Why do we need to explain to people who have only a faint idea what an RTS is about how a very specific attack works? Do you do that with marine splitting as well? It visually stand on it's own as impressive. Of course the more they know about it, the more impressive it is, but move shot requires no explanation when you see it in action.
I think you are getting hung up on the word "stop" as somehow being counterintuitive. Would it help to say what you are doing is stopping the unit from going one direction and immediately sending it another direction after firing a shot? The importance is in the speed that the unit can change directions and shoot.
Now if 'Hold" is too confusing you can find some unused key and designate it "fire" or something, but that's a purely cosmetic change. I'm not sure why we're relying on intuition here when all you need to read or be told how to perform these cool tricks that the pro's have learned. It's a perfectly reasonable series of commands. Forward motion. Halt forward motion and fire, Backwards motion. However, because of the unit design, the switch from one direction to the other, the unit doesn't lose momentum. Whereas unmicroed units will do what they do in SC2, come to a stop and fire. Or else slow down slightly/ behave somewhat sluggishly.
Giving every unit the ability of "glide" makes the game super cluttered when the same trick can be used over and over again without turning it into an "ability." Especially if you end up adding cooldown or something like blink. The biggest importance is that it units with constant attention perform supremely better than simply a-moving it. It rewards multitaskers and people of skill and it is super, super fast. Twitch control is I think what Day9 calls it. It's one of the fundamental things most modern RTS's are missing. (SupCom2 being a prime example.)
Animation-cancelling is actually very common to see in Dota/Moba style games as well, which is more or less what patrol micro for vultures tries to achieve. I don't really see why it can't be implemented into something like SC2. I wouldn't care less if it wasn't used with the patrol button, but this sort of behavior does increase maneuverability of units. To BW players, SC2 without this sort of control is a lot like not having stutter step in SC2.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Why do we need to explain to people who have only a faint idea what an RTS is about how a very specific attack works? Do you do that with marine splitting as well?
Marine splitting makes sense, as long as you understand two things. 1: Marines face Banelings. 2: Banelings do AoE damage. Splitting is immediately obvious as a solution to this problem.
It's obviously very difficult to do. But the person who has only the faintest idea of what an RTS is can understand it. That's what makes for an intuitive mechanic.
As to why mechanics should be intuitive... I'm not sure that's a question that needs answers. Everything should be intuitive; the better question is why the mechanic should be unintuitive.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Of course the more they know about it, the more impressive it is, but move shot requires no explanation when you see it in action.
Sure it does. When I first saw Muta micro, I tried executing it by doing what it looked like they were doing. Moving forward, attack-moving, moving backwards, then moving forwards again. It didn't work.
Again, look at Marine splitting. How to split Marines is obvious. Select some of them them; tell them to move. Select others; tell them to move. Actually executing it is hard, but knowing what to do is both simple and obvious.
"Moving shot" is not. And that's the problem with it. It should still be hard to do, but the fact that it is even possible should not be hidden from players. If you see someone doing it, you should have a pretty good idea of how to do it, even if you're not good enough to actually pull it off yourself.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Now if 'Hold" is too confusing you can find some unused key and designate it "fire" or something, but that's a purely cosmetic change. I'm not sure why we're relying on intuition here when all you need to read or be told how to perform these cool tricks that the pro's have learned.
Listen to yourself. You're saying that it's a good thing to make a move so unintuitive that the only way you would ever find out how to do it is to look it up in a guide.
Strategy timing is something you can work out for yourself. You can do the math, figure out how many minerals you get per minute, figure out when it's safe to expand. You can figure out which units work against which other units. You can find unit compositions, upgrade timings, etc. You can do all of that by yourself.
But if you want to micro like the pros, you have to read some online guide. You can't figure it out for yourself because of how unintuitive it is. Someone has to tell you.
How is this a good thing? Isn't that the sign of an unintuitive interface?
