EPTOn June 17 2012 04:05 Holytornados wrote:
Why does no one else understand this? =O
Why does no one else understand this? =O
Because people are stupid. <3
Reluctance to Re-Introduce BW-Units - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
toiletCAT
Qatar284 Posts
Because people are stupid. <3 | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On June 17 2012 01:13 Johnzee wrote: Flightan and jalstar are right, game developers want to explore new options to make a new game. It's pretty clear to anyone with half a brain that Starcraft II is NOT Brood War... and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. You can go back to BW for inspiration and a model for balance, but only to a point. Again, SC2 isn't Brood War, and many of the intricacies of BW "balance" is based on every other unit, upgrade, and metagame functions such as game speed, player view, unit control, etc. To balance or fundamentally change and aspect of the game requires messing with another aspect of the game. For example, Suppose we wanted to bring back Zerg Scourge. Well, that would probably screw up the way Terran armies work right now, with their healing units up in the air. So to balance that we might consider adding some sustain for the Terrans on the ground, say, the old Medics. They get built of out the Barracks, logically, but if we do that then they'll be available earlier, which means the game is imbalanced again... and so it goes. The only solution we know is to simply copy Brood War, because it seems like it works well, but then SC2 wouldn't be much of SC2. To say that BW has all the solutions to SC2's supposed "problems" is a misguided notion and has been spending a bit too much time looking at that game through the rose-colored glasses. I like your answer the best. Makes sense to me. I think the strength SC2 is going for is the strength of a new game. I know some FPS players will hate me for this really terrible comparison, but every new Halo iteration is just Halo again. A little changed, but still Halo. Starcraft 2 keeps the races from Brood war, but with a different idea entirely. It makes for a better, new game that is actually justified in being bought because there is no game like it. Also, you might as well add to the OP "why don't immortals just become dragoons? Why don't hellions become vultures and battle mode become firebats?" New game. | ||
|
snakeeyez
United States1231 Posts
| ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
The problem with new units is not that they are "different copies" of BW, the problem is really that they have worse design. Have they created completely new units with good design then everything would be fine. | ||
|
ETisME
12686 Posts
Never really got into BW but since the mechanics and units are quite different (hard counter etc), their roles are affected, the difference in strength in a deathball situation is different. I would prefer some new units that are specifically designated for SC2 to combat some of the issues/strengthen the strong points | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
Warhounds are weird, I'll agree with that. I don't understand the whole viking, thor, warhound [,goliath] thing. They're all humanoid/mech units, and they can all attack both air and ground. Certainly they have major differences, but they still seem to overlap. Warhounds supposedly have anti-armored missiles or something? don't marauders and vikings do that job well? | ||
|
TeslasPigeon
464 Posts
On June 17 2012 03:37 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah I mean something people gotta realize is Sc2 is not a niche game (as much as maybe it would be nice for it to be that). If we brought back vultures and lurkers and arbiters game reviewers would be like "looks like it's just BW with a graphics update" and that would be a pretty severe criticism of the game. This is almost never the case when it comes to consumer spending. In fact I would argue that people would be more willing to spend money on familiar items than novel ones. Look at movies, some of the more successful movies are sequels, prequels, or reboots. This isn't because Hollywood is uncreative, it is because people are less reluctant to spend money on something they don't know will be good or not. Some companies or studios will take chances and create something successful and other times they will fail, most will rehash the same thing year after year because it sells. Take video games for example. Call of Duty and Battlefield series, no major changes have occurred in the BF series for at least 10 years. Yet the game is successful. Call of Duty is the same thing year after year and highly successful. Angry Birds continues to make millions. Blizzard would of made money regardless of the outcome of SC2. Game reviewers would of given it perfect scores as they did, because they are paid to and any one who said otherwise would be denounced as a "hater." People bought SC2 not because it was something "new" and "ground breaking," but it was similar to brood war and newish. I mean the only reason why people put up with SC2 is that it is the only decent RTS out there with a semblance of balance. Blizzard has no competition for competitive RTS and they know it. | ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
