|
On June 22 2012 21:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The Colossus is a terrible unit. Big AoE, no micro potential, really an A-move unit. It was even voted as the unit that people want to see out of the game the most in a poll thread a while back (and it won by a huge margin).
everything is an A-move unit when you don't have the skill to do anything else. I guess people below diamond don't care where their collosus stand with their army? or try to move them away from vikings/corruptors?
when I think of a true AoE no micro unit that doesn't even A-move, it's siege tank. but tank happens to be an old BW unit so it's actually perfect.
|
On June 22 2012 21:56 Yoduh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 21:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The Colossus is a terrible unit. Big AoE, no micro potential, really an A-move unit. It was even voted as the unit that people want to see out of the game the most in a poll thread a while back (and it won by a huge margin).
everything is an A-move unit when you don't have the skill to do anything else. I guess people below diamond don't care where their collosus stand with their army? or try to move them away from vikings/corruptors? when I think of a true AoE no micro unit that doesn't even A-move, it's siege tank. but tank happens to be an old BW unit so it's actually perfect.
I bet you're very proud of your l33t diamond skills, allowing you to click back a colossus when it's being focused. Unfortunately for you, literally anyone can do that, Platinum and Gold players included, because that is the only thing you can do with a Colossus. A good player's Colossus will be about as effective as a bad player's Colossus, because the unit simply does not allow any but the most basic micro, and it's mobile enough not to require good positioning.
In comparison, Tanks are literally unmicroable, but their limited mobility rewards players who position them well, and who move the rest of their army correctly in relation to their tanks. Sieging also takes time, so they reward map awareness and scouting, since the other player will want to catch the Terran unsieged.
Everything else aside, the Colossus just looks like crap, and does not fit Protoss at all. I'm kind of blown away by the fact that Blizzard's artist liked the look so much, they insisted on it being put into the game. Although I guess it also explains why the entirety of Diablo 3 looks like WoW with a bunch of postprocessing.
|
On June 22 2012 21:56 Yoduh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 21:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:
The Colossus is a terrible unit. Big AoE, no micro potential, really an A-move unit. It was even voted as the unit that people want to see out of the game the most in a poll thread a while back (and it won by a huge margin).
everything is an A-move unit when you don't have the skill to do anything else. I guess people below diamond don't care where their collosus stand with their army? or try to move them away from vikings/corruptors? when I think of a true AoE no micro unit that doesn't even A-move, it's siege tank. but tank happens to be an old BW unit so it's actually perfect.
Tanks are good units because they require incredible decision-making and timing skills along with great placement. Their design makes them interesting, unique, and can shape gameplay in so many interesting ways (spreading Tanks properly, sieging from high ground, timing an assault on a T army just when they unsiege or right before they seige). They're dynamic and interactive. Colossi are not. And having to move a long-ranged unit behind the rest of your army or run it away from its hard counters is the most basic micro necessity. That doesn't make it an interesting unit in any way.
|
Hyrule19264 Posts
The first video doesn't work for me, it just goes black. Watching the second one just fine though.
|
Thanks for the interviews!!
|
Slasher gave a true statement that SC2 games normally end after one battle, and Browder said that back and forth games are good for an esport.... yet he says that it should stay in BW. Changing pathing isn't necessarily the only way to address the issue.
|
Basically, from the first interview : " Yea we know that everyone wants it, but fuck you"
|
Canada13430 Posts
On June 22 2012 23:52 ProxyKnoxy wrote:
Slasher gave a true statement that SC2 games normally end after one battle, and Browder said that back and forth games are good for an esport.... yet he says that it should stay in BW. Changing pathing isn't necessarily the only way to address the issue.
Browder isn't the best at being good with words. I think he meant, that people should stick with BW if they want a very back and forth game right now. I've seen some awesome back and forth SC2 games when it doesn't involve an all in timing. there were all ins in BW too, and when they worked games ended. Its just that the all in wasn't super insta win as often and I think slowly its changing for SC2 from what I have seen more lately. If both players are even, the all in isn't necessarily an insta win and does damage, gets repelled and game continues.
I think they are trying to fix some of the back and forth issues with HotS, but their focus seems to be on nailing map control and area management down first. I think if they can learn how to implement good area control in HotS, it opens a lot of room for them to explore and implement back and forth in LotV, assuming that map control and area control don't already create back and forth as a result.
|
On June 22 2012 20:33 Veritas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 19:54 Antylamon wrote:On June 22 2012 18:11 Veritas wrote:
I really don't enjoy the new Protoss units. I feel like we struggle to break even in engagements as it is. The other races are getting solid units and we're getting more gimmicky crap.
