EPTIf SC3 happens, which units would you keep? - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Vision_
877 Posts
| ||
|
Tossim111
United States246 Posts
On September 15 2021 08:29 [Phantom] wrote: I'm curious. Why do people not like the tempest? I think the way SCII works with its economy is just BS to be frank. Tempest scale very well in the mid game. In the late game they just seem like a boring unit only used for posture and pokes. Coming out of the Fleet Beacon, I expect my flagship units like the Carrier and Tempest to wreck havoc and to have a mean bite. Most eSport players use them very strategically and I think they (the game developers) need to improve them for a more entertaining appeal. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27441 Posts
On September 15 2021 08:29 [Phantom] wrote: I'm curious. Why do people not like the tempest? I think people are voting based on the units within SC2, and not on a unit conceptually. I think there’s some potential in a slow moving, long range single target ship that requires a spotter for maximum range, although I don’t particularly like how it functions within SC2. Also for iconic status, for having defined big strengths and weaknesses the siege tank is just a better RTS unit if we’re going to have overlap I’d rather keep the tank excelling. My issue with SC2 lurkers as well. How the units actually function in SC2 with SC2 econ and meta etc, I’m less concerned with. Does it have a niche and promote play/counterplay? Does it have clear strengths and weaknesses? I’d be fine with swapping abilities or even units across races too. I think Phoenixes are at their core, great and probably my favourite SC2 unit on that level. You need more than one to attack ground, you have to manually lift units. There’s a trade off between killing more drones and pooling energy for later. You can lift priority targets, save your own units, mine drag etc. Phoenix heavy metas in PvP and PvT sucked, but that wasn’t really an issue with the Phoenix. Of units that I think have outright sucked, quite a small list. Thors have always been annoyingly clunky, and not in a way that feels part of a trade off, like tanks sieging and unsieging. Just big, annoying to move around and have been worked and reworked so many times. Now they’re in a niche where they either annihilate enemy air if they get close enough, or do nothing whatsoever. Infestors of the Wings variety, just way too good. Swarm hosts and tortuous, tortuous stalemates. Colossus used to be bloody good but it’s problem for me was it’s hybrid ground/air status. Forced so many games where over/underbuilding hard counter Vikings/corrupters determined the outcome. On the other hand it’s cliff-walking ability is neat and could be made interesting, if the map terrain was more varied. Maybe an SC3 Collosus gets a range boost if it climbs terrain, but makes it then become vulnerable to anti-air attacks, so there’s some more jostling for position on the map. Argh this turned way more TLDR than I intended, but I think the core toolkit in terms of unit design is pretty good. How it all actually works with eco, maps and numbers is quite another thing though! | ||
|
Athinira
Denmark33 Posts
Now, it's hard to make SC3 feel like Broodwar without taking some steps back. Big part of Broodwar balancing and gameplay was stuff like it was harder to ball/clump units, the limited control (12 units or 1 building max at the same time) etc. Some of these things are not gonna make a return no matter what, because it would feel like going back to playing a game with bad controls. But I'm wondering if there's some ways you could bridge the gap in the gameplay and map design. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27441 Posts
On September 16 2021 02:26 Athinira wrote: I really don't care much about which units are kept (although i agree with you that some units are core to each race). I care more about the gameplay being more like Broodwar (but without being Broodwar). Now, it's hard to make SC3 feel like Broodwar without taking some steps back. Big part of Broodwar balancing and gameplay was stuff like it was harder to ball/clump units, the limited control (12 units or 1 building max at the same time) etc. Some of these things are not gonna make a return no matter what, because it would feel like going back to playing a game with bad controls. But I'm wondering if there's some ways you could bridge the gap in the gameplay and map design. I agree that anything that’s related to a UI restriction would be unlikely to be re-introduced, like a 12 unit selection. I think there’s other ways around this. Units could naturally spread, and spread more the more are selected in one group, which could have uses in auto-spreading certain units, but equally would make it advantageous to spread your unit selections across multiple control units vs all army. If BW is a battle to effectively collect your forces together in clumps, SC2 is a battle of spreading them to counteract their tendency to clump. 1Aing your entire army should be easy and painless to do, equally I think the player who’s working with 3/4 control groups should have more of an advantage from doing so. But yeah I think other interesting dynamics with the impact of terrain etc can add some complexity and things to strategise and tactically outfox your opponent without reverting to UI restrictions. SC2 didn’t really do much in this domain so I think any sequel should probably consider it. | ||
