|
On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote:
By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army.
what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
|
Rokoz I think Blizzard is trying to do that with their new units. Keep in mind that what ultimately controls the various battles, are the various maps that these engagements take place on. This does in no way mean I do not believe our present maps are imbalanced. It simply means that I believe neither the units or the UI are the only things that can be balanced/made more spectator friendly.
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
|
On July 01 2012 03:08 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 14:57 convention wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game. Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy. He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1. Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me. The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing) Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics. Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play. And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically.
1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining.
2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences.
On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss. And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it. Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are. You just don't get it do you? lol I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers.
Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
|
On July 01 2012 05:15 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 03:08 NicolBolas wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 14:57 convention wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game. Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy. He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1. On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me. The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing) Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics. Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play. And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically. 1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences. Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss. And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it. Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are. You just don't get it do you? lol I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers. Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts.
|
On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:
Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference.
I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself.
Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it.
Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier?
Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
|
On July 01 2012 05:29 convention wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:15 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 03:08 NicolBolas wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 14:57 convention wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game. Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy. He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1. On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me. The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing) Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics. Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play. And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically. 1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences. On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss. And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it. Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are. You just don't get it do you? lol I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers. Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts.
Never said that you didn't like the way Storm/Emp works. "I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game." Yeah 'about that. That IS complaining that one storm can become the game changer elements. Aka wanting to make the game easier. Looks like you can definitely learn a lesson or two about misreading posts.
|
On July 01 2012 05:15 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 03:08 NicolBolas wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 14:57 convention wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game. Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy. He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1. On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me. The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing) Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics. Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play. And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically. 1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences. Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss. And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it. Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are. You just don't get it do you? lol I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers. Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm
What is that even supposed to mean? It's not even an argument, you're just making arbitrary statements about SC2 that are incorrect.
On July 01 2012 05:35 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:29 convention wrote:On July 01 2012 05:15 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 03:08 NicolBolas wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 14:57 convention wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game. Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy. He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1. On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me. The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing) Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics. Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play. And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically. 1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences. On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss. And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it. Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are. You just don't get it do you? lol I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers. Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts. Never said that you didn't like the way Storm/Emp works. "I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game." Yeah 'about that. That IS complaining that one storm can become the game changer elements. Aka wanting to make the game easier. Looks like you can definitely learn a lesson or two about misreading posts.
Just two pages ago you stated storms don't have as big of an impact, implying they're ineffectual. You've been thoroughly corrected and you've now redirected that discussion into accusations of complaint, as if stating facts should mean you're whining. Get over yourself. Lol.
|
On July 01 2012 05:41 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:15 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 03:08 NicolBolas wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 14:57 convention wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game. Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy. He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1. On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me. The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing) Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics. Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play. And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically. 1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences. On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss. And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it. Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are. You just don't get it do you? lol I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers. Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm What is that even supposed to mean? It's not even an argument, you're just making arbitrary statements about SC2 that are incorrect. Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:35 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 05:29 convention wrote:On July 01 2012 05:15 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 03:08 NicolBolas wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 14:57 convention wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game. Stop complaining, play better than the opponent. Progaming wouldn't exist if the game is TOO easy. He's not complaining. He's pointing out that in SC2, a single well-placed Storm or EMP can still change the game. He's saying that you do have to be alert all the time, just like SC1. On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 13:52 lorkac wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. I'm confused. Your content agrees with me, but your tone disagrees with me. The unit design is not the issue, it's (as you say) "player skill" that is the issue. Adding a lurker into SC2 will not change the way the units are controlled. Adding Arbiters will not provide you the same dragoon/bunker dynamic that made early game PvT interesting to watch. Heck, adding Dragoons would not give you the Dragoon/Bunker dynamic. (Autorepair means you literally just set and forget unlike in BW where you had to send just enough scvs to repair the bunker just slowly enough that they don't fully heal the bunker and stop the repairing) Trying to add BW units does not change anything because the design of the BW units was not what made the gameplay dynamics. Adding a lurker will most certainly force the Terran to pay more attention to their army. Once stepped on those babies, your whole army is gone in a blink of an eye. This ELEVATES the level of play. And so do burrowed Banelings. So do burrowed Infestors. The point he's making is that we already have that elevation of play, that need to pay attention to the army. It just doesn't use Lurkers specifically. 1. Stop it, he specifically said that people complaining. 2. Let's make the analogy that Bannelings = Lurkers and Infestors = Defilers. Everyone would agree that they would rather get hit by the SC2 counterparts than the BW ones because Lurkers can be re-used over and over again and can't be kite'd while Bannelings can be scanned and killed off by outranging them without taking one single hit. Oh yeah Defilers's Plague deals more dmg than Fungal Growth and Dark Swarm is more useful. So facing against stronger units, your psychological mind will simply pay more attention due to higher consequences. On July 01 2012 03:54 Tyrant0 wrote:On July 01 2012 01:42 Xiphos wrote:On July 01 2012 00:27 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 20:18 Xiphos wrote:On June 30 2012 18:02 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 30 2012 12:47 Xiphos wrote:
^no its player's skill issue.
