|
On July 15 2012 10:33 naastyOne wrote:
I`m actually quite curious how would Lurker fare against Marauders, Immortals, Blink Stalkers, Colosus, Ghosts snipe, and the Zerg total lack of ability to deny detection.
Oh and also Phoenix, Voidray, and Banshee, since Zerg do not have fast moving land AA before hive(and will not).
That´s a good one 
Especialy Immortals shit on Lurkers. Detection comes right with the same tech path.
|
On July 15 2012 10:58 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 10:44 Big J wrote:On July 15 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:On July 15 2012 09:27 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote:On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host. Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel? People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod. Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW. On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote:
The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to. This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2). On July 15 2012 09:19 Assirra wrote:On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host. Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel? While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it. Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple. Yeah, I know, I'm gonna continue taking part in a discussion that circlejerks, has nothing to do with realitly because the counterarguments to my argument are never going to get fullfilled anyways as they would basically mean that blizzard gives up on SC2 and instead goes for SC3 with SC2 graphics in HotS (moveing Hydras to T1; maybe removing banelings, roaches; reintroducing lurkers; mayby change the pathing completly and completly rebalance the game around it; maybe remove/buff/nerf some other things like larva inject, income and whatever), but whatever... 1) broken means unbalanced. I don't see this in SC2 right now. If you mean it's "not well designed" say so, but design is an opinion, not an absoulte. Looking at the b.net forums and all the balance thread (attempts) on TL I have to say, people that actually think about SC2 design being the biggest problem rather than just "really balancing it out" are extremly (like 1:100) in the minority and therefore blizzard rightfully can think that people like their game overall. A lot. Broken doesn't not mean unbalanced. Broken can also mean poorly designed. For example, TvZ could have balanced win-rates with with an enormous Z late-game advantage by allowing T to have a huge advantage with all-ins, but that makes for a broken game. Or a 4 player map could have balanced win-rates in that P always wins in close spawns and always loses cross-map spawns, but the map is broken. On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:
2) No, people don't obviously want the lurker in SC2. Lots of people like the lurker. However, compared to the people who don't give a shit about threads as this, those are WAY (and I mean like WAY WAY) in the minority.
Not saying I don't give a shit. Lurkers are awesome. Are they needed? I'm not sure. Are SH needed? probably not! What role is zerg with mass vision from OLs, creep and very mobile troops lacking. Space control, or attacking possibilities?
As any Zerg attack before 70drones + hive + 4 (or more) bases is an allin, due to the lack of offensivly safe powerunits is an allin, I think it's the second thing: attacking possibilities. Yeah lurkers control space even better than lingswarms and baneling landmines and mutalisks and all the speedy vision giving - opponent overrunning, if he is not careful - stuff.
However, the way larva is being balanced. The way Zerg units operate (basically they are faster then the opponents whatever units), I don't see a role for the lurker in the current metagame, and due to it's lacking capabilities to attack on it's own (basicially due to too limited range and due to detection being part of any P/T/Z gameplan), I would much rather have a unit that actually is not as good as lurkers at space control (if I had to choose; if not I'd choose both, as I think Zerg desperatly needs T3 range units like the original lurker desing, so that T3 range is not just a bullshit short term move in ZvZ before Ultras and/or Broods and/or mass infestors are out), but rather can force the opponent to not just attack at special timings.
After all, TvZ has been in shambles for 2years now. Probably not balancewise (Zergs had an edge at certain times as well), but designwise, as it has always been up to the Terran to control the pace of the game. Zerg desperatly needs strong offensive options in the midgame, which are not limited by larva (like lings, blings and roaches), but rather limited by ressources (like the swarm host). Somthing that doesn not need to cut each and every drone, but something that is very very larva efficient for a longer periode of time (which is the problem of infestor attacks. like a baneling attack, it's only one move and then the energy is out. Then proplayers dont have the time to just wait until energy is back up, even if in lowleagues those strategies might be extraordinarily good, due to the opponents not having the skill to take advantage of it).
