|
Canada8989 Posts
On October 26 2024 20:58 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 16:26 tigera6 wrote:On October 26 2024 08:47 Blitzball04 wrote:So we can eliminate Clem as the “top terran” in question that is fighting for nerfs for other races Maybe Maru is the terran in question? He does has a history of complaining how weak terran is in lots of interviews (even when terran was strong) Was somebody mention its Spirit who advocate for Terran in the balance forum? As for Maru, he would complain in interview but I doubt he care much about the game overall at his point to make some balance suggestion. The way he played in the last couple tournament showed how he was lacking preparation or even practice, keep doing the same thing, make no adjustment and terrible at reading the game state. Maru has also never to my knowledge been vocal about balance and he's had the longest career of any top tier pro still playing SC2. In all of the teams that Maru has been on I can remember teammates of his being vocal about balance, be them Ryung, Rogue, Creator, or even Polt. We never hear from Maru about balance and any time we do it's the shortest vaguest answer possible just to give an answer to whoever is asking him in an interview. I sincerely doubt that Maru is advocating for tons of Terran buffs behind the scenes, especially at this point in his career.
I can imagine everyone arguing for two hours about ghost change with Maru wrapped in a hoddie in the corner of the room, then him finally going to wisper into ByuN's ears : "No, Toss imba, Ghost need pewpew" and all the terrans applauding.
|
Oliveira is also definetely a top terran...anyway we will probably never know who is in charge.
Overall I don't see any good for protoss with this patch 
|
I actually think
1. WombaT should not have had adopted this patch
2. There are good changes for P in the patch, but there are too many buffs to the others to make it unpredictable.
+ (TvP) Colossus shield hp change is good: 8->10 viking shots are needed to take down emp'd robots now.
+ (PvP,TvP) Battery hp/shield increase is nice for (adept) walls as well, T tries to (and will) focus down super battery.
+ 400/400 meme ship is a good change no one asked for
= Tempest is a good balanced change, more microable, slightly less range
|
For the colossus change, more hp means also unrecoverable damage after a fight, not a significant change for me. I don't get the comment "more rewarding for Armor upgrade investments" in the patch note.
|
On October 28 2024 00:07 Qotsa4 wrote:
For the colossus change, more hp means also unrecoverable damage after a fight, not a significant change for me. I don't get the comment "more rewarding for Armor upgrade investments" in the patch note.
Armor upgrades apply to HP not to shields so if you have more HP and less shields your armor upgrades cover a larger percentage of the damage that your colossus takes.
|
I've watched Artosis, Harstem, and Pig's breakdown of this patch.
I mostly agree with Artosis, most of the changes are good ideas, or at least the flavor of them is in the spirit of the right direction. The issue is that the balance council still thinks that balancing Protoss to not be, "too frustrating" at lower leagues is hamstringing the entire process. Frankly I don't care if your scouting or micro or macro sucks, Protoss is strong below the pro level, fucking deal with it, SC2 is an old game, and I'm Zerg fwiw.
For Terran and Zerg, it's mostly net buffs. All Zerg needed was the shroud change and the Queen mineral change, boom, those would have been great changes. Hydralisks see plenty of use, they don't need anymore changes. Shroud sucks, Queens are too efficient. Spore and Spine buffs? For a tiny mineral nerf to Queens? They say they want to nerf defensive play but then buff static defense for Zerg, this is a total contradiction. Spines and spores are not bad static D, totally unnecessary changes.
They over thought this one alot, less is more.
Terran changes swing from excellent like the Liberator change to frankly asinine, like the missile turret salvage change.
The Protoss changes are imo, bad, extremely so, I heavily disagree with most of them and imo this will put the final nail in the coffin for this race at the pro level, the balance councils fear of not giving Protoss core power buffs because noobs below the pro level get "frustrated" is frankly stupid as hell, it was stupid 7 years ago and it's even more stupid now in the twilight of this games lifespan.