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: It's a perfectly reasonable series of commands. Forward motion. Halt forward motion and fire, Backwards motion. However, because of the unit design, the switch from one direction to the other, the unit doesn't lose momentum.
That's where it becomes unreasonable. By definition, if you have executed the "halt forward motion and fire" command, you have lost momentum. Momentum comes from motion; if you've halted it, then you've lost momentum. There's simply no connection between this sequence of commands and the effect you get of retaining speed.
You say it's "because of unit design"; that's exactly where the unintuitive part comes from. The units do not behave as the commands you give them would lead you to expect. Why do you have to use "halt forward motion and fire" instead of "attack/move in that direction?" Why is it that the latter functions in a completely different way? Wouldn't it make sense that if you want the unit to stop and attack, you use the command that causes the unit to stop and attack? You know, the attack command?
This sequence of commands is used because it works, because it does what you want. Not because it makes sense.
Blizzard simply took this stuff away because it didn't make sense (though more technically, they simply never put it in because they didn't replicate the unintended behavior in SC1's AI). I'm saying that they should change the sequence of commands so that it does make sense.
Permit me an analogy. In the early days of multiplayer FPS games, there were two "advanced" moves that came to the forefront: rocket jumping and bunny hopping.
Rocket jumping is a very intuitive mechanic. What you need to understand in order to perform it is precisely four things: 1: explosions send people flying. 2: you can survive explosions if you have enough life. 3: you can fire rockets (which cause explosions when they hit things) in any direction. 4: you can jump. Rocket jumping is made inevitable by these simple facts. I discovered rocket jumping by seeing someone else do it. And once I saw it, I started doing it myself. It obviously took time before I was skilled at it, but it was clear and obvious what they were doing.
Bunny hopping is a completely different beast. It is an outgrowth of the way that a certain optimization in the movement and collision-response systems were coded in certain early FPS games. You can watch someone doing bunny hopping and have no idea at all how they're doing it. You can see that they're jumping and moving around, but you can't learn from just that. You would need a guide or tutorial to figure it out.
One mechanic is obvious and intuitive. The other is not. Now yes, bunny hopping has had a strong effect on competitive FPS play; I'm not disputing that. But you can't tell me that they couldn't change the method of executing bunny hopping into something more intuitive for players, so that they could discover them for themselves.
I don't understand how someone can be against the interface making sense. You still have all that control and such you want from SC1. You just have an interface where it makes more sense and is obvious for everyone what's happening.
On June 21 2012 12:05 Falling wrote: Giving every unit the ability of "glide" makes the game super cluttered when the same trick can be used over and over again without turning it into an "ability." Especially if you end up adding cooldown or something like blink. The biggest importance is that it units with constant attention perform supremely better than simply a-moving it. It rewards multitaskers and people of skill and it is super, super fast. Twitch control is I think what Day9 calls it. It's one of the fundamental things most modern RTS's are missing. (SupCom2 being a prime example.)
Marines don't have "moving shot" in SC1; only certain units can do that. So you pick some units that you want to be microable in this way.
My point is that by making it an explicit ability, it draws attention to it and invites players to actually use it, rather than hiding it behind the interface and making it something you have to look up online. You can explain with the in-game interface, telling the player how the ability affects how the unit moves and responds.
Thus, the ability isn't hidden in some community's online wiki; it's not some hack cobbled together by dozens of players who stumbled onto some aspect of the game's physics system. It is a fundamental, designed part of the game.
Combos in Street Fighter were an accident, an outgrowth of a programming anomaly, just like this sort of micro. But Capcom embraced it and made it a fundamental part of the game. They took move-canceling and used it.
All I'm suggesting is that Blizzard do the same. Not by simply porting it over exactly as it was, but by doing what Capcom did: embracing it and adopting it as a designed feature. Blizzard should take this behavior and wrap it in an explicit ability, where it can be easily seen and otherstood.