|
Vision_
877 Posts
On September 16 2021 00:34 Tossim111 wrote: I think the way SCII works with its economy is just BS to be frank. Tempest scale very well in the mid game. In the late game they just seem like a boring unit only used for posture and pokes. Coming out of the Fleet Beacon, I expect my flagship units like the Carrier and Tempest to wreck havoc and to have a mean bite. Most eSport players use them very strategically and I think they (the game developers) need to improve them for a more entertaining appeal. He has a little bit more of dps than a marine under adrealine but his supply cost is 5x times superior. I like the concept of a very long range siege unit inside a protoss army (even if i think disruptor must receive some tweaks a little bit) but it s not compatible with the almighty strenght of the golden armada, even if corruptors or vikings are far away a cost effective unit. Thus curiously, Tempest has only bonus against air massive units and he s not specialized against armored (?) I think in an utopist SC3 they could attack like hellions, burning everything in a straight line behind the targeted unit (add kind of splash damage), but actually it s not reasonable because of the strenght of the golden armada Then i would probably remove the corruptor by the voyd ray design, cause corruptors is a broken unit. The concept of Void ray Unit could be interesting in the zerg race, as a good alternative to mutalisks which are fast and good at harassing (while corruptors has nothing special) | ||
|
iopq
United States1182 Posts
one million APM won't make zerglings kill a terran behind a depot depot barracks wall | ||
|
mindjames
Israel436 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27441 Posts
On September 27 2021 04:31 mindjames wrote: Sorry if it's been noted already, but it's kind of an odd choice to have a poll that excludes some options because of some vague idea of "core units". Bro you will only take my Manlots away from my cold, dead hands. | ||
|
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
On September 27 2021 04:31 mindjames wrote: Sorry if it's been noted already, but it's kind of an odd choice to have a poll that excludes some options because of some vague idea of "core units". OP:Which units would you remove or keep? But lets keep the discussion outside of units i like. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
On September 27 2021 06:00 Morbidius wrote: OP:Which units would you remove or keep? But lets keep the discussion outside of units i like. To be clear, what I put in as "core" units are not units I like. Just units I considered to be race defining in both gameplay and lore. Some are more important for gameplay, some lore. Also I considered that each race should have defining units in Ground and Air. Zergling: It's the "swarm" unit. Two at a time, builds fast, moves fast, melee atack. Hydralisk: It's literally the unit shown when you pick the race. Probably the most iconic zerg unit. It's literally the Zerg mascot for any merchandise, appears in all zerg cinematics etc. It is the main ground to air anti air of the race. Used since sc1. Mutalisk: Same as the Hydralisk but for air. Interesting concept and micro potential. Ultralisk: Ultimate zerg ground unit. Appears in both games, important lore wise, cinematic wise etc. Overlord: Zerg core mechanic since sc1. It gives supply and it's also important lorewise too as it's what enables control of more units of the Swarm. Terran: Marine: I'd say the whole terran race, and maybe the whole game is made around this unit. It's important gameplay and lorewise, it's the race mascot. Some form of Medic. I was ambiguos here but being able to heal units it's an important gameplay differentiator for Terran. Ghost. One of the most iconic units (nuclear launch detected), important gameplay wise (EMP) and VERY important lore wise. Siege Tank. Alongside the Marine, this unit basically defines terran. One of the most interesting and well designed units in RTS. Battle Cruiser. It's the terran capital ship. Super iconic. I don't like it having it blink, but that doesn't mean it's not the flagship Air Terran unit. Protoss: Zealot: All protoss gameplay is based around this unit. It must exit for lore reasons. High Templar: Again, it must exist for lore reasons. Also Psi Storm is a core part of protoss gameplay and identity. Dark Templar: Must exist for lore reasons. Fills an important gameplay niche in the protoss army. Permanent cloak and cloack fields are a defining Protoss trait since BW. Archon: If HT and DT exist, Archon must exist. Carrier: Protoss Air Flagsip. Important for lore reasons, used competitively in both BW and Sc2. "The Golden Armada" is an important aspect of protoss identity, and the core of it is the carrier. Observer: I guess you could argue this one, but I don't think anyone really has any problem with the observer. And again, it doesn't mean I like the units, or that they should not change some aspects/abilities. If Blizz makes sc3 I pray to god they remove BC blink. However I don't think removing the BC itself would be good. That being said, I'm not Blizzard, and they did rework/remove units from sc1->sc2 that I would have considered important or iconic like the Dragoon (although you could argue the Stalker is a dragoon that you can micro), or the firebat (although again, the Hellbat). So if you have any argument agaisnt or in favor of those units I'd love to discuss it! | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3711 Posts