Tempest change = Okay? Cool I guess? Is this going to boost Protoss power level?
Mothership = Who cares? Cool I guess?
Colossus = This unit sucks and has suffered from huge power creep loss, it needs a net buff, not a feel good change. Z and T have a plethora of counters to this unit.
Immortal nerf = Literally idiotic, and for a match up that is widely considered at this point very balanced at that.
Disruptor nerf = Literally idiotic, this unit is bad at the top level of play and was one of the few come back units that Protoss had. Once again, Protoss get's nerfed for being "frustrating" with no suitable buffs to compensate. I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Better yet, remove it and buff GW units accordingly.
Energy OC = I actually like this idea, but coupling it with a nerf to Protoss's primary defensive ability is imo bad. Battery OC is not a "fun high skill" ability, but it's necessary because Protoss is soooo fragile early on, especially against Terran. This needs to be closely monitored, Protoss doesn't need nerfs, they need buffs.
Really hoping the balance council grows some balls and just lays on some damn buffs for Protoss, enough is enough, they don't have to be weak forever guys.
|
On October 28 2024 00:31 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2024 00:07 Qotsa4 wrote:
For the colossus change, more hp means also unrecoverable damage after a fight, not a significant change for me. I don't get the comment "more rewarding for Armor upgrade investments" in the patch note. Armor upgrades apply to HP not to shields so if you have more HP and less shields your armor upgrades cover a larger percentage of the damage that your colossus takes.
ok thx, I was note sure of that.
|
On October 26 2024 21:14 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 18:22 Ronin2011 wrote:On October 26 2024 17:43 Charoisaur wrote:On October 26 2024 08:41 Blitzball04 wrote:On October 25 2024 22:14 BlackEyed wrote:
I don't understand, is this some kind of conspiracy or why is the obvious OP of ghosts being ignored? Has a pew pew lover gotten to power or is there some other reason? Remember that the balance council is heavily Terran favoured and Protoss biased There is no way the ghost will get nerfed no matter how Op they due to all the terran pros whining within the council Right, there's no way they'd ever nerf the Ghost. I must have imagined them nerfing EMP radius by 33%, snipe damage by 20% and making units being able to cancel snipe by running away How on earth has this to do with anything? If a unit is stronger than it should be, does it matter how many times has been nerfed or changed? Brother, u have reached a point where ur "arguments" only provide spam for this thread and nothing more. Jesus, what's going on with your reading comprehension? He said there's no way the balance council would ever nerf the Ghost. This statement is hardly justifiable when we know from past data that in fact the balance council is very willing to nerf the Ghost as they have done it multiple times.
I will try to explain this just like I would, to a 5-year-old child.
It is reading comprehension that would require you to understand that he talks about the current state of balance council, with his point deriving from the fact that we just had a fresh balance changes proposal, and a ghost nerf/change is not among them.
So yeah, not only his point is valid but with ur answer that talks about year old ghost changes, proves that u either have poor comprehension skills, or u r just here to spam since u have nothing better to do. In either occasion, I'm out.
P.S. With all the community outrage that the absence of a ghost nerf/change caused, that even made Clem to be scared and speak in favor of a nerf, let us hope that we will soon see fresh changes that will include such a proposal.