Not to mention, by making it an ability, you can now have different kinds of these movement abilities. I can't come up with an example right now, but the concept has plenty of design potential behind it.
On June 21 2012 14:24 Nazza wrote: Animation-cancelling is actually very common to see in Dota/Moba style games as well, which is more or less what patrol micro for vultures tries to achieve. I don't really see why it can't be implemented into something like SC2. I wouldn't care less if it wasn't used with the patrol button, but this sort of behavior does increase maneuverability of units. To BW players, SC2 without this sort of control is a lot like not having stutter step in SC2.
Agreed. I'd like to see these techniques be made available in SC2. Just not in the same way that they were available in SC1.
So Nicol, how can we get Browder and his team to implement moving shot/patrol micro and 'twitch control' as designed features in SC2?
They have already shown reluctance for moving shot, and the joke that is phoenix control is like a slap in the face to anyone who actually understood moving shot and why it was exciting.
I propose we make a mod of SC2 with a popular BW map with our proposed control/unit spacing changes, somehow get it in the hands of TLBS, and start a populist movement to get these in SC2 or else.
On June 28 2012 23:58 0neder wrote: So Nicol, how can we get Browder and his team to implement moving shot/patrol micro and 'twitch control' as designed features in SC2?
They have already shown reluctance for moving shot, and the joke that is phoenix control is like a slap in the face to anyone who actually understood moving shot and why it was exciting.
I propose we make a mod of SC2 with a popular BW map with our proposed control/unit spacing changes, somehow get it in the hands of TLBS, and start a populist movement to get these in SC2 or else.
If it actually happens, it would be because of something like this. The most important aspect is communication, which requires two things: stating the idea clearly, and delivering that information to the party in question.
The best way to make it absolutely clear what the community wants is with an actual, in-game example. I wouldn't suggest using a SC1 map for it; a SC2 map would work just as well.
Indeed, that's probably one of the biggest obstacles: so many arguments for these things will often harp on how SC1 had it, and how much better SC2 would be if it just did things the way SC1 did it. Well, Blizzard doesn't want to hear that. Whether that's right for them to ignore that argument or not is irrelevant; they clearly mentally tune out when people start talking SC1 mechanics.
So it's important that this map not simply dump SC1 units into SC2. It can't just be a modification of the SC2BW map. It needs to use StarCraft II units and elements. The argument cannot be, "These were good in SC1. Put it in SC2." The argument must be, "These are good ideas. Put them in SC2." And the best way to do that is to use existing SC2 units and twink them out.
Such a map would make it very clear what it is that the community is asking for. And that the community isn't just bellyaching because SC2 isn't SC1, that these ideas have merit regardless of where they come from.
The issue then is actually getting the information through Blizzard's wall of information. To do that would require getting pro players to talk about it alot. Get Day[9] to talk about it. The key is to do something more than just have a map and post it on the forums. People who routinely have Blizzard's ear, like regular interviewers, need to be bringing the map up. In short, the community needs to say, in one clear, strong voice, DO THIS!
People should make skills videos, showing off the skill difference between low-level micro and high-level micro. Hell, someone could make a tutorial explaining in meticulous detail exactly how the mechanics work with each unit, showing off the default attack-move behavior, followed by how to use the mechanic to achieve greater control and effects.
And again, the community needs to downplay the SC1 connection; I can't stress this enough. If you want to pierce Blizzard's wall of information, it is vital that it not be seen as whining about how SC2 is not like SC1. The argument is, and must always be, that these mechanics make SC2 better. If the community starts talking about it as "the SC1 in SC2 map," or whatever, then it's DOA. Blizzard will just put their hands over their ears and pretend nobody's saying anything.
The map would need to have a good name. Something catchy. Something that would state what it's all about without also being condescending towards SC2. I'm not good with names, so that's up to whoever does it.
Ultimately, if the community really wants this, it will require a concerted effort. That means getting lots of important people on-board with promoting it. We build the map, then we put the map everywhere. We get lots of people playing it and talking about it. We get lots of people promoting it.