I feel like when the expansion rolls out we'll be in the same position that Terrans find themselves in. Win in the first 8 minutes or face disadvantage in the late game. What exactly am I supposed to be building in the late game now that Terran will crush mass Zealot? Mass Sentry/Cannon/Tempest?
This race depresses me. Fucking Tempest. What a shitty unit. I wish they'd try balancing the race around useful units instead of shitty art concepts. Fucking Colossus. What a shitty unit. While your first arguments are relatively valid, the complaints about Toss I disagree with. The colo is actually a unit idea I liked from the beginning. Did you expect a Reaver? They would be ridiculously op in SC2 because of unit clumping. Tempest is not a "shitty art concept", it's a shitty unit concept. The idea of the unit was to allow Toss to control how an engagement begins. Carrier with a slight buff could do this just fine. I really got annoyed at your incredibly pessimistic attitude, though. I just want a gateway unit that doesn't suck in a straight up fight. Is that too much to ask? I hate everything about the Colossus. It reeks of "wouldn't lazers be cool?", which pretty much sums up the design attitude towards Protoss.
With the warpgate mechanic and sentries that can change the map layout, that is to much to ask for yes.
|
On June 22 2012 14:05 _Search_ wrote:
I already know what Bronze to Platinum HOTS will be: 1 observer + 42 Tempests + a-click
Make Protoss even more A-Move friendly.
|
On June 22 2012 20:22 FaZ- wrote:
Players: "The tempest is terrible, I can't fight with it."
DB: "You're not supposed to fight with it. You're supposed to use it to harass the enemy."
This is the biggest admission of overdesign that I've ever seen.
I agree. Why someone will spend a shit ton of resources just to harass?
Players will probably only get it after they are on three+ bases. At this point, your enemy will probably have the same amount of expansions. Spending that amount of money just to kill workers isnt worthy.
People are saying "build tempest and win the game". They seem to be a worst version of battle cruiser, does less damage and probably cost more.
|
On June 23 2012 02:35 Bashion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 20:22 FaZ- wrote:
Players: "The tempest is terrible, I can't fight with it."
DB: "You're not supposed to fight with it. You're supposed to use it to harass the enemy."
This is the biggest admission of overdesign that I've ever seen. I agree. Why someone will spend a shit ton of resources just to harass? Players will probably only get it after they are on three+ bases. At this point, your enemy will probably have the same amount of expansions. Spending that amount of money just to kill workers isnt worthy. People are saying "build tempest and win the game". They seem to be a worst version of battle cruiser, does less damage and probably cost more.
Not to mention you have units like the Oracle, and the Storm Drop that are much more effective means of harassing a mining base.
Tempest = Yawn Unit.
It also seems that DB and his team are adamant about the Warhound BattleHellion composition taking over the TvT and TvP match-ups.
|
On June 23 2012 02:43 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:35 Bashion wrote:On June 22 2012 20:22 FaZ- wrote:
Players: "The tempest is terrible, I can't fight with it."
DB: "You're not supposed to fight with it. You're supposed to use it to harass the enemy."
This is the biggest admission of overdesign that I've ever seen. I agree. Why someone will spend a shit ton of resources just to harass? Players will probably only get it after they are on three+ bases. At this point, your enemy will probably have the same amount of expansions. Spending that amount of money just to kill workers isnt worthy. People are saying "build tempest and win the game". They seem to be a worst version of battle cruiser, does less damage and probably cost more. Not to mention you have units like the Oracle, and the Storm Drop that are much more effective means of harassing a mining base. Tempest = Yawn Unit. It also seems that DB and his team are adamant about the Warhound BattleHellion composition taking over the TvT and TvP match-ups.
David Kim is very open about wanting to give Terran "the a-move option" with mech. Going to be really funny if, after all this talk about mech in WoL, the mech in HotS isn't even going to include siege tanks.
|
On June 23 2012 03:23 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 02:43 GinDo wrote:On June 23 2012 02:35 Bashion wrote:On June 22 2012 20:22 FaZ- wrote:
Players: "The tempest is terrible, I can't fight with it."
DB: "You're not supposed to fight with it. You're supposed to use it to harass the enemy."