In this regard, I think a very longrange, air and ground attacking unit is really what zergs need, to switch up their gameplay from "drone to 70+ and then push", to "drone to 70+ slowly, while trying to keep the pressure on the opponent with units that have longterm potential, don't die easily and have the ability to win you the game against very greedy opponents) What Zerg actually needs is a big nerf to spawn larvae, in return to units that are actually good. The lurker would be merely one example of a good unit. On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:
3) the lurkers design is "burrow - then attack with line splash". There is nothing more about it in the very basics. Predicting micro tricks like "hold fire", "pushing siege lines the moment those unsiege" and similar stuff was not possible.
I don't see why it should be possible to predict that such swarm host moves don't exist.
Saying that those don't is basically just pillaring on experience (lurker) against nonexperience (swarm host). Yes, this way probability suggest that you will be right. But then we would not have needed SC2 at all. Probability suggests that BW was a great game and SC2 cannot reach it, if it is not just a graphical update. However, time has told us that there are quite a ton of people who prefer SC2 over BW. If you like BW, go and play it. It's not about saying you should not play SC2. It's about saying, BW is a great game and if you think it is better than SC2, you are wasting your time with SC2.
I mean, if you are off the opinion that BW was the best game yet, how big is the probability that ANYTHING will ever satisfy your longings for a game that can beat BW? Very slim! It's like saying, spain is the best football team in the world, when you saw 1958-1970 brasil. Spain is great and would beat that brasil team anytime because football moved on. Does that mean football with 0 forwards is more interesting than football with 4 forwards? Probablity not, though it may be more effective (which means in SC2 terms, closer to AI like optimal strategies). BW is an old game that is full of engine idiosyncracies that took considerable time to figure out, and the competitive scene (along with general understanding of RTS's) was in its infancy. SC2, on the other hand, is a modern game with no ways to break the engine (and ways that are discovered are patched into oblivion), and competitive gamers have far better understanding of tactics and strategy. If you don't understand why it's far easier to understand units now, then consider the fact that no major discoveries have been made regarding any SC2 unit thus far. Drop the assumptions about BW. I'm certainly not of the opinion that BW was the best game; there are certainly areas that could be substantially improved. To insist that people like certain BW elements because they are BW fanboys is an ad hominem that ignores the arguments actually being advanced. -) Broken means unbalanced. What you mean is "poorly designed", "not interesting" or somthing along those lines. If something is broken, it's overpowered. That's it. -) Yes and no. I would love to see some spawn larva nerf (like to 3 or 2.5 per queen in return for better units). However that doesn't make the lurker a better concept for SC2. After all, it still only has rather limited range (so easy to kill with tanks and blink stalkers and even units that have to walk to them like marauders and immortals on 1a). The lurker is a good unit, but I don't see how it achieves anything that you can't achieve with just an overpowering force of ling/bling. Basically the only intersting interaction would be lurkers shooting through FFs. But then they would not deal a lot of splash (from maximum range), again making them somewhat weird. Well, there is another advantage of them. They don't require burrow to be upgraded and therefore you force opponents (so only Protoss) down a certain (detection) path. That effect however could be acquited by giving any unit (like the swarm host will have) burrow from the start. -) SC2 has not been stale at all. If anything, it's people that talk about deathballs, 1a armies and easy strategies that don't even exist anymore in 80% of the games. Watch GSL and see how SC2 starts looking more and more like BW. Not because of unit design, but because of the simple fact that however you design units, the more active you are, the more you gain. Basically the only race that is really lacking this right now is zerg, because their opponents are allowed to wall against them and thereby counter any aggression. So the fundamental idea for a new unit for zerg is, to tear down walls. I don't understand why the lurker doesn't fit well? As you said, it's just an issue of adjusting stats. You can have it deal 20 (+25 armored) and it will handle bio just fine. It acts as space control. That's something I would like to see that doesn't exist. Ling bling can't control chokes, that's where it is the weakest. Give the lurker 7/8 range and it easily functions well against other mid tier units...There would be a lot of interesting interplay between obs/scans and the like as well.