This map needs to be so big that Blizzard simply can't ignore it.
And you'll also need to understand that Blizzard isn't going to do it for HOTS; it's way too late for changes like this (especially the spacing thing, as it would require a lot of unit rebalancing).
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Looks like a nash equilibrium here. The community would be upset at either option, but blizz opts to go for the less practical path because the outcome of each prospective event would be greater despite the diminishing of the whole.
All in all, we get a shittier game, people keep complaining, and everything gets worse.
On June 17 2012 01:08 ejozl wrote: You forgot the flying defiler, the viper. But ye, blizz staff is running out of ideas. Just look at the tempest....
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
Quake 2 was not quake 1 , CiV is not CiV IV , diablo 2 is not diablo 1 and many many more games can be named in this example Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ? , answer is everyone that play BW + like 20-30% of people that buy Sc2 already , maby 30% , but not more. You can write what you wanna.. , but the fact is Sc2 is revolution in RTS games , in E-sport. Look how many pro gamers switch from other games , you think they would swtich to 3D copy of BW ? ,where players that play it for years should win every tournament. Sc2 made so many names in e-sport.. TLO , Morrow , Torzain ..Moon , Grubby BOXER ! , JulyZerg MMA NesTea MVP and many many more... They all come from diffrent games.. with diffrent history... but they are all united under Sc2.
Like i write , you can shit talk over blizzard , over Dustin.. but they make revolution with sc2 in e-sport. Only LOL is now bigger e-sport title then sc2 , its casual game and we cant compere that , but yes LOL has big numbers. And now imagine... Sc2 is ONLY 1.5 year old...no expansion ... balance is not finish.
Wait for last expansion for Sc2 and then write blizz staff is running out of ideas... now everyone is a developer.. , its funny.. like at EURO 2012 In Poland/Ukraine , when team is wining its ok , but when it lose a game , everyone is coach, they know better what goes wrong etc..
On June 29 2012 10:56 Dontkillme wrote: This is SCII not SC:BW so if they bring back old units, they will be criticized for not being creative IMO.
The amount of people wanting something completely new pales in number to the people that long for better unit designs of BW. They either want new good unit designs or BW units, since Browder's team is hit-or-miss with unit design, they call for the latter.
On June 29 2012 10:55 pallad wrote: Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ?
Your argument is a straw man. I am not advocating a 3D remake of BW, nor are most in this thread. The point of this thread is: if you're going to rehash SC2 units ANYWAY, and they don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting, WHY NOT just add the old unit back in?
There is a generation of players unfamiliar with BW, why would they criticize SC2 for unoriginality? Of course they wouldn't Sc2 is new to them! Then, there is a generation of players whose favorite unit is the lurker, reaver, defiler, etc. the lurker is probably the most beloved BW unit by players! Just ask Day9. NonY picked it up because of the Reaver. Same with Boxer.
Additionally, players like Fantasy made their career on vulture patrol micro and others on lurker usage. SC2 would KEEP the adoration of the best RTS players in the world for sure if moving shot were implemented. Now it remains to be seen, and based on initial reaction and the emotional rollercoaster of being the best in the world at something and having to start at zero again, TLBS and their caliber of players NEED to LOVE this sequel in order to have the motivation to repeat their past glory. Otherwise they will retire or try something new like LoL, etc.
So to answer your question, MUCH more people would play SC2 if it had a few more BW units, both in Korea and elsewhere. In particular, the SC2 pro playerbase would probably win back some attention from LoL.
On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote: It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them?
Looks like a nash equilibrium here. The community would be upset at either option, but blizz opts to go for the less practical path because the outcome of each prospective event would be greater despite the diminishing of the whole.
All in all, we get a shittier game, people keep complaining, and everything gets worse.
No just your perception because everything was better back then.
On June 29 2012 10:56 Dontkillme wrote: This is SCII not SC:BW so if they bring back old units, they will be criticized for not being creative IMO.
