, its not good at controlling space at all. Think of it as a zerg siege tank how it burrows like seiging and then slowly shoots dealing damage.
I'm 100% positive that in two different interviews with DB he describes the Swarm Host as a board control unit from a design standpoint.
It's a brand new unit and very different from anything I've ever used in any RTS and when I played with it at MLG i didn't quite get a feel for it right away but that's what beta is for.
|
Because it's Starcraft *2*
|
On June 18 2012 07:24 Ownos wrote:
Because it's Starcraft *2*
More like "random RTS 2", as blizzard did not want to capture any of StarCraft's beauty. If it didn't look like StarCraft in terms of graphics/unit names, etc. people would have a hard time finding similarities between the two beyond the superficial level.
|
On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
I understand your line of thinking, but I'm still not communicating my point to you successfully.
Abstractly, you make sense when you say that the hellion splash is equivalent to spider mines, BUT...in practice hellions are nowhere near as useful as vultures and mines were in BW. I also submit that your assessment that a hellion with spider mines would be 'too much' is completely arbitrary. By Browder's standards for SC2, lots of BW splash would be 'too much.'
|
If you look at the majority of units in WoL, they basically just took units from Brood War and either kept them or changed them to something a bit different with the same sort of functionality. Hellions are just vultures with splash instead of mines. Stalkers are dragoons that can teleport. The mothership is an arbiter. Thors are goliaths you can't micro. Brood lords are guardians. Corrupters are devourers. Few units are really totally new and unique.
|
On June 18 2012 07:36 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:10 Vindicare605 wrote:
I'm simply telling you why your siege tank analogy doesn't hold up.
The Hellion functions a lot differently than the Vulture but at the same time it doesn't. In a mech based army, it's a buffer unit designed to support siege tanks that also has strong mobility and harassment capability.
The reason it's ok for it to have that splash damage is because Spider Mines are no longer in the game, if Spider Mines were still available the splash on the hellion would be too much. But with Spider Mines out, the give and take balances itself out.
I understand your line of thinking, but I'm still not communicating my point to you successfully. Abstractly, you make sense when you say that the hellion splash is equivalent to spider mines, BUT...in practice hellions are nowhere near as useful as vultures and mines were in BW. I also submit that your assessment that a hellion with spider mines would be 'too much' is completely arbitrary. By Browder's standards for SC2, lots of BW splash would be 'too much.'
Browder has very good reasoning behind why the kind of splash we saw in Brood War can't work in SC2. The engine behind it just makes it too extreme.
I understand your point about Hellions and Vultures and actually I wholeheartedly agree with it, and I think Blizzard does too which is why in HOTS we're seeing the Battle Hellion and Widow Mine two new mech units designed to fill the holes the absence of the Spider Mine left for mech play.
The thing is with all of this is that the game isn't complete yet and as the holes develop Blizzard has two expansions to fill them up again. While I understand the idea behind "well why not just put back in Brood War units because they obviously filled all the roles we needed to fill" I understand also that it isn't quite that simple.
Aside from the whole "this is a new game" argument, which I understand there's also the problem that not every unit from Brood War fits in SC2 with the new engine and new faster paced gameplay style.
|
On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote:
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
This is so arbitrary it's not even funny. The raw number of splash control stuff a race has does not directly translate into balance or good game design. You can't just say 'give all races 5 forms of good splash damage' and then the game design and balance is amazing and exciting.
No zerg can afford the gas to make ultras infestors, banelings and lurkers, nor would that be efficient. It's more likely to include one of those units with a mineral-heavy unit like zerglings. And to assert that ultralisks splash means much is laughable.
You have the exact same problem as Dustin Browder and David Kim. You're more afraid of messing the game up than making each unit exciting and improving spacing dynamics of SC2.
On June 18 2012 07:51 Vindicare605 wrote:
Browder has very good reasoning behind why the kind of splash we saw in Brood War can't work in SC2. The engine behind it just makes it too extreme.
Browder has impeccable reasoning and like most designers he can talk about design well. That doesn't mean he can make a game as good as BW though.
Also, when you say 'the engine behind it makes it too extreme,' wtf does that even mean? In one day, the unit spacing could be fixed and your seemingly insurmountable problem disappears. The Starbow and SC2BW guys did it and they're amateurs. Your argument fizzles, just like Browder's cop-out excuses do.
|
On June 18 2012 07:59 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 06:47 Vindicare605 wrote:
The problem with this whole scenario though is that because the Baneling fulfills the same role as the Lurker, were the Lurker to be reintroduced not only would they step on each other's toes in the way adding the Vulture back into Terrans would with Hellions, but they could in fact give Zergs TOO much map control and too much splash damage potential because you're now adding Lurkers into a Zerg unit composition that already can have up to three forms of splash damage in it: Banelings, Ultralisks, and Infestors.