How?
Zerg can not deny detection, unless zerg gets ~4 Corruptors.
Thus, Lurker pretty much becomes the Zerg colosus. Or zerg siege tank.
Thing, that you just mass and use in deathball, it is literally impossible for a small number of Lurkers to be usefull, and large number of lurkers to be managable.
Then there is still an issue of Zerg and anti-air.
|
On July 15 2012 10:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 10:29 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:On July 15 2012 09:27 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote:On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host. Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel? People miss good games they seen, and I guess the lurker brought some good plays, but they don't thin about it in the current sc2 game, they just care for nostalgic, and I guess they are more nostalgic towards the lurker then the other guys. Also you can see how silly people can be by saying they want things like - luker back, hydra back to tier 1 and baneling removed, I mean why not just play BW or if u want shiny graphics play the SC2 BW mod. Fixing broken things in SC2 using inspiration from BW ≠ BW. On July 15 2012 08:58 moskonia wrote:
The swarm host seems very cool imo, and for anyone who wants to play with the lurker you can still play bw if you so crave to. This is a ridiculous and completely illogical argument that is seen on TL far too much. People obviously want the lurker in SC2, and being able to use it in BW is totally irrelevant to the actual arguments at hand (whether or not it would make for a better SC2). On July 15 2012 09:19 Assirra wrote:On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host. Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel? While that is true but in this case people are comparing thoughts of a unit that is not even out with a unit that got totally figured out in the last 10 year including all tricks and ways to use it. It is not a fair comparison however you look at it. Some things don't require as much figuring out. For example, it's not like we couldn't predict how the marauder or immortal would be used the moment we first heard of them. There are tricks to using the lurker because it's an inherently complex unit (burrowed attacker, line splash, tier 2, synergizes with dark swarm), but the swarm host is fairly simple. Yeah, I know, I'm gonna continue taking part in a discussion that circlejerks, has nothing to do with realitly because the counterarguments to my argument are never going to get fullfilled anyways as they would basically mean that blizzard gives up on SC2 and instead goes for SC3 with SC2 graphics in HotS (moveing Hydras to T1; maybe removing banelings, roaches; reintroducing lurkers; mayby change the pathing completly and completly rebalance the game around it; maybe remove/buff/nerf some other things like larva inject, income and whatever), but whatever... 1) broken means unbalanced. I don't see this in SC2 right now. If you mean it's "not well designed" say so, but design is an opinion, not an absoulte. Looking at the b.net forums and all the balance thread (attempts) on TL I have to say, people that actually think about SC2 design being the biggest problem rather than just "really balancing it out" are extremly (like 1:100) in the minority and therefore blizzard rightfully can think that people like their game overall. A lot. Broken doesn't not mean unbalanced. Broken can also mean poorly designed. For example, TvZ could have balanced win-rates with with an enormous Z late-game advantage by allowing T to have a huge advantage with all-ins, but that makes for a broken game. Or a 4 player map could have balanced win-rates in that P always wins in close spawns and always loses cross-map spawns, but the map is broken. On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:
2) No, people don't obviously want the lurker in SC2. Lots of people like the lurker. However, compared to the people who don't give a shit about threads as this, those are WAY (and I mean like WAY WAY) in the minority.
Not saying I don't give a shit. Lurkers are awesome. Are they needed? I'm not sure. Are SH needed? probably not! What role is zerg with mass vision from OLs, creep and very mobile troops lacking. Space control, or attacking possibilities?
As any Zerg attack before 70drones + hive + 4 (or more) bases is an allin, due to the lack of offensivly safe powerunits is an allin, I think it's the second thing: attacking possibilities. Yeah lurkers control space even better than lingswarms and baneling landmines and mutalisks and all the speedy vision giving - opponent overrunning, if he is not careful - stuff.