In BW, you kind of have to be alert at all time.
In SC2, Stormed my whole army? Not as big impact. Storms end games, lol. A lot of pros won't even turn their attention from their army when its out on the map late game PvT because of how quickly one cloaked EMP/Snipe/Feedback spam/Storm can snap the game into a complete loss. And they are still called 'pros' after that? Doubt it. Yeah. I'm not sure we're watching the same game. At least, I'm not sure you are. You just don't get it do you? lol I'm sorry? You've made multiple, incorrect statements. I don't care whether you doubt they're pro-gamers. Because everybody wants to care listen to a guy w/ a baseless support on his argument. /sarcasm I referenced how most people think storm world the exact way you wish it did. I mention you can find threads complaining about it as support since they are easy to find. For the record, I like the way storm/emp works. You keep making incorrect claims and misreading posts. Never said that you didn't like the way Storm/Emp works. "I'm confused as well. You can find many threads complaining about how it just takes one storm or one emp to completely change the game." Yeah 'about that. That IS complaining that one storm can become the game changer elements. Aka wanting to make the game easier. Looks like you can definitely learn a lesson or two about misreading posts. Just a page ago you stated that storms don't do much in SC2 (as opposed to BW). You've been thoroughly corrected and you've now redirected that discussion into accusations of complaint, as if stating facts should mean you're complaining. Get over yourself. Lol.
1. Tell me what are you doing? Making arbitrary statements about my posts that are incorrect. Talk about being a hypocrite. I gave many reasoning behind my post. Why don't you support yourself with evidence when challenging someone.
2. And how have I been corrected if I have repeatedly proved that my point stands? Read it over.
|
Btw people, calling something arbitrary is a cop out.
|
You two...
Let me state facts:
1. In both games storms are very strong, but in BW storms per se are a little bit stronger because of:
(a) all BW core units of all races take considerable damage (most of them die if kept under full effect) from a storm, while in SC2 roaches can tank them well, just like P units too;
(b) in BW, casting blanket storms required an insane amount of mechanical skill, while in SC2 you can queue them up easily. For this reason I guess they nerfed the storm damage in SC2.
(c) BW pathing and unit responsiveness can screw up you when you are trying to dodge storms, while in SC2 units respond very well to the player's commands and pathing is really well coded.
2. SC2 doesn't need old units, SC2 needs units with better design. Are some of the old units designs fit for SC2? If yes, there should be no reluctancy into adding them back. If not, just add new units with good design.
3. Entomb is just plain dumb.
4. The Tempest looks inferior to the Carrier design-wise.
And now my personal opinion:
1. I don't like the Locusts mechanics. Spamming units feels annoying and pollutes the playfield. In this particular case I think they should give the Swarm Host some other kind of attack that doesn't fucking spam new units. It's different from the Carrier's interceptor, since the interceptor doesn't block units path.
2. That Viper grab skill doesn't belong to the SC gameplay style. Fits DotA and LoL, doesn't fit SC.
3. I hope I misunderstood the auto-targeting goliath-like new Terran unit, because if I think it is what it is, then I believe Blizzard has no idea what Starcraft skillset is. (Mechanics + Strategy + Tactics + Metagame)
|
On July 01 2012 06:04 GGYO111 wrote:
Btw people, calling something arbitrary is a cop out.
I think being a an NFL quarterback is 100x harder and 100x more impressive a feat than being a grandmaster in chess. But I still respect a chess grandmaster more than I respect an NFL quarterback--because I arbitrarily like Chess more than I like the NFL.
I think baking bread is more difficult than frying bacon--but I still prefer bacon over bread.
It's arbitrary which one you like better. Harder does not equal better.
|
On July 01 2012 06:14 fabiano wrote:
You two...
Let me state facts:
1. In both games storms are very strong, but in BW storms per se are a little bit stronger because of:
(a) all BW core units of all races take considerable damage (most of them die if kept under full effect) from a storm, while in SC2 roaches can tank them well, just like P units too;
(b) in BW, casting blanket storms required an insane amount of mechanical skill, while in SC2 you can queue them up easily. For this reason I guess they nerfed the storm damage in SC2.
(c) BW pathing and unit responsiveness can screw up you when you are trying to dodge storms, while in SC2 units respond very well to the player's commands and pathing is really well coded.
2. SC2 doesn't need old units, SC2 needs units with better design. Are some of the old units designs fit for SC2? If yes, there should be no reluctancy into adding them back. If not, just add new units with good design.
3. Entomb is just plain dumb.
4. The Tempest looks inferior to the Carrier design-wise.
And now my personal opinion:
1. I don't like the Locusts mechanics. Spamming units feels annoying and pollutes the playfield. In this particular case I think they should give the Swarm Host some other kind of attack that doesn't fucking spam new units. It's different from the Carrier's interceptor, since the interceptor doesn't block units path.