This is why the Lurker cannot come back. Its role has already been taken by another unit and the entire race to a certain extent has been balanced with that in mind.
This is so arbitrary it's not even funny. The raw number of splash control stuff a race has does not directly translate into balance or good game design. You can't just say 'give all races 5 forms of good splash damage' and then the game design and balance is amazing and exciting. No zerg can afford the gas to make ultras infestors, banelings and lurkers, nor would that be efficient. It's more likely to include one of those units with a mineral-heavy unit like zerglings. And to assert that ultralisks splash means much is laughable. You have the exact same problem as Dustin Browder and David Kim. You're more afraid of messing the game up than making each unit exciting and improving spacing dynamics of SC2. Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 07:51 Vindicare605 wrote:
Browder has very good reasoning behind why the kind of splash we saw in Brood War can't work in SC2. The engine behind it just makes it too extreme.
Browder has impeccable reasoning and like most designers he can talk about design well. That doesn't mean he can make a game as good as BW though. Also, when you say 'the engine behind it makes it too extreme,' wtf does that even mean? In one day, the unit spacing could be fixed and your seemingly insurmountable problem disappears. The Starbow and SC2BW guys did it and they're amateurs. Your argument fizzles, just like Browder's cop-out excuses do.
Here's the disagreement.
You feel like the unit clumping in SC2 is a problem that needs to be corrected. While the developers feel it's a part of the game in the same way the pathing in SC1 was. Rather than just split stuff up which they can do, they want to make the game balanced despite it the same way they did with Brood War's pathing 10 years ago.
So while the developers are trying to make what they have work, you're asking them to completely rework a core part of the game in order to make what you envision and want work better.
You see how that works?
Sure you might feel like it'd make the game better, but whose to say that opinion is correct. It might make it better for you and others and worse for a whole ton of other people. At what point should the developers completely rework something just because part of the community wants them to in order to make a game more suited to their tastes?
As per the Lurker and Baneling problem the same issue is here. You have your own set of priorities for what you want to see in the game while the developers have theirs. You're totally fine instituting a dynamic that's potentially completely overpowered just for the sake of making things more exciting to you, while the developers look at that same scenario and see unneeded hassle because the unit's role is already fulfilled in a way the community is happy with for the most part. I mean how often do you really hear cries for the baneling to be removed? It's a unit that a majority of the community is totally fine with.
See the difference here is that the developers are trying to make the game they created better, while you want them to tear down part of it and make it different not knowing whether or not it WOULD be any better but just because it would feel more like Brood War to you.
Here's how everyone wins. Mods. The developers can keep making the game they want, and the community can make theirs. If the modded version is better for tournament play, then tournaments will eventually start using it the same way DOTA tournaments sprang up out of a Warcraft 3 mod and became huge.
At the end of the day. Starcraft 2 is already a game a ton of people enjoy. While for some the kinds of changes you want would make it better for others it wouldn't, and whose to say that your opinion somehow has more authority just because your goal is to make the game like Brood War.
The game is already fun, the HOTS demo I played is already a lot fun. Just because it isn't Brood War doesn't mean it isn't already awesome.
|
Lurkers would be great-for marauders to shit all over. Locusts promise to be more effective against the marauders than a lurker would be.
|
On June 18 2012 08:56 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Lurkers would be great-for marauders to shit all over. Locusts promise to be more effective against the marauders than a lurker would be.
No one would cry if they removed marauders, which is a bigger problem with the game itself than lurkers not being there.
|
Canada11583 Posts
How would a fix to unit clumping be worse? Who would it be worse for? It's better in the top end to limit death balls and it's better for the low end because it's easier to tell what's going on. Certainly the game has been balanced based on unit clumping, but it can be rebalanced with any one of these expansions.
From Dreamhack today.
+ Show Spoiler +
I've got a file of these. It's just really hard to tell what's going on. Even if you don't have healthbars on- and that's just as much an issue at the low level/ casual viewing. Perhaps more so.
I don't know if Mods will be the answer as Blizzard exercises a far greater amount of control then they did before. Even with experimenting with low resource maps. In the past, we just did it. Now we have to beg Blizzard to test it out on ladder because that's mostly where people play.
|
Broodlords make ZvP such an awful matchup to watch. Now they're making land broodlords ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jUsCy.png)