|
On October 28 2024 06:10 Ronin2011 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2024 21:14 Charoisaur wrote:On October 26 2024 18:22 Ronin2011 wrote:On October 26 2024 17:43 Charoisaur wrote:On October 26 2024 08:41 Blitzball04 wrote:On October 25 2024 22:14 BlackEyed wrote:
I don't understand, is this some kind of conspiracy or why is the obvious OP of ghosts being ignored? Has a pew pew lover gotten to power or is there some other reason? Remember that the balance council is heavily Terran favoured and Protoss biased There is no way the ghost will get nerfed no matter how Op they due to all the terran pros whining within the council Right, there's no way they'd ever nerf the Ghost. I must have imagined them nerfing EMP radius by 33%, snipe damage by 20% and making units being able to cancel snipe by running away How on earth has this to do with anything? If a unit is stronger than it should be, does it matter how many times has been nerfed or changed? Brother, u have reached a point where ur "arguments" only provide spam for this thread and nothing more. Jesus, what's going on with your reading comprehension? He said there's no way the balance council would ever nerf the Ghost. This statement is hardly justifiable when we know from past data that in fact the balance council is very willing to nerf the Ghost as they have done it multiple times. I will try to explain this just like I would, to a 5-year-old child. It is reading comprehension that would require you to understand that he talks about the current state of balance council, with his point deriving from the fact that we just had a fresh balance changes proposal, and a ghost nerf/change is not among them. So yeah, not only his point is valid but with ur answer that talks about year old ghost changes, proves that u either have poor comprehension skills, or u r just here to spam since u have nothing better to do. In either occasion, I'm out. P.S. With all the community outrage that the absence of a ghost nerf/change caused, that even made Clem to be scared and speak in favor of a nerf, let us hope that we will soon see fresh changes that will include such a proposal.
Please stop, this is embarrassing.
|
United Kingdom20284 Posts
I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver.
Reaver is probably the best designed protoss unit IMO. Removing it is akin to deleting the dropship or the siege tank from terran
|
Northern Ireland24911 Posts
On October 28 2024 08:15 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Reaver is probably the best designed protoss unit IMO. Removing it is akin to deleting the dropship or the siege tank from terran
For Brood War perhaps
I think the suspicion has always been that they found a way to make it suitably powerful in SC2 with its engine. Either brutally powerful, or having to be over nerfed so it was ineffective. Seeing it in SC Evo seemed to somewhat validate that at least for me
Also its coolest synergy with shuttles, really drops off a lot quicker in being realistically doable given how much quicker armies scale up.
For me it’s possibly my favourite RTS unit, although the siege tank may be the consensus best-designed, iconic SC unit. So I’d absolutely bloody love to see it
But given Protoss has had not one, but two robo AoE units that aren’t the Reaver, that would be my best guess.
I think the Disruptor is a clear attempt to make something similar but have them become harder to use the more of them you have so as to not be oppressive. I’m not sure it’s been a super effective experiment overall, but I think the rationale
It’s hard enough to attack into disruptors, but they are a bit of an APM/micro sink, I can’t imagine how hard it would be to attack into 5/6 reavers with reliable scarabs, that you can A-move
Perhaps simply taking the disruptor idea and remove the A-move ability off the reaver, but let you target fire with a regular targeted attack versus an ability might be one way.
I want my sluggy boiz back dagnabbit!
|
On October 28 2024 08:15 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Reaver is probably the best designed protoss unit IMO. Removing it is akin to deleting the dropship or the siege tank from terran
The Reaver was just another victim of the SC2 team deciding to replace units with new designs that weren't as good as their SC1 counter parts. Protoss lost the Reaver and Arbiter and got the Mothership and Collosus instead. Terran lost the Vulture, Goliath and Wraith and got the Hellion, Banshee, Viking and Thor instead. The roles that used to be accomplished by 2 units in the Goliath and Wraith now gets filled by 3 units.
Zerg actually got it the worst in these trades. They had their core ground to air unit moved to the Lair and made double the supply and cost (almost) and replaced with a unit that doesn't fit that role at all. So because of that stupidity Blizzard had to then tweak their macro mechanic to form the basis of their early game anti-air role.
Aside from my complaints about Warp Gate, my next biggest complaint about SC2 are these (if they weren't broken why did you fix them?) units in SC2, that were designed to replace amazing Brood War units that ended up being straight up worse units in general.