The amount of people wanting something completely new pales in number to the people that long for better unit designs of BW. They either want new good unit designs or BW units, since Browder's team is hit-or-miss with unit design, they call for the latter.
On June 29 2012 10:55 pallad wrote: Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ?
Your argument is a straw man. I am not advocating a 3D remake of BW, nor are most in this thread. The point of this thread is: if you're going to rehash SC2 units ANYWAY, and they don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting, WHY NOT just add the old unit back in?
Because they're not the same. The Viper is not a Defiler. It has similar aspects to a Defiler, but it is not used the same way, it doesn't cost the same, and it creates different gameplay. It is a similar unit, but it is different.
Furthermore, it's not like the design space of StarCraft is infinite or something. If you want a Zerg unit that can control space, that is stronger when not moving, having it's positional effectiveness key off of burrow is a very natural, Zergish solution to this design problem. Exactly how it keys off of burrow is the difference between the Lurker and the Swarm Host, but they both come from the same idea. If SC1 never had a Lurker, the Swarm Host could still have been created.
It is a rehash only because it is the most sensible way of making a Zerg unit do that.
As for whether they "don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting," that's not a fact in evidence. That can only be determined with time.
Personally, I rather like Swarm Hosts more than Lurkers.
On June 29 2012 11:09 0neder wrote: There is a generation of players unfamiliar with BW, why would they criticize SC2 for unoriginality? Of course they wouldn't Sc2 is new to them! Then, there is a generation of players whose favorite unit is the lurker, reaver, defiler, etc. the lurker is probably the most beloved BW unit by players!
You seem to forget the generation that is both familiar with SC1 and wants something different for SC2. Shocking though it may be to believe, it's possible to like Lurkers, Reavers, and Defilers, while still wanting them replaced in SC2.
I liked SC1. I watched pro SC1 for a long time. And I still want a new game, with new units. Even if they do have similar abilities to old ones, I want that difference.
On June 29 2012 10:56 Dontkillme wrote: This is SCII not SC:BW so if they bring back old units, they will be criticized for not being creative IMO.
The amount of people wanting something completely new pales in number to the people that long for better unit designs of BW. They either want new good unit designs or BW units, since Browder's team is hit-or-miss with unit design, they call for the latter.
On June 29 2012 10:55 pallad wrote: Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ?
Your argument is a straw man. I am not advocating a 3D remake of BW, nor are most in this thread. The point of this thread is: if you're going to rehash SC2 units ANYWAY, and they don't quite work out as well or aren't quite as exciting, WHY NOT just add the old unit back in?
There is a generation of players unfamiliar with BW, why would they criticize SC2 for unoriginality? Of course they wouldn't Sc2 is new to them! Then, there is a generation of players whose favorite unit is the lurker, reaver, defiler, etc. the lurker is probably the most beloved BW unit by players! Just ask Day9. NonY picked it up because of the Reaver. Same with Boxer.
Additionally, players like Fantasy made their career on vulture patrol micro and others on lurker usage. SC2 would KEEP the adoration of the best RTS players in the world for sure if moving shot were implemented. Now it remains to be seen, and based on initial reaction and the emotional rollercoaster of being the best in the world at something and having to start at zero again, TLBS and their caliber of players NEED to LOVE this sequel in order to have the motivation to repeat their past glory. Otherwise they will retire or try something new like LoL, etc.
So to answer your question, MUCH more people would play SC2 if it had a few more BW units, both in Korea and elsewhere. In particular, the SC2 pro playerbase would probably win back some attention from LoL.