However, the way larva is being balanced. The way Zerg units operate (basically they are faster then the opponents whatever units), I don't see a role for the lurker in the current metagame, and due to it's lacking capabilities to attack on it's own (basicially due to too limited range and due to detection being part of any P/T/Z gameplan), I would much rather have a unit that actually is not as good as lurkers at space control (if I had to choose; if not I'd choose both, as I think Zerg desperatly needs T3 range units like the original lurker desing, so that T3 range is not just a bullshit short term move in ZvZ before Ultras and/or Broods and/or mass infestors are out), but rather can force the opponent to not just attack at special timings.
After all, TvZ has been in shambles for 2years now. Probably not balancewise (Zergs had an edge at certain times as well), but designwise, as it has always been up to the Terran to control the pace of the game. Zerg desperatly needs strong offensive options in the midgame, which are not limited by larva (like lings, blings and roaches), but rather limited by ressources (like the swarm host). Somthing that doesn not need to cut each and every drone, but something that is very very larva efficient for a longer periode of time (which is the problem of infestor attacks. like a baneling attack, it's only one move and then the energy is out. Then proplayers dont have the time to just wait until energy is back up, even if in lowleagues those strategies might be extraordinarily good, due to the opponents not having the skill to take advantage of it).
In this regard, I think a very longrange, air and ground attacking unit is really what zergs need, to switch up their gameplay from "drone to 70+ and then push", to "drone to 70+ slowly, while trying to keep the pressure on the opponent with units that have longterm potential, don't die easily and have the ability to win you the game against very greedy opponents) What Zerg actually needs is a big nerf to spawn larvae, in return to units that are actually good. The lurker would be merely one example of a good unit. On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:
3) the lurkers design is "burrow - then attack with line splash". There is nothing more about it in the very basics. Predicting micro tricks like "hold fire", "pushing siege lines the moment those unsiege" and similar stuff was not possible.
I don't see why it should be possible to predict that such swarm host moves don't exist.
Saying that those don't is basically just pillaring on experience (lurker) against nonexperience (swarm host). Yes, this way probability suggest that you will be right. But then we would not have needed SC2 at all. Probability suggests that BW was a great game and SC2 cannot reach it, if it is not just a graphical update. However, time has told us that there are quite a ton of people who prefer SC2 over BW. If you like BW, go and play it. It's not about saying you should not play SC2. It's about saying, BW is a great game and if you think it is better than SC2, you are wasting your time with SC2.
I mean, if you are off the opinion that BW was the best game yet, how big is the probability that ANYTHING will ever satisfy your longings for a game that can beat BW? Very slim! It's like saying, spain is the best football team in the world, when you saw 1958-1970 brasil. Spain is great and would beat that brasil team anytime because football moved on. Does that mean football with 0 forwards is more interesting than football with 4 forwards? Probablity not, though it may be more effective (which means in SC2 terms, closer to AI like optimal strategies). BW is an old game that is full of engine idiosyncracies that took considerable time to figure out, and the competitive scene (along with general understanding of RTS's) was in its infancy. SC2, on the other hand, is a modern game with no ways to break the engine (and ways that are discovered are patched into oblivion), and competitive gamers have far better understanding of tactics and strategy. If you don't understand why it's far easier to understand units now, then consider the fact that no major discoveries have been made regarding any SC2 unit thus far. Drop the assumptions about BW. I'm certainly not of the opinion that BW was the best game; there are certainly areas that could be substantially improved. To insist that people like certain BW elements because they are BW fanboys is an ad hominem that ignores the arguments actually being advanced. -) Broken means unbalanced. What you mean is "poorly designed", "not interesting" or somthing along those lines. If something is broken, it's overpowered. That's it. -) Yes and no. I would love to see some spawn larva nerf (like to 3 or 2.5 per queen in return for better units). However that doesn't make the lurker a better concept for SC2. After all, it still only has rather limited range (so easy to kill with tanks and blink stalkers and even units that have to walk to them like marauders and immortals on 1a). The lurker is a good unit, but I don't see how it achieves anything that you can't achieve with just an overpowering force of ling/bling. Basically the only intersting interaction would be lurkers shooting through FFs. But then they would not deal a lot of splash (from maximum range), again making them somewhat weird. Well, there is another advantage of them. They don't require burrow to be upgraded and therefore you force opponents (so only Protoss) down a certain (detection) path. That effect however could be acquited by giving any unit (like the swarm host will have) burrow from the start.