It's one thing to replace the Scout, Dropship, Devourer, Wraith and Shuttle with newer more interesting designs. But replacing units like the Goliath, Hydralisk and Reaver with shit like the Collosus, Roach and Thor caused ALL kinds of problems that each race is still dealing with today.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On October 28 2024 08:56 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2024 08:15 Cyro wrote:I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Reaver is probably the best designed protoss unit IMO. Removing it is akin to deleting the dropship or the siege tank from terran The Reaver was just another victim of the SC2 team deciding to replace units with new designs that weren't as good as their SC1 counter parts. Protoss lost the Reaver and Arbiter and got the Mothership and Collosus instead. Terran lost the Vulture, Goliath and Wraith and got the Hellion, Banshee, Viking and Thor instead. The roles that used to be accomplished by 2 units in the Goliath and Wraith now gets filled by 3 units. Zerg actually got it the worst in these trades. They had their core ground to air unit moved to the Lair and made double the supply and cost (almost) and replaced with a unit that doesn't fit that role at all. So because of that stupidity Blizzard had to then tweak their macro mechanic to form the basis of their early game anti-air role. Aside from my complaints about Warp Gate, my next biggest complaint about SC2 are these (if they weren't broken why did you fix them?) units in SC2, that were designed to replace amazing Brood War units that ended up being straight up worse units in general. It's one thing to replace the Scout, Dropship, Devourer, Wraith and Shuttle with newer more interesting designs. But replacing units like the Goliath, Hydralisk and Reaver with shit like the Collosus, Roach and Thor caused ALL kinds of problems that each race is still dealing with today.
I've never understood this.
Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 are not the same game, they aren't even close to being the same game. Saying reavers would make SC2 protoss better is like saying they should put longbowmen or Spell Breakers into the game, they are just RTS concepts. Sure some could be adapted into SC2 and turn out great, but there's essentially nothing of the theory of BW that works in SC2.
Don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy BW, but like we have baneling in SC2, and easier macro, and better unit movement. Do you want to give a Starcraft 2 zerg a cheap hatch-tech mobile anti-air so that he can ling-bane-hydra bust every game? Of course not, that's an absurd idea.
Also, I know it's a core BW unit, but the Goliath is the world's dullest unit. It's just a giant marine that cannot micro. That's like if someone complained they removed the corruptor from SC3.
|
Northern Ireland24911 Posts
On October 28 2024 09:41 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2024 08:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 28 2024 08:15 Cyro wrote:I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Reaver is probably the best designed protoss unit IMO. Removing it is akin to deleting the dropship or the siege tank from terran The Reaver was just another victim of the SC2 team deciding to replace units with new designs that weren't as good as their SC1 counter parts. Protoss lost the Reaver and Arbiter and got the Mothership and Collosus instead. Terran lost the Vulture, Goliath and Wraith and got the Hellion, Banshee, Viking and Thor instead. The roles that used to be accomplished by 2 units in the Goliath and Wraith now gets filled by 3 units. Zerg actually got it the worst in these trades. They had their core ground to air unit moved to the Lair and made double the supply and cost (almost) and replaced with a unit that doesn't fit that role at all. So because of that stupidity Blizzard had to then tweak their macro mechanic to form the basis of their early game anti-air role. Aside from my complaints about Warp Gate, my next biggest complaint about SC2 are these (if they weren't broken why did you fix them?) units in SC2, that were designed to replace amazing Brood War units that ended up being straight up worse units in general. It's one thing to replace the Scout, Dropship, Devourer, Wraith and Shuttle with newer more interesting designs. But replacing units like the Goliath, Hydralisk and Reaver with shit like the Collosus, Roach and Thor caused ALL kinds of problems that each race is still dealing with today. I've never understood this. Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 are not the same game, they aren't even close to being the same game. Saying reavers would make SC2 protoss better is like saying they should put longbowmen or Speel Breakers into the game, they are just RTS concepts. Sure some could be adapted into SC2 and turn out great, but there's essentially nothing of the theory of BW that works in SC2. Don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy BW, but like we have baneling in SC2, and easier macro, and better unit movement. Do you want to give a Starcraft 2 zerg a cheap hatch-tech mobile anti-air so that he can ling-bane-hydra bust every game? Of course not, that's an absurd idea. Also, I know it's a core BW unit, but the Goliath is the world's dullest unit. It's just a giant marine that cannot micro. That's like if someone complained they removed the corruptor from SC3.