I had to comment on this comment because its just so rediculous. The only people who you hear from on thread like this on any sc related site are complaining, complaining and doing more complaining making multiple threads all the time. People who like the game dont spend all day on multiple sites praising it. Only the complainers are creating threads all the time hence the reason it seems like there are more unhappy then happy. I think sc2 is not only a different game but a more advanced game. Its easy to balance units when the pathing ai is completely retarded for all units. No more dancing units anymore. The units actually work well. They have to balance units stats much more finely to help with the inherent imbalance that comes with advanced engines
On June 22 2012 06:03 NicolBolas wrote: My point is that by making it an explicit ability, it draws attention to it and invites players to actually use it, rather than hiding it behind the interface and making it something you have to look up online. You can explain with the in-game interface, telling the player how the ability affects how the unit moves and responds.
Thus, the ability isn't hidden in some community's online wiki; it's not some hack cobbled together by dozens of players who stumbled onto some aspect of the game's physics system. It is a fundamental, designed part of the game.
If someone enjoys playing the game I don't think it really matters if something is implicit or explicit, they'll eventually find out about it either way, but at least for me personally I think the difference lies in that if a game tries to explicitly state how to play it, it almost comes across as belittling, as though the game thinks I'm unable to think and work things out for myself, requiring force feeding for me to ever do anything. Working things out for yourself is the kind of thing that makes you feel good about a game and like it even more.
And as for the second point, I'd like to compare it to creep stacking in DotA. There's nothing in the game that states explicitly that you can stack creeps or what creep stacking would even achieve, yet a good chunk of people know how to do it and use it effectively. I actually get the impression that if the game tried to explain it to new players it would actually be detrimental since you'd have people doing it who more than likely don't fully understand the full implications of it so would just end up feeding the enemy team stacks and stacks of free ancients.
On June 17 2012 01:08 ejozl wrote: You forgot the flying defiler, the viper. But ye, blizz staff is running out of ideas. Just look at the tempest....
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
Quake 2 was not quake 1 , CiV is not CiV IV , diablo 2 is not diablo 1 and many many more games can be named in this example Blizzard is A COMPANY , they must make money.. How many people would buy Sc2 if Sc2 was just 3D remake of BW ? , answer is everyone that play BW + like 20-30% of people that buy Sc2 already , maby 30% , but not more. You can write what you wanna.. , but the fact is Sc2 is revolution in RTS games , in E-sport. Look how many pro gamers switch from other games , you think they would swtich to 3D copy of BW ? ,where players that play it for years should win every tournament. Sc2 made so many names in e-sport.. TLO , Morrow , Torzain ..Moon , Grubby BOXER ! , JulyZerg MMA NesTea MVP and many many more... They all come from diffrent games.. with diffrent history... but they are all united under Sc2.
Like i write , you can shit talk over blizzard , over Dustin.. but they make revolution with sc2 in e-sport. Only LOL is now bigger e-sport title then sc2 , its casual game and we cant compere that , but yes LOL has big numbers. And now imagine... Sc2 is ONLY 1.5 year old...no expansion ... balance is not finish.
Wait for last expansion for Sc2 and then write blizz staff is running out of ideas... now everyone is a developer.. , its funny.. like at EURO 2012 In Poland/Ukraine , when team is wining its ok , but when it lose a game , everyone is coach, they know better what goes wrong etc..
No, everyone is a gamer with an opinion. If they don't think Blizzard is putting out good ideas, then tough shit, they don't think Blizzard is putting out good ideas. Their opinion isn't invalidated because you have some ridiculous notion swirling in your head that you can't criticize a game developer without being a developer yourself. You'd be amazed to find out that Blizzard, the game developer, makes games for the gamers who play, and subsequently, criticize it, because you don't have to bend over and accept everything -- regardless of whether or not Blizzard is doing a good job with SC2.
It isn't our JOB to give Blizzard ideas. We don't get PAID. They do. We CHOOSE to play the game they MADE for US. And the sad part is, whether or not HotS turns out to be amazing, we're all going to buy it regardless. So we now must hold them to their high standards.
On June 17 2012 01:08 ejozl wrote: You forgot the flying defiler, the viper. But ye, blizz staff is running out of ideas. Just look at the tempest....