Are you completely unfamiliar with lurker usage in BW? Lurkers aren't used just by having them sit there and fight at the enemy's maximum range. SC2 units don't change anything if you use lurkers that badly; dragoons, siege tanks, reavers, storm, and even goliaths all beat lurkers that just sit there. What lurkers are actually for is controlling chokes, sitting/advancing under dark swarm, and tearing apart enemy balls by running up to burrow next to them while they are surrounded/pinned down by lings and/or hydras.
On July 15 2012 10:19 Big J wrote:
-) SC2 has not been stale at all. If anything, it's people that talk about deathballs, 1a armies and easy strategies that don't even exist anymore in 80% of the games. Watch GSL and see how SC2 starts looking more and more like BW. Not because of unit design, but because of the simple fact that however you design units, the more active you are, the more you gain. Basically the only race that is really lacking this right now is zerg, because their opponents are allowed to wall against them and thereby counter any aggression. So the fundamental idea for a new unit for zerg is, to tear down walls.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Zerg in SC2. SC2 Zerg doesn't have any problems with their aggression being countered, because the overwhelmingly dominant strategy is to obtain a superior economy and late-game position with the aid of spawn larvae. The real problem with Zerg in SC2 is that it's stupid to have matchups that boil down to "Did you successfully all-in against Zerg? If yes, you win; if not, you lose!"
|
On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host. Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
Science Vessels are just a different version of the Raven with one better (Irradiate) and one worse spell (Defensive Matrix), so effectively nothing changed. Especially Irradiate is much better than Seeker Missile, because it will damage one target to the full extent and others around it at least a little, whereas Seeker Missile can be fully dodged.
The Devourer is an awesome unit and much more stylish than the Corruptor, but since the Corruptor works well enough no one is asking for this one. It is morphed from a Mutalisk and thus the "end part of the chain" instead of the start, which forces you to decide between anti-air or anti-ground with your morph. That would be a better system than the current "I have Broodlords and some automatic anti-air in the form of spare Corruptors" way of SC2.
The Scout is better than Void Ray and Phoenix after you upgrade speed and - even though it is considered weak - has its uses as a harrassing unit and as a ... scout.
Scout: 150/100
Phoenix: 120/60
All three of these BW units are much better in their design than their SC2 counterparts IMO and its the same for the Lurker and the current implementation of the Swarm Host. Why Blizzard "had to" do something so radically different for almost every unit is beyond me and just a few new units in addition to most of the old ones would have been a wiser choice.
|
because its starcraft2, not an expansion. wc2 was drastically different from w1, and same with wc2->wc3
|
On July 15 2012 13:05 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host. Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel? Science Vessels are just a different version of the Raven with one better (Irradiate) and one worse spell (Defensive Matrix), so effectively nothing changed. Especially Irradiate is much better than Seeker Missile, because it will damage one target to the full extent and others around it at least a little, whereas Seeker Missile can be fully dodged. The Devourer is an awesome unit and much more stylish than the Corruptor, but since the Corruptor works well enough no one is asking for this one. It is morphed from a Mutalisk and thus the "end part of the chain" instead of the start, which forces you to decide between anti-air or anti-ground with your morph. That would be a better system than the current "I have Broodlords and some automatic anti-air in the form of spare Corruptors" way of SC2. The Scout is better than Void Ray and Phoenix after you upgrade speed and - even though it is considered weak - has its uses as a harrassing unit and as a ... scout. Scout: 150/100 Phoenix: 120/60 All three of these BW units are much better in their design than their SC2 counterparts IMO and its the same for the Lurker and the current implementation of the Swarm Host. Why Blizzard "had to" do something so radically different for almost every unit is beyond me and just a few new units in addition to most of the old ones would have been a wiser choice.