Look at the marine. It’s not that different in stats from its BW counterpart, but much stronger based on these other factors
I’m of the opinion that classic vulture/tank/goliath mech would be basically unbeatable with SC2’s control, pathing and macro
People complain about Thors being perpetually clunky units, I think that was always intentional to not give mech a really solid AA unit that’s easy to use.
SC2’s devs made missteps don’t get me wrong (warpgate curse youuuuuuu), but I’m pretty sure they knew these aspects of their baby and what they might need to change based on the engine choices they made.
I mean, even in WoL campaign there’s quite a lot of these missing units from BW. I’d imagine they pulled over BW units, made their new units and (imperfectly) figured out what worked and what didn’t for the multiplayer
Still want my Reaver though. Perhaps in WombaT ‘sPatch 2.0…
|
Canada8989 Posts
On October 28 2024 10:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2024 09:41 Nakajin wrote:On October 28 2024 08:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 28 2024 08:15 Cyro wrote:I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Reaver is probably the best designed protoss unit IMO. Removing it is akin to deleting the dropship or the siege tank from terran The Reaver was just another victim of the SC2 team deciding to replace units with new designs that weren't as good as their SC1 counter parts. Protoss lost the Reaver and Arbiter and got the Mothership and Collosus instead. Terran lost the Vulture, Goliath and Wraith and got the Hellion, Banshee, Viking and Thor instead. The roles that used to be accomplished by 2 units in the Goliath and Wraith now gets filled by 3 units. Zerg actually got it the worst in these trades. They had their core ground to air unit moved to the Lair and made double the supply and cost (almost) and replaced with a unit that doesn't fit that role at all. So because of that stupidity Blizzard had to then tweak their macro mechanic to form the basis of their early game anti-air role. Aside from my complaints about Warp Gate, my next biggest complaint about SC2 are these (if they weren't broken why did you fix them?) units in SC2, that were designed to replace amazing Brood War units that ended up being straight up worse units in general. It's one thing to replace the Scout, Dropship, Devourer, Wraith and Shuttle with newer more interesting designs. But replacing units like the Goliath, Hydralisk and Reaver with shit like the Collosus, Roach and Thor caused ALL kinds of problems that each race is still dealing with today. I've never understood this. Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 are not the same game, they aren't even close to being the same game. Saying reavers would make SC2 protoss better is like saying they should put longbowmen or Speel Breakers into the game, they are just RTS concepts. Sure some could be adapted into SC2 and turn out great, but there's essentially nothing of the theory of BW that works in SC2. Don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy BW, but like we have baneling in SC2, and easier macro, and better unit movement. Do you want to give a Starcraft 2 zerg a cheap hatch-tech mobile anti-air so that he can ling-bane-hydra bust every game? Of course not, that's an absurd idea. Also, I know it's a core BW unit, but the Goliath is the world's dullest unit. It's just a giant marine that cannot micro. That's like if someone complained they removed the corruptor from SC3. Look at the marine. It’s not that different in stats from its BW counterpart, but much stronger based on these other factors I’m of the opinion that classic vulture/tank/goliath mech would be basically unbeatable with SC2’s control, pathing and macro People complain about Thors being perpetually clunky units, I think that was always intentional to not give mech a really solid AA unit that’s easy to use. SC2’s devs made missteps don’t get me wrong (warpgate curse youuuuuuu), but I’m pretty sure they knew these aspects of their baby and what they might need to change based on the engine choices they made. I mean, even in WoL campaign there’s quite a lot of these missing units from BW. I’d imagine they pulled over BW units, made their new units and (imperfectly) figured out what worked and what didn’t for the multiplayer Still want my Reaver though. Perhaps in WombaT ‘sPatch 2.0…
Yeah, I pretty much agree with all that, altought I go back and fourth on warpgate.