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
This is a really stupid argument, because you cant just abandon the first installment of a series which are linked by a story. Thus the removal of the Carrier in HotS is really stupid. The main point of criticism is that BW had a decent balance and neat gameplay/competition and Blizzard *should have* learned that "more and faster" doesnt equal to "better" in an RTS.
The new units shown in the first alpha version of HotS are sooo imbalanced that it really hurts, because the imbalance isnt really fixed by twiddling numbers (damage), but rather unfixable due to the design. Best example for this is the Viper, which gets a super defensive ability to make themselves "immune" against most ground units while being able to circumvent/neutralize/kill any strategy involving expensive units ... without the opponent being able to do anything against it. In that regard it is much worse that Mind Control, because you can simply kill the Infestor controlling your Thor or Colossus and it isnt simply pulled into a deathtrap instantly.
The balancing of abilities in BW was really acceptable, but the new mechanics of SC2 (larva inject, MULE, chronoboost, tight unit formation, unlimited unit selection) make an adjustment of balance rather necessary before adding a BW unit. Area attacks have been tuned down A LOT already (in comparison to BW stats) at the beginning of SC2 as an example.
So to answer your post and sticking to your style: SC2 IS A SEQUEL AND NEEDS TO HAVE MORE STUFF FROM THE FIRST PART!
mm well if anything I don't like how they are bringing blinding cloud into the game. Zerg already has fungal and banes against marines, wont the blinding cloud be big overkill? If anything, zerg needs something against a protoss deathball rather than a terran deathball. So bringing a sort of (I know it's not dark swarm. Hell, if it were dark swarm it wouldve been a good addition) BW ability back doesn't seem so great, because it simply doesnt fit within the current standing of the game.
Does anyone have any info as to why they are adding in another anti-bio ability for zerg btw?
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
This is a really stupid argument, because you cant just abandon the first installment of a series which are linked by a story. Thus the removal of the Carrier in HotS is really stupid. The main point of criticism is that BW had a decent balance and neat gameplay/competition and Blizzard *should have* learned that "more and faster" doesnt equal to "better" in an RTS.
I just wish the Carrier was cut from the start. The explanation that Auier is in ruins and that they've settled their capital in Shakuras was enough for me. My quote about the Tempest being unoriginal, is because: At first they made it a counter to late game mutas. They then proceeded to kinda fix it with the phoenix range upgrade and got bad feedback back from the community about the Tempest. They removed the splash and was stuck with this silly looking model and i can just imagine up to the MLG HotS testing, they were at a meeting talking about, how to make the unit more interesting and said, how about we give it a ridiculous range and so they did. The unit seems really rushed and flawed design-wise.
Then maby you tell your ideas ?? lol.. Now everyone is game developer... LEAVE THE BW BEHIND its past..SC 2 IS NOT BW , how more time people need to learn that..
This is a really stupid argument, because you cant just abandon the first installment of a series which are linked by a story. Thus the removal of the Carrier in HotS is really stupid. The main point of criticism is that BW had a decent balance and neat gameplay/competition and Blizzard *should have* learned that "more and faster" doesnt equal to "better" in an RTS.
I just wish the Carrier was cut from the start. The explanation that Auier is in ruins and that they've settled their capital in Shakuras was enough for me. My quote about the Tempest being unoriginal, is because: At first they made it a counter to late game mutas. They then proceeded to kinda fix it with the phoenix range upgrade and got bad feedback back from the community about the Tempest. They removed the splash and was stuck with this silly looking model and i can just imagine up to the MLG HotS testing, they were at a meeting talking about, how to make the unit more interesting and said, how about we give it a ridiculous range and so they did. The unit seems really rushed and flawed design-wise.
I would like to add that this is the original tempest :
@1:22
Blizzard actually never have a consistent theme for this unit and just change them however they want it. The name and the model to them has nothing to deal with its gameply (unlike the colossus)
EPT