2. That Viper grab skill doesn't belong to the SC gameplay style. Fits DotA and LoL, doesn't fit SC.
3. I hope I misunderstood the auto-targeting goliath-like new Terran unit, because if I think it is what it is, then I believe Blizzard has no idea what Starcraft skillset is. (Mechanics + Strategy + Tactics + Metagame)
Almost all of your Facts are personal opinions (with exception of maybe 1) so I don't know why you made a separate list for them lol.
|
Hm, maybe 4 is personal.
1, 2 and 3 are definitely facts. Especially 3.
|
I'm just throwing in my 2 cents to get lost in the mess of pages, but I'm reasonably upset that they would rather put in an underground broodlord rather than try to work the lurker back in. It's wildly more original, interesting and fun than the swarm host.
|
On July 01 2012 06:27 Tachion wrote:
I'm just throwing in my 2 cents to get lost in the mess of pages, but I'm reasonably upset that they would rather put in an underground broodlord rather than try to work the lurker back in. It's wildly more original, interesting and fun than the swarm host.
They tried to put in the Lurker in WoL, but since it didn't fit in with their design concept with Zerg and created too many overlaps.
They wanted little to no AA at hatch tech--which meant Hydras get put into Lair tech.
They didn't want sideways tech advancement--so lurkers had to be at Hive tech.
Lurkers at Hive tech turns out to be useless because Lurkers are usually defensive map control units used to delay until you get to hive tech--which you're already in if you had Lurkers.
Could they have removed Queen AA and put Hydras at Tier 1 and Lurkers at lair tech along with buffed roaches? Yes. Why didn't they? I don't know.
|
On July 01 2012 06:23 fabiano wrote:
Hm, maybe 4 is personal.
1, 2 and 3 are definitely facts. Especially 3.
They're all opinions. I do believe they're true--but they're in no way "facts" in the strictest sense of the word.
EDIT:
The Tempest comment really hits close to home for me especially, because I've been telling my friends all along that the best way to make the carrier make sense is if it had double or triple the range it has now because that's the point of a fucking carrier in real life--it's a battle ship that shoots airplanes at the enemy. Blizzard finally sees it and instead they put it on a new unit instead of simply having a 22 range carrier?
I mean really now, 22 range carrier where the interceptors are independant from the carrier. They launch and come back when they are done (not when the carrier moves).
|
On July 01 2012 06:14 fabiano wrote:
You two...
Let me state facts:
1. In both games storms are very strong, but in BW storms per se are a little bit stronger because of:
(a) all BW core units of all races take considerable damage (most of them die if kept under full effect) from a storm, while in SC2 roaches can tank them well, just like P units too;
(b) in BW, casting blanket storms required an insane amount of mechanical skill, while in SC2 you can queue them up easily. For this reason I guess they nerfed the storm damage in SC2.
(c) BW pathing and unit responsiveness can screw up you when you are trying to dodge storms, while in SC2 units respond very well to the player's commands and pathing is really well coded.
They nerfed the storm damage but it's sorta made up for by the fact it'll hit 2x as many units than it did in BW due to clumping. If anything it probably does more total damage per storm. (I'm assuming without math) The units it's used against will still die in 1 full storm minus marauders/mutalisks.
Also roaches/protoss units pretty much the last units to open storm for. Kinda irrelevant.
|
Funny how people argue that abilities should do more damage and then go on to the next thread to tell how EMP is op and fungal should get nerfed :D.
On to the topic itself.
I guess they have to create new units because if they don't, they will get owned by trolls with their "this is just a copy of BW with shiny graphics".
|
On July 01 2012 05:01 Postaljester wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 04:25 Rokoz wrote:
By no means I am suggesting to return to the 12 unit control groups. However I would like to see that all races can't just storm in and win, but they have to organize their units before engagements and the result of the battle would be decided more with good positioning and army control, rather than just sheer power of army. what is wrong with the 12 unit control group? I think 20 would be a rounder number but 12 is a good size for true army control.
Nothing wrong with 12 unit control group. However, I would try first search for different methods to make army control play more important role without making unit cap on control groups. IMO Terran is currently good example how effective army control should be rewarded, Blizzard should try to find ways to make army control count more for Zerg and Protoss.
|
On July 01 2012 05:31 GGYO111 wrote:On July 01 2012 05:14 Zarrow wrote:Show nested quote +Edit: to the above post, have you not read the 30+ pages of people arguing. The result of the debate is that neither UI is better, but each one is simply about personal preference. I think you came to this conclusion all by yourself. Does it not embarrass sc2 fans when famous bw players openly admit that sc2 is easier. That's not my opinion, it's their's, if you don't believe me research it. Why do you think that they say sc2 is easier? Or should I just repeatedly say arbitrary, as if I decide what is arbitrary or not.
name one from recent interviews, gogo.
forgg not too long ago just said sc2 is not easy. I guess your world is collapsing right now
and people stop advocating for 12 unit control or non-MBS. Not going to happen, those are detrimental and terrible designs to games just like how point to move is detrimental to d3. Those are old designs that seriously need to be phased out
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