This is the biggest admission of overdesign that I've ever seen. I agree. Why someone will spend a shit ton of resources just to harass? Players will probably only get it after they are on three+ bases. At this point, your enemy will probably have the same amount of expansions. Spending that amount of money just to kill workers isnt worthy. People are saying "build tempest and win the game". They seem to be a worst version of battle cruiser, does less damage and probably cost more. Not to mention you have units like the Oracle, and the Storm Drop that are much more effective means of harassing a mining base. Tempest = Yawn Unit. It also seems that DB and his team are adamant about the Warhound BattleHellion composition taking over the TvT and TvP match-ups. David Kim is very open about wanting to give Terran "the a-move option" with mech. Going to be really funny if, after all this talk about mech in WoL, the mech in HotS isn't even going to include siege tanks.
Well yeah thats how they want Mech to be in Hots.
Its no longer about smart positional play, its about being able to amove your opponent with Battle Hellion / Warhound, which in turn makes it into marine marauder again except its less mobile.
|
I really didn't like the integrated experience w friends answer either. As if having an integrated experience automatically means that we cannot have an offline option. It doesn't make sense and is obviously not the real reason.
|
On June 23 2012 13:08 chobopeon wrote:
I really didn't like the integrated experience w friends answer either. As if having an integrated experience automatically means that we cannot have an offline option. It doesn't make sense and is obviously not the real reason.
Actually having an integrated experience is a good reason for online only. The problem is that B.net 0.2 sucks so badly that there is no integrated experience at all. It's a ghost town devoid of life, with players nowhere to be seen, and competitively walled off in their own arbitrary and insignificant divisions.
The channels are empty. You can't even whisper anyone who isn't a friend. There's no competition because it's not possible to compare points. The interface is ugly and dysfunctional, and so on. The fundamental problem is that B.net 0.2 is shit. We're being forced into using an online system that is a lifeless abyss. If we were forced into a lively online community with a competitive online system that's also functional, well-designed with new and innovative features, then this wouldn't really be a problem.
|
On June 23 2012 14:16 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 13:08 chobopeon wrote:
I really didn't like the integrated experience w friends answer either. As if having an integrated experience automatically means that we cannot have an offline option. It doesn't make sense and is obviously not the real reason. Actually having an integrated experience is a good reason for online only. The problem is that B.net 0.2 sucks so badly that there is no integrated experience at all. It's a ghost town devoid of life, with players nowhere to be seen, and competitively walled off in their own arbitrary and insignificant divisions. The channels are empty. You can't even whisper anyone who isn't a friend. There's no competition because it's not possible to compare points. The interface is ugly and dysfunctional, and so on. The fundamental problem is that B.net 0.2 is shit. We're being forced into using an online system that is a lifeless abyss. If we were forced into a lively online community with a competitive online system that's also functional, well-designed with new and innovative features, then this wouldn't really be a problem.
I agree with almost everything here but I don't really see how having an integrated experience has to mean no LAN option. It still doesn't make sense to me (and, judging from replies, to most people). You can offer a great and social Bnet 2 experience - they don't in many instances but they could - and still offer LAN. One does not have to exclude the other.
|
On June 24 2012 01:53 chobopeon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2012 14:16 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 23 2012 13:08 chobopeon wrote:
I really didn't like the integrated experience w friends answer either. As if having an integrated experience automatically means that we cannot have an offline option. It doesn't make sense and is obviously not the real reason. Actually having an integrated experience is a good reason for online only. The problem is that B.net 0.2 sucks so badly that there is no integrated experience at all. It's a ghost town devoid of life, with players nowhere to be seen, and competitively walled off in their own arbitrary and insignificant divisions. The channels are empty. You can't even whisper anyone who isn't a friend. There's no competition because it's not possible to compare points. The interface is ugly and dysfunctional, and so on. The fundamental problem is that B.net 0.2 is shit. We're being forced into using an online system that is a lifeless abyss. If we were forced into a lively online community with a competitive online system that's also functional, well-designed with new and innovative features, then this wouldn't really be a problem. I agree with almost everything here but I don't really see how having an integrated experience has to mean no LAN option. It still doesn't make sense to me (and, judging from replies, to most people). You can offer a great and social Bnet 2 experience - they don't in many instances but they could - and still offer LAN. One does not have to exclude the other.
The inferiority to chat from the original Battle.net to now is pretty astounding. I know channel warring back in the early 2000's was not the best (something me and my clan was used to, was half of Battle.net I'd say), but the way they've mangled it nowadays has only hurt things. With all the advancement in social networking and different apps, you would think it would only be easier to talk to each other now, not the opposite.
|
I wish someone would ask about why it's taking so long. At this point if the Beta lasts until October-December I'm going to start thinking that e-sports was the worst thing to happen to video games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
