|
On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you
They want it more like BW
Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size.
Done.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On July 05 2012 12:41 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you They want it more like BW Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size. Done.
BW maps are really big, dunno what you are talking about
|
On July 05 2012 12:41 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you They want it more like BW Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size. Done.
BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
|
BW maps used in Kespa games are 128x128
Steps of War is 126x126
The smallest SC2 map is only a tiny bit smaller than MAJORITY of BW maps.
|
On July 05 2012 12:54 Vaporak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 12:41 lorkac wrote:On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you They want it more like BW Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size. Done. BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
Actually, I don't think they are. It's just that there is much more open space whereas current SCII maps are so "chokey."
I 100% agree with the space control issue.
|
On July 05 2012 12:58 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 12:54 Vaporak wrote:On July 05 2012 12:41 lorkac wrote:On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you They want it more like BW Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size. Done. BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2. Actually, I don't think they are. It's just that there is much more open space whereas current SCII maps are so "chokey." I 100% agree with the space control issue.
You correct on the size issue.
SC2 Maps are this big
BW Maps are this big
|
On July 05 2012 12:57 lorkac wrote:
BW maps used in Kespa games are 128x128
Steps of War is 126x126
The smallest SC2 map is only a tiny bit smaller than MAJORITY of BW maps.
i've always said we should go back to steppes of war lol. Another reason the deathballs are so prevalent is because the maps are too big and thus give the defender too much of an advantage by just sitting on his ass and making stuff.
of course...this brings back some broken rush builds but meh.
|
On July 05 2012 12:57 lorkac wrote:
BW maps used in Kespa games are 128x128
Steps of War is 126x126
The smallest SC2 map is only a tiny bit smaller than MAJORITY of BW maps.
..... If you have time to dig up numbers, make sure they are ones that actually are helpful. Units move at different speeds and have different sizes anyways.
Time the amount of time it takes for an army to get from one base to another.
|
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote:
I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
2: Late game micro for protoss becomes for challenging, (ie. using warp prisms with reavers to protect that important splash damage), and the skill cap becomes higher, it also gives the Protoss some much needed harassment options.
3: The vikings range no longer has to be 9, it could be reduced to 7 or 8, this opens up (potentially) usage of the carrier in late game PvT.
4: Suddenly PvP becomes probably the coolest matchup in the game and not a collosus count to see who wins.
5: Lastly, and most importantly, we can finally stop seeing the most braindead unit ever created in the greatest RTS game series of all time.
HOTS fixes a lot of issues for Zerg already. Although I don't particularly like the Colossus as a unit, I'm not sure if re-introducing a Reaver will be the fix it solution for Protoss.
One of Hydra's biggest issue is being fixed in HOTS, their speed. With 3.375 movement speed, they move as fast as Stimmed Bio off creep. They're a mobile, extremely quick, high DPS strike force.
With Vipers, they're able to snatch and deal with AOE units, their second weakness.
Nerfing Viking range will bring about other issues in the other match ups. They're meant to be long-range for a reason, to deal with Broodlords and Colossus both. Not just one. They're already essentially glass cannons, having the lowest HP of all specialized anti-armour/anti-light Air units. I didn't include Mutalisk since they're a harassment unit.
With the way units cluster in SCII, a high damage AOE unit like the Reaver would just wreck Bio-balls and Zerg swarms far too easily. Different games require different units.
|
On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote:
I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade.
Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough).
It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous.
|
On July 05 2012 12:54 Vaporak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 12:41 lorkac wrote:On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you They want it more like BW Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size. Done. BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2.
22 range tempest coming  Should address your space control complaint nicely
+ Show Spoiler +Can't believe bliz is attempting replacing the carrier with this gimmic 
|
On July 05 2012 14:26 Nazza wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 12:57 lorkac wrote:
BW maps used in Kespa games are 128x128
Steps of War is 126x126
The smallest SC2 map is only a tiny bit smaller than MAJORITY of BW maps. ..... If you have time to dig up numbers, make sure they are ones that actually are helpful. Units move at different speeds and have different sizes anyways. Time the amount of time it takes for an army to get from one base to another.
I didn't bring up map sizes.
BW maps are smaller than SC2 maps--that's math talking. People who believe that SC2 maps are smaller are plain wrong. Now you feel that it is unit speed that determines this--then that is easy to fix, scale back unit speed for all units across the board. If everything moved half as fast as they did right now, maps would feel twice as big. We already have a button for that in SC2, it's called normal speed. Which means that if the only problem is "map size" then we shouldn't have made maps bigger, we simply had to play at a lower game speed. Done.
|
On July 05 2012 15:24 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote:
I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade. Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough). It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous.