With all the talks about the balance council, now's the time to push for balance emperor Wombat the First.
|
On October 28 2024 00:54 Beelzebub1 wrote:
I've watched Artosis, Harstem, and Pig's breakdown of this patch.
I mostly agree with Artosis, most of the changes are good ideas, or at least the flavor of them is in the spirit of the right direction. The issue is that the balance council still thinks that balancing Protoss to not be, "too frustrating" at lower leagues is hamstringing the entire process. Frankly I don't care if your scouting or micro or macro sucks, Protoss is strong below the pro level, fucking deal with it, SC2 is an old game, and I'm Zerg fwiw.
For Terran and Zerg, it's mostly net buffs. All Zerg needed was the shroud change and the Queen mineral change, boom, those would have been great changes. Hydralisks see plenty of use, they don't need anymore changes. Shroud sucks, Queens are too efficient. Spore and Spine buffs? For a tiny mineral nerf to Queens? They say they want to nerf defensive play but then buff static defense for Zerg, this is a total contradiction. Spines and spores are not bad static D, totally unnecessary changes.
They over thought this one alot, less is more.
Terran changes swing from excellent like the Liberator change to frankly asinine, like the missile turret salvage change.
The Protoss changes are imo, bad, extremely so, I heavily disagree with most of them and imo this will put the final nail in the coffin for this race at the pro level, the balance councils fear of not giving Protoss core power buffs because noobs below the pro level get "frustrated" is frankly stupid as hell, it was stupid 7 years ago and it's even more stupid now in the twilight of this games lifespan.
Tempest change = Okay? Cool I guess? Is this going to boost Protoss power level?
Mothership = Who cares? Cool I guess?
Colossus = This unit sucks and has suffered from huge power creep loss, it needs a net buff, not a feel good change. Z and T have a plethora of counters to this unit.
Immortal nerf = Literally idiotic, and for a match up that is widely considered at this point very balanced at that.
Disruptor nerf = Literally idiotic, this unit is bad at the top level of play and was one of the few come back units that Protoss had. Once again, Protoss get's nerfed for being "frustrating" with no suitable buffs to compensate. I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Better yet, remove it and buff GW units accordingly.
Energy OC = I actually like this idea, but coupling it with a nerf to Protoss's primary defensive ability is imo bad. Battery OC is not a "fun high skill" ability, but it's necessary because Protoss is soooo fragile early on, especially against Terran. This needs to be closely monitored, Protoss doesn't need nerfs, they need buffs.
Really hoping the balance council grows some balls and just lays on some damn buffs for Protoss, enough is enough, they don't have to be weak forever guys.
Protoss isnt just strong below pro. It's strong at (lower league) pro levels too. You dont wanna live in a world of PvP after PvP every tourney stream.
Get rid of warp tech.
Increase micro and multitasking by nerfing deathball-centric units like collosi to the ground and buffing other units to compensate. 1 giant ball of army roaming around is just a terrible gamplay.