On June 17 2012 04:18 TeslasPigeon wrote: This is almost never the case when it comes to consumer spending. In fact I would argue that people would be more willing to spend money on familiar items than novel ones. Look at movies, some of the more successful movies are sequels, prequels, or reboots. This isn't because Hollywood is uncreative, it is because people are less reluctant to spend money on something they don't know will be good or not. Some companies or studios will take chances and create something successful and other times they will fail, most will rehash the same thing year after year because it sells. Take video games for example. Call of Duty and Battlefield series, no major changes have occurred in the BF series for at least 10 years. Yet the game is successful. Call of Duty is the same thing year after year and highly successful. Angry Birds continues to make millions. Blizzard would of made money regardless of the outcome of SC2. Game reviewers would of given it perfect scores as they did, because they are paid to and any one who said otherwise would be denounced as a "hater." People bought SC2 not because it was something "new" and "ground breaking," but it was similar to brood war and newish. I mean the only reason why people put up with SC2 is that it is the only decent RTS out there with a semblance of balance. Blizzard has no competition for competitive RTS and they know it. Not really. More like people enjoy it. | ||
|
willoc
Canada1530 Posts
On June 17 2012 04:18 TeslasPigeon wrote: I mean the only reason why people put up with SC2 is that it is the only decent RTS out there with a semblance of balance. Blizzard has no competition for competitive RTS and they know it. I like it for other reasons. | ||
|
mrtomjones
Canada4020 Posts
On June 17 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote: Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy. Wow ok. So the colossus DOESNT die anytime you see lots of vikings etc? The defiler wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? There were no units in BW that were similar!? OH wait there were. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
lurker would have been decent for drop defense but that's the only situation I can think of that a lurker would be good in this game. On June 17 2012 04:10 snakeeyez wrote: Yeah I always found it odd in starcraft 2 they said lurker had no role when people complained it was missing so then in expansion they put in a dumber version of a lurker. Nothing they do makes any real sense and they even contradict themselves. Im glad I dont play this game competitively because the balance is a mess. maybe when they made WoL they didn't think to add in the SH? The infestor already covered the lurkers role and is also at lair tech, they WERE overlapping because they both do AOE and both are used against primarily bio units. SH is an entirely unit altogether. | ||
|
oZii
United States1198 Posts
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? The answer^^ sums it up in a nutshell regardless of what anyone says. This is really the case no matter how you look at it. | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2326 Posts
On June 17 2012 01:23 lorestarcraft wrote: Have you guys seriously played BW? That game is awful! And it's not even close to the level of balance that SC2 is. They just "balanced" it through maps and even then, 1 race is seriously UP. Dustin Browder's enthusiasm for the game and his team dedication to balance and creative is awesome. Any who say other-wise are talking from their butts. have you seriously played bw in a competitive way? | ||
|
EneMecH
United Kingdom218 Posts
On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote: My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff. Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver. no, it's the same as the War of the Worlds Tripods... | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
On June 17 2012 04:32 mrtomjones wrote: The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit. | ||
|
mrtomjones
Canada4020 Posts
On June 17 2012 04:43 XenOsky- wrote: have you seriously played bw in a competitive way? BW wasn't balanced. Terran has WAY more championships than both the others, various matchups are imbalanced but all had a favorable matchup, and he is right about them balancing things with the maps instead of patch changes(although the them was the players/tournament holders). | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
On June 17 2012 04:44 fabiano wrote: what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit. it's a troll, he is making fun of the BW elitists who think every unit has a use when in fact, the devourer had virtually no use, ever. | ||
|
mrtomjones
Canada4020 Posts
On June 17 2012 04:44 fabiano wrote: what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit. err yes I definitely was  my bad. Meant the defiler -_- Just woke up so kinda zonked | ||
|
SupLilSon
Malaysia4123 Posts
| ||
| ||