Defensive Matrix is one of my most missed spells. For me its actually one of the most useful spells in the game you just gotta know how to use it well.
|
On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2
That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. As Jony Ive says, 'it's very easy to be different, but very difficult to be better.' If Browder can't make something different and better, the he should fall back on the the wildly successful predecessor.
|
On July 15 2012 13:21 0neder wrote:That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. If he can't he should fall back on the wildly successful predecessor.
wildly successful 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010 where gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed since
I rather them experiment with things over rehashing mechanics from previous installments
|
On July 15 2012 13:23 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:21 0neder wrote:On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2 That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. If he can't he should fall back on the wildly successful predecessor. wildly successful 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010 where gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed sinceI rather them experiment with things over rehashing mechanics from previous installments
Lies! Why don't you check the OP polls yourself.
|
Canada11486 Posts
On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2, not an expansion. wc2 was drastically different from w1, and same with wc2->wc3
Warcraft 1 to 2 is probably a bad example.
Most of the changes were cosmetic
Peasant -->> Peasant
Footman -->> Footman
Crossbowman -->> Elven Archer/Ranger
Cleric -->> cut/ combined with knight
Knight -->> Knight/ Paladin
Catapult -->> Ballista (Orcs keep the Catapult)
Conjurer -->> Mage (somewhat different spells)
The big changes were adding sea units and a couple air.
There were some ui changes like left click, right click move and 9 unit selection, but the games are virtually the same. And yet at the time, Warcraft 2 was quite popular.
|
On July 15 2012 13:29 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:23 iky43210 wrote:On July 15 2012 13:21 0neder wrote:On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2 That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. If he can't he should fall back on the wildly successful predecessor. wildly successful 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010 where gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed sinceI rather them experiment with things over rehashing mechanics from previous installments Lies! Why don't you check the OP polls yourself.
because the OP polls aren't bias at all or anything.
|
On July 15 2012 13:30 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:29 Xiphos wrote:On July 15 2012 13:23 iky43210 wrote:On July 15 2012 13:21 0neder wrote:On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2 That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. If he can't he should fall back on the wildly successful predecessor. wildly successful 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010 where gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed sinceI rather them experiment with things over rehashing mechanics from previous installments Lies! Why don't you check the OP polls yourself. because the OP polls aren't bias at all or anything.
Also means that your point about "gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed since" is completely moot.
|
On July 15 2012 13:23 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:21 0neder wrote:On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2 That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. If he can't he should fall back on the wildly successful predecessor. wildly successful 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010 where gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed since I rather them experiment with things over rehashing mechanics from previous installments
1 - The peak of BW's popularity was about 2009, not 10 years ago, so learn something about your heritage before making stuff up.
2 - Could you please what "geographic and tastes have drastically changed?" because I have absolutely no clue. To be sure, it didn't wane because 'tastes' changed, it waned because of the match-fixing scandal and legal action against Kespa with the advent of Sc2.
3 - No one here has said that they should have reskinned BW nor experimented. What they have said is this:
If you can't make a better/equal unit after 8 years and billion dollars of development, maybe you're incompetent and we should just go with something we know is already great design, gameplay, and spectating.
|
On July 15 2012 13:29 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2, not an expansion. wc2 was drastically different from w1, and same with wc2->wc3 Warcraft 1 to 2 is probably a bad example. Most of the changes were cosmetic Peasant -->> Peasant Footman -->> Footman Crossbowman -->> Elven Archer/Ranger Cleric -->> cut/ combined with knight Knight -->> Knight/ Paladin Catapult -->> Ballista (Orcs keep the Catapult) Conjurer -->> Mage (somewhat different spells) The big changes were adding sea units and a couple air. There were some ui changes like left click, right click move and 9 unit selection, but the games are virtually the same.