Zerg will not be able to beat a collosus that has half the cost, three times the damage, and three times the speed. (WP speed upgrade)
All the while being less vulnerable to ground based attacks.
|
On July 05 2012 15:33 sGs.Kal_rA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 12:54 Vaporak wrote:On July 05 2012 12:41 lorkac wrote:On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you They want it more like BW Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size. Done. BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2. 22 range tempest coming Should address your space control complaint nicely + Show Spoiler +Can't believe bliz is attempting replacing the carrier with this gimmic
+ Show Spoiler +I can't believe that they're not simply giving the range upgrade to the carrier.... you don't need to be a tempest to have 22 range, a 22 range carrier would be amazingly cool (and fitting to its flavor)
|
On July 05 2012 16:21 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 15:33 sGs.Kal_rA wrote:On July 05 2012 12:54 Vaporak wrote:On July 05 2012 12:41 lorkac wrote:On July 05 2012 11:00 iky43210 wrote:
I would argue the skill ceiling is already ridiculously high that it might as well be infinite. There is no reason to impose changes to make the game more chuncky and creating an even higher barrier for entry would be pros
Difficulty is not a good argument. You could even argue that it would be more difficult to split everything manually compare to have an AI do it for you They want it more like BW Slow down the game speed, zoom in the resolution, shrink down the map size. Done. BW maps are bigger than SC2 maps, in addition to BW armies moving around slower. That plus a lack of units designed for space control is actually my biggest complaint about SC2. 22 range tempest coming Should address your space control complaint nicely + Show Spoiler +Can't believe bliz is attempting replacing the carrier with this gimmic + Show Spoiler +I can't believe that they're not simply giving the range upgrade to the carrier.... you don't need to be a tempest to have 22 range, a 22 range carrier would be amazingly cool (and fitting to its flavor)
Yeah.. fixing the carrier would be a lot better of an idea. Change up the way it micros.. Give it some new ability or buff it up a little.. So many things they can do. Dunno why theyre just giving up on it without ever trying to change it (i'm sure they did some stuff internally but thats all guessing and hoping lol)
|
On July 05 2012 16:20 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 15:24 NicolBolas wrote:On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote:
I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade. Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough). It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous. Zerg will not be able to beat a collosus that has half the cost, three times the damage, and three times the speed. (WP speed upgrade) All the while being less vulnerable to ground based attacks.
Not if they add the scourge.
|
On July 06 2012 03:20 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 16:20 lorkac wrote:On July 05 2012 15:24 NicolBolas wrote:On July 05 2012 12:00 WeaponX.7 wrote:
I would like to state that most of the problems with SC2 could be solved by one simple change; remove the collosus and replace it with the reaver.(imo)
This does a number of things:
1: Hydras instantly become usable in ZvP making the matchup much more dynamic.
Hydras become useable? How exactly? They have 80 health; a Reaver shot does 100 with a +25 upgrade. Hydras die to Reavers. A lot. Combined with the fact that they're slow, I don't see why I would ever build Hydras against Reavers. Granted, I'm not sure the SC2 Zerg can actually function against Protoss wielding Reavers (Roaches help, but probably not enough). It seems more like "Zerg die alot" than helping ZvP. Considering how much units group in SC2, Reavers would be way too dangerous. Zerg will not be able to beat a collosus that has half the cost, three times the damage, and three times the speed. (WP speed upgrade) All the while being less vulnerable to ground based attacks. Not if they add the scourge.
Your solution to a problem created by adding a SC1 unit is to... add another SC1 unit. And if that one causes problems, I'm guessing the solution will be another SC1 unit.
The problem with this conversation is this. The people wanting more SC1 units do so for either one of two reasons:
1: They want good units in the game. There are a number of good units in SC1.
2: They want the game to be exactly like SC1. Not a sequel, a clone.
#2 represents a point of view that can't be reasoned with. They want what they want, and nobody's talking them out of it. They want SC1 with better graphics. There's no point in having a discussion with them because they're not going to budge.
#1 is a position that can be reasoned with. They want to make the game better in an objective sense; SC1 units are used because it had some solid units in it. This position can be placated by creating new units that are also good.
This conversation bogs down because people from group 2 keep getting involved. Blizzard isn't going to make SC1 with better graphics. The sooner you realize this, the better. They're not just going to copy-and-paste SC1 units into the game.
|
zerg managed to deal with reavers just fine in bw. it wouldn't be any different in sc2.
right I forgot about the scourge my bad.lol
|
On July 06 2012 05:32 wcr.4fun wrote:
zerg managed to deal with reavers just fine in bw. it wouldn't be any different in sc2.
right I forgot about the scourge my bad.lol
Scourge wasn't that important in dealing with reavers. Like every other AoE in sc2, reaver would need to be nerfed, that's all.
|
Woah woah, man calm down for Boson's sake lol
They can also just buff dmg done by Spore Crawlers or Hydralisks if that makes you so sensitive about re-introducing a skillful controlled unit.
The point is that nearly every single SC:BW units was something cool to watch. They took out all the micro aspect of the game and replaced it with sub-par mechanics sans Stalker micro and kept the same for Marines. I'd say remove ALL the boring units OUT of the game and replace them with community-based idea WILL be the best move that Blizz made in the franchise. But unfortunately, we all know that their inflated ego (well I'm pretty sure that the programming teams are cool dudes that worked hard to be where they are today, so its primarily Dustin B.) surely will not permit such changed to occur.
Now tell me what happened to the old humbler Blizzard that changed the entire engine of SC1 because of critism? The company that strived to pull way ahead of the contemporary competitions instead of just do a tiny bit better for the bare minimum? As much pain it hurts me saying this but Blizzard is killing their reps big time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