|
On October 28 2024 09:41 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2024 08:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 28 2024 08:15 Cyro wrote:I don't even like this unit, they should remove it and replace it with the Reaver. Reaver is probably the best designed protoss unit IMO. Removing it is akin to deleting the dropship or the siege tank from terran The Reaver was just another victim of the SC2 team deciding to replace units with new designs that weren't as good as their SC1 counter parts. Protoss lost the Reaver and Arbiter and got the Mothership and Collosus instead. Terran lost the Vulture, Goliath and Wraith and got the Hellion, Banshee, Viking and Thor instead. The roles that used to be accomplished by 2 units in the Goliath and Wraith now gets filled by 3 units. Zerg actually got it the worst in these trades. They had their core ground to air unit moved to the Lair and made double the supply and cost (almost) and replaced with a unit that doesn't fit that role at all. So because of that stupidity Blizzard had to then tweak their macro mechanic to form the basis of their early game anti-air role. Aside from my complaints about Warp Gate, my next biggest complaint about SC2 are these (if they weren't broken why did you fix them?) units in SC2, that were designed to replace amazing Brood War units that ended up being straight up worse units in general. It's one thing to replace the Scout, Dropship, Devourer, Wraith and Shuttle with newer more interesting designs. But replacing units like the Goliath, Hydralisk and Reaver with shit like the Collosus, Roach and Thor caused ALL kinds of problems that each race is still dealing with today. I've never understood this. Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2 are not the same game, they aren't even close to being the same game. Saying reavers would make SC2 protoss better is like saying they should put longbowmen or Spell Breakers into the game, they are just RTS concepts. Sure some could be adapted into SC2 and turn out great, but there's essentially nothing of the theory of BW that works in SC2. Don't get me wrong, I generally enjoy BW, but like we have baneling in SC2, and easier macro, and better unit movement. Do you want to give a Starcraft 2 zerg a cheap hatch-tech mobile anti-air so that he can ling-bane-hydra bust every game? Of course not, that's an absurd idea. Also, I know it's a core BW unit, but the Goliath is the world's dullest unit. It's just a giant marine that cannot micro. That's like if someone complained they removed the corruptor from SC3.
You make a good point about the Baneling, that's another unit that has been an absolute fucking nightmare to balance over the years.
So because Zerg has Banelings, they can't have Hydralisks in the early game. That makes sense.
But because Zerg doesn't have Hydralisks their early game anti-air is all but non-existant, that means they get absolutely wrecked by heavy investments in early game air harass. So Blizzard buffs the shit out of the Queen to compensate.
Now the Queen is this nightmare of a unit that does too much of everything and basically becomes the 1 stop shop for EVERYTHING Zerg needs to defend while also at the same time accelerating their macro and map control with Creep Tumors and Inject Larva.
How about just put Banelings on Lair Tech and leave the Hydralisk where it was? Why the fuck did we need to put Banelings on Hatch tech? That even works better conceptually since it gives Zerglings 3 distinct power spikes at each stage of evolution on the Hatchery. Speed on Hatch Tech, Banelings on Lair Tech and Adrenal Glands on Hive.
Look at all of the bullshit design we got for Zerg because the SC2 team REALLY WANTED their new units to have the spotlight? They REALLY wanted Roaches and Banelings to be on Hatch tech when there was absolutely no reason for them to be.
This is just one bad example. There's other examples all over the game.
Yes, at the end of the day, SC2 is a different game from Brood War. But we have so many areas of this game that have been such sticking points for balance over the years that all come from the SC2's team's strange new unit designs that replaced older unit designs that frankly worked better.
What would Protoss be if they didn't have Warp Gate and only had one Splash Unit off of the Robotics Facility? What other cool shit could we have given them to build their SC2 identity around? Instead of Hatch Tech Banelings being so overpowered that it justifes FOREVER how strong SC2 Marines are, what if we had Hatch Tech Hydralisks and put the Roach and Baneling on Lair tech and changed their power scaling a bit?
I'm just saying. There's a lot of missed opportunities for BETTER design in SC2 that could have happened if the SC2 team had simply not been so gung ho about putting their new concepts ahead of the old ones.
|
Also as far as the Goliath goes. I 100 percent agree that it's a dull unit. I'm not disputing that fact. I'm merely pointing out that the role the Goliath filled on the Terran roster (GtA Anti-armored) is one that has been a huge problem for the Terran roster throughout the entirety of SC2 because all of the units that replaced it for that role: Viking, Thor, Cyclone all have significant design features that make them unable to fill that role anywhere near as effectively as the Goliath did.