sure, except the drastic changes in UI, additional resource complexity, MBS, unit selections, heavier emphasis on worker counts/productions, and somewhat a microable army.
and don't worry about sea or air units, the game is virtually the same
|
On July 15 2012 13:37 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:23 iky43210 wrote:On July 15 2012 13:21 0neder wrote:On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2 That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. If he can't he should fall back on the wildly successful predecessor. wildly successful 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010 where gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed since I rather them experiment with things over rehashing mechanics from previous installments 1 - The peak of BW's popularity was about 2009, not 10 years ago, so learn something about your heritage before making stuff up. 2 - Could you please what "geographic and tastes have drastically changed?" because I have absolutely no clue. To be sure, it didn't wane because 'tastes' changed, it waned because of the match-fixing scandal and legal action against Kespa with the advent of Sc2. 3 - No one here has said that they should have reskinned BW nor experimented. What they have said is this:
If you can't make a better/equal unit after 8 years and billion dollars of development, maybe you're incompetent and we should just go with something we know is already great design, gameplay, and spectating.
1.peak? How did you mesure? It certainly had an order of magnitude more of players before 2000 than in 2009.
Viewers?
|
1) peak of broodwar popularity is 1 year after its initial release, then the game went on heavy decline everywhere else EXCEPT korea. Though the game continue remain popular due to its lan and "f2p" nature. However, with the changes in many game models, broodwar or rts game in general simply can't compete with high budget, f2p, and wide casual appeals game genre like RPG/mmo/ARTS.
2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
|
On July 15 2012 13:42 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:37 0neder wrote:On July 15 2012 13:23 iky43210 wrote:On July 15 2012 13:21 0neder wrote:On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2 That's not a good reason. The burden is on Browder to make *better* units than BW. If he can't he should fall back on the wildly successful predecessor. wildly successful 10 years ago. Welcome to 2010 where gamers geographic and tastes have drastically changed since I rather them experiment with things over rehashing mechanics from previous installments 1 - The peak of BW's popularity was about 2009, not 10 years ago, so learn something about your heritage before making stuff up. 2 - Could you please what "geographic and tastes have drastically changed?" because I have absolutely no clue. To be sure, it didn't wane because 'tastes' changed, it waned because of the match-fixing scandal and legal action against Kespa with the advent of Sc2. 3 - No one here has said that they should have reskinned BW nor experimented. What they have said is this:
If you can't make a better/equal unit after 8 years and billion dollars of development, maybe you're incompetent and we should just go with something we know is already great design, gameplay, and spectating. 1.peak? How did you mesure? It certainly had an order of magnitude more of players before 2000 than in 2009. Viewers?
Okay, there were 2 Reality TV shows about Brood War, one Brood War Dramatic Series, WCG, the ORIGINAL GSL, OSL, MSL, ProLeague, Race Wars and TSL2 with Day[9] and Tastosis brought many spotlight into the game. Foreigners were playing at an all time high levels with Idra and Ret on Pro teams. It was the crux of BW gameplay and the market saturation was HIGH.
After the scandals, 80% of my gamer friends have heard about Brood War and 50% of them have participated in watching VODs and live TSL with me that most of them even forgot that Brood War ever existed.
Now THAT'S the peak.
|
On July 15 2012 13:07 iky43210 wrote:
because its starcraft2, not an expansion. wc2 was drastically different from w1, and same with wc2->wc3
This stupid argument again.
The game concept of asymmetrical races wasnt advanced as far when Warcraft 2 came out and there were only two sides in the war which differed only in the spells which the Knight and Ogre had (Ogre spells were FAR superior because they were offensive while the Knight spells were reactionary in nature). Warcraft 3 had a unit variety and differentiation between the races and even the basic units didnt have the same stats as the basic units of the other races. Thus Warcraft 3 had advanced A LOT over its predecessor.