On September 16 2021 02:57 WombaT wrote: I agree that anything that’s related to a UI restriction would be unlikely to be re-introduced, like a 12 unit selection. I think there’s other ways around this. Units could naturally spread, and spread more the more are selected in one group, which could have uses in auto-spreading certain units, but equally would make it advantageous to spread your unit selections across multiple control units vs all army. If BW is a battle to effectively collect your forces together in clumps, SC2 is a battle of spreading them to counteract their tendency to clump. 1Aing your entire army should be easy and painless to do, equally I think the player who’s working with 3/4 control groups should have more of an advantage from doing so. But yeah I think other interesting dynamics with the impact of terrain etc can add some complexity and things to strategise and tactically outfox your opponent without reverting to UI restrictions. SC2 didn’t really do much in this domain so I think any sequel should probably consider it. One of the big things to help out would be the BW economy (e.g. being able to super saturate bases, few workers at start), high ground advantages (miss chance) alongside the anti clump mechanic you described. Obviously you'd have to buff splash damage accordingly. Unfortunately I do agree that any UI stuff, like a cap on control groups, likely will never come back. Maybe there is a place for other artificial limitations though? Like only being able to select ground units together, or barracks units etc. Maybe just be able to select the same type of building together? Anything that pushes the game more in a mechanical direction is desperatly needed imo. | ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
On September 27 2021 09:48 Lorch wrote: One of the big things to help out would be the BW economy (e.g. being able to super saturate bases, few workers at start), high ground advantages (miss chance) alongside the anti clump mechanic you described. Obviously you'd have to buff splash damage accordingly. Unfortunately I do agree that any UI stuff, like a cap on control groups, likely will never come back. Maybe there is a place for other artificial limitations though? Like only being able to select ground units together, or barracks units etc. Maybe just be able to select the same type of building together? Anything that pushes the game more in a mechanical direction is desperatly needed imo. I dissagree. The key is finding the balance. SC2 is already too hard. They need to find a way to make it easier and more accesible, withouth making it super dumbed down. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2121 Posts
| ||
nimdil
Poland3773 Posts
On September 16 2021 01:13 WombaT wrote: Of units that I think have outright sucked, quite a small list. Thors have always been annoyingly clunky, and not in a way that feels part of a trade off, like tanks sieging and unsieging. Just big, annoying to move around and have been worked and reworked so many times. Now they’re in a niche where they either annihilate enemy air if they get close enough, or do nothing whatsoever. Last time Thors were cool was when Jinro's Thors countered MC's Immortals. But late game they are there mostly to counter mass mutalisks - a function that was just better served by Valkyries. On September 16 2021 01:13 WombaT wrote: Colossus used to be bloody good but it’s problem for me was it’s hybrid ground/air status. Forced so many games where over/underbuilding hard counter Vikings/corrupters determined the outcome. On the other hand it’s cliff-walking ability is neat and could be made interesting, if the map terrain was more varied. Maybe an SC3 Collosus gets a range boost if it climbs terrain, but makes it then become vulnerable to anti-air attacks, so there’s some more jostling for position on the map. I think the problem with colossus was also that they invited protoss deathball tactic as Colossus could have all other units under them. As much as BW reavers required a lot more micro, they were more entertaining by far. | ||
|
VelRa_G
Canada304 Posts
| ||
|
Freeborn
Germany421 Posts
I like the baneling, still love the DT especially with blink. Most of the new (sc2) units suck actually. The cyclone is not bad and the adept would be ok if it was a more balanced fighting unit with shade as an upgrade maybe. | ||
|
weiliem
2073 Posts
| ||
|
outscar
2832 Posts
 | ||
|
zergtat
Hong Kong853 Posts
| ||
| ||