I'm all for replacing old boring unit designs with units that are more interesting. But not if it means that the new units perform horribly at the roles they are slotting in for. And by the way, because that role was so inadequately filled for so long in SC2 you know which unit can't ever be nerfed because it needs to be able to fill in for that role? Yup you guessed it, the good o'l reliable Terran Marine.
And don't get me wrong, The Viking as a concept is one of my favorite units in SC2. What sci fi nerd doesn't love a transforming Jet? But concept and actual gameplay are two different things. The Viking does not replace the Goliath. If anything it SORTA replaces the Wraith.
|
Canada8989 Posts
I get you, but I think it depends on where you're coming from.
Naturally, a lot of people on TL come from BW and have transitioned to SC2 after, which was expected to keep the same design philosophy. Personally, I played a little BW single-player as a kid, but I mostly tried it when the remastered came out after years of Starcraft 2.
There is no doubt BW does a lot of things right, some I like better than SC2 (the art direction among others), but with the eyes of a SC2 player I find there are very noticeable problems in BW design. For example, I find the defender advantage and the low-ground/high-ground mechanics to be way too strong leading to a lot of very stale games, I have quit BW game out of boredom, something I've never done in SC2. Part of that is just how the engine and the more intensive macro work, but part of it comes from the design units.
To continue with the hydralisk-baneling, I find that the lack of attacking tools for BW zerg is a huge problem. Unless you do an all-in, it's extremely hard for zerg to break a defensive position, especially up a ramp, before you have that one late-game unit with an overpower bandaid spell which makes your units invincible. I won't say the bane never created problems (although I think they mostly arrived from LOTV economy change), but I really don't think the BW approach is an adequate solution.
Same for the Goliath, you are right that there are no reliable and easy-to-mass ground-to-air mech units in SC2, but is it a problem? As a SC2 terran main, I find the existence of the goliath in BW to be a much bigger problem than its non-existence in SC2. It makes mech extremely safe to get to, encourages camping and turtling, and kills a lot of the variety. In SC2, terran players need to be so much more imaginative and attentive when going mech, the dynamic is a lot more fun to me.
Plus, like you said what do we get in ''exchange'' from the goliath? The SC2 marine, probably my favorite unit in all RTS games. It's so twitchy and versatile, it has awesome synergy with the rest of the terran toolbox.
Everyone likes different things and there is nothing wrong with that, but the idea of nerfing the marine, putting the Goliath in the game, and forcing me to play those awful snoozefest BW tvt, is not at all appealing to me and I certainly don't consider it a mistake from Blizzard SC2 development team.
|
Everyone likes different things and there is nothing wrong with that, but the idea of nerfing the marine, putting the Goliath in the game, and forcing me to play those awful snoozefest BW tvt, is not at all appealing to me and I certainly don't consider it a mistake from Blizzard SC2 development team.
I'm not saying that I want every Terran to be forced into playing Mech.
What I am saying is that the SC2 Marine is frankly too strong and too versatile of a unit. It always has been, we've known it always has been since 2010. But despite how too good it is, we can't ever nerf it because unit interactions like Marines vs Banelings and Terran's over reliance on it for anti-air means no matter how the game changes the Marine has to stay the way that it is.
Because of unit interactions like these. We are so limited in what kind of balance tweaks we can actually do without completely breaking certain match ups. When so much of TvZ balance is balanced on the knife's edge interaction of Banelings vs Marines that means that any time either of those units are problematic vs Protoss we have to tear our hair out figuring out an alternative way to handle that problem.
The entire reason I bring up Starcraft's design in these threads is to illustrate the fundamental truth that game design and game balance ARE intrinsicly linked together. Whatever design choices were made 15 years ago by the SC2 team for whatever reason, whether you like them or not, are VERY important choices that still dictate what kind of balance tweaks we can do in today's game. As long as we consider those choices to be set in stone and unchangeable, then our options for how to balance the game today will remain limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