Starcraft and its expansion Brood War started out as a game with three distinct races which had totally different playstyles (which WC2 didnt have) and thus any MAJOR CHANGES which SC2 undoubtedly made have to make sense. They dont really do that all that well and at least one group of changes have made this "newer and better" game MUCH harder to balance.(*1) Thus they werent good changes for changes sake.
Newer =/= better
One thing I will never understand is that people automatically assume that newer things are automatically better than the old things. They arent. Only after you prove that they are can you pass such a judgement. SC2 has its major flaws and BW has its weaknesses, but where BW has its weaknessses in the technical part (graphics quality, spectator mode) its "advanced" descendant has its weaknesses in the general design concept and content part (BNet0.2, the macro-economics and reproduction, the deathball due to tight formation and unlimited unit selection). The weaknesses of SC2 are a major stumbling block for its viewability (deathballs = blobs of units = no strategy) and cause problems for players of different skill levels (*2).
So I dont think your excuse for a stupid version of the Lurker is valid in any shape or form because it is just a silly "newer is automatically better and HAS TO BE DIFFERENT" argument. There have been enough explanations as to why the Swarm Host is a terribly designed unit and even some suggestions on how to improve its design.
+ Show Spoiler [footnotes] +
(*1) The macro-economics and reproduction speed boosts in SC2 make balancing this power of the races terribly hard, because balance isnt only the balance of two armies of units of type X against each other but also the ability to reproduce these units. The tight deathball of SC2 has made AoE effects very powerful and consequently most of them have been nerfed to the state where you "need to use all of your units to fight a full army of your opponent and you kill each other"; sadly that is the point where the reproduction kicks in and every time a Terran with his mech army loses most of his tanks it is "his fault" for playing badly and not the games fault for allowing Zerg too much reproduction at such a time.
(*2) While pros might have no problem in SC2 to manage larva inject on several hatcheries it is much harder for bronze league players. The same is true for splitting your Marines against a bunch of incoming Banelings or withdrawing fast enough when encountering Siege Tank fire you arent prepared to face.
BW didnt have these problems simply because you never had all your eggs in one basket (control group) and neither did your opponent! In other words: It didnt matter if the Siege Tank was OP or dealt too much damage in BW because you didnt lose your whole army to one such accident. For SC2 it is MUCH more important due to the tight formation and consequently this kind of AoE had to be nerfed because otherwise the kids would have started to whine "Terran OP".
On July 15 2012 13:17 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:05 Rabiator wrote:On July 15 2012 07:43 sunprince wrote:On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host. Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel? Science Vessels are just a different version of the Raven with one better (Irradiate) and one worse spell (Defensive Matrix), so effectively nothing changed. Especially Irradiate is much better than Seeker Missile, because it will damage one target to the full extent and others around it at least a little, whereas Seeker Missile can be fully dodged. The Devourer is an awesome unit and much more stylish than the Corruptor, but since the Corruptor works well enough no one is asking for this one. It is morphed from a Mutalisk and thus the "end part of the chain" instead of the start, which forces you to decide between anti-air or anti-ground with your morph. That would be a better system than the current "I have Broodlords and some automatic anti-air in the form of spare Corruptors" way of SC2. The Scout is better than Void Ray and Phoenix after you upgrade speed and - even though it is considered weak - has its uses as a harrassing unit and as a ... scout. Scout: 150/100 Phoenix: 120/60 All three of these BW units are much better in their design than their SC2 counterparts IMO and its the same for the Lurker and the current implementation of the Swarm Host. Why Blizzard "had to" do something so radically different for almost every unit is beyond me and just a few new units in addition to most of the old ones would have been a wiser choice. Defensive Matrix is one of my most missed spells. For me its actually one of the most useful spells in the game you just gotta know how to use it well.
Defensive Matrix is good and I love the spell too, but it only protects a single target. Point Defense Drone is a better version for SC2 because it protects masses of ground units as well (even though it requires far less skill to use than Defensive Matrix).
|
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote:
2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
|
On July 15 2012 13:58 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote:
2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
