|
On March 12 2008 13:37 Chuiu wrote:
The queen is the very essence of what I dislike about many of the things in SC2. My fears...
1. They drastically change current units so they no longer resemble what they once were or barely resemble their SC counterparts in functionality or form.
The queen is the true embodiment of that. It no longer flies, it looks completely different, it doesn't even have the same abilities or tech requirements, and you can only have one.
maybe you didn't read anything about starcraft zerg storyline. the overmind is dead. kerrigan is in control. she can do whatever she wants. she's not going to do things the overmind's way, she's going to do things her way.
On March 12 2008 13:37 Chuiu wrote:3. They take ideas from WC3 and implement them into SC2.
well, i have observed that blizzard puts alot of effort into their games, and they learn from their past accomplishments. i would dare to say that blizzard's ultimate game is starcraft. and i think when they make the warcraft games, it is like they're practicing making games, for the time when they must make starcraft. think about how original orcs are. they're not. blizzard was just copying other fantasy stories and whatever. great game. but when Blizzard wanted to do something original, like with protoss and zerg, they did it after they already knew what they were doing. so they did it right. and it was an excellent game. now i think sc2 is going to be like that because they made wc3 first.
|
|
|
the new queen looks like an ultralisk / mantis.... before the queen was released i predicted it would be able to morph into creep. somewhat like blight in warcraft.
can the queen hit air? because the terran have thor, protoss have "tempest", if the zerg have the queen then it must be better than what i have heard.
|
On March 13 2008 10:49 Ancestral wrote:
I don't understand the argument that it diversifies openings. Before, vs Terran Zerg would have to build lots of sunkens to fend off a timing attack when going for mutas. But now, what if they always have to build a queen to fend off timing attacks when going for mutas?
It diversifies the openings since you don't have to waste X amounth of larvas to creates those sunkens since the queen is able to build without wasting larvas. This also makes it easier for Blizzard to balance each race openers.
On March 13 2008 10:49 Ancestral wrote:
If it's just a moving building, you can have multiple of each building right? Why can't they just balance it so it's not imbalanced to have several? Or perhaps even good. Make it so having few is strategically viable, but having many just isn't. You don't build 20 Arbiters. Why create an artificial limit of 1? Create a real limiting strategic factor.
Can you tell me a reason building multiple of the current queen would be imbalanced? No, limiting the queen to 1 is just to prevent defense laming, to allow it being free of popcap and to allow it having a very short construction time wich is needed for diversifying the early game, a normal player will never need more than 1 to build towers and repair the base anyway.
For example if the queen weren't limited it might need a popcap of 3 and a buildtime of 60 to be balanced, wich would screw over a ton of builds. Instead they thought that its better to have no popcap and buildtime of 20 on this unit wich you would never have more than one of normally anyway.
The upps are mostly to get the repair and teleport abilities i am sure, in combat the queen have subpar stats per cost probably in all forms. For example in the first form she is as cost effective in combat as drones, and it would be strange if the maxed one is even as cost effective as a slow singletarget ultra.
|
ONE OF A KIND UNITS ARE NOT HEROES
geez, I wish people would put some more thought into it. What was the REASON heroes were annoying in WC3? Becuase of the experience system. You had to keep your whole army together. You had to go out and creep and babysit your hero and feed it experience, which made strategy very one-dimensional and boring. Also, you had to farm items because items could be really powerful.
If theres no experience system, theres no heroes!
On top of that, the Queen is basically Zerg Base Defense 2.0, not an offensive super unit.
|
On March 13 2008 23:58 FieryBalrog wrote:
ONE OF A KIND UNITS ARE NOT HEROES
geez, I wish people would put some more thought into it. What was the REASON heroes were annoying in WC3? Becuase of the experience system. You had to keep your whole army together. You had to go out and creep and babysit your hero and feed it experience, which made strategy very one-dimensional and boring. Also, you had to farm items because items could be really powerful.
If theres no experience system, theres no heroes!
On top of that, the Queen is basically Zerg Base Defense 2.0, not an offensive super unit.
thank u.
Personally I'm fine w/ queen as long as it diversify the strategy. Although they did promise mothership would be one of a kind~~~
|
On March 12 2008 17:21 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2008 13:46 ._. wrote:
Unless the queen is real cheap and versatile cost wise, that completely obliterates my argument and would dumbfound me.
The first queen costs just 150 minerals and take 20 seconds to build, is weak and slow and is only usefull for making base defenses or the second last line of defense before your workers. Then you upp the queen, the queen we saw in the vid owning marines was the last stage of the queens evolution wich is hive tech, the first queen is a lot weaker and lack spells. And really its just a defensive unit, outside the creep its totally useless, and its strengths comes from spells and high reggen on creep. And ofcourse its a builder unit also, constructing like a toss worker meaning that you will never feel that it is lacking in production value, and its ability to teleport to a friendly structure every 15 secs means that it can move around the whole map and construct defenses were needed.
So like a spider thing, going here patch things up, and going there again to patch some other shits up. Sounds fun enough.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
Ok, I'll elaborate a little on why I think it could diversify openings;
First of all, in ZvZ, it might be possible to use it offensively, which could lead to more interesting situations. Depending on how its creep ability works (ie, can it drop creep anywhere or only extend already existing creep) we could see some cool new offensive rushes in all matchups.
In SC, zerg have always been a little limited in their cheese (at least building related cheese) since the hatchery takes just about forever to build compared to a pylon.
I don't know, it just seems much more versatile than the old sunkens, it seems like something that would allow for more choices early on. Without having played the game it's impossible to say if this is true, but if it is, I'm all for it.
|
On March 13 2008 10:52 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2008 13:37 Chuiu wrote:
The queen is the very essence of what I dislike about many of the things in SC2. My fears...
1. They drastically change current units so they no longer resemble what they once were or barely resemble their SC counterparts in functionality or form.
The queen is the true embodiment of that. It no longer flies, it looks completely different, it doesn't even have the same abilities or tech requirements, and you can only have one. maybe you didn't read anything about starcraft zerg storyline. the overmind is dead. kerrigan is in control. she can do whatever she wants. she's not going to do things the overmind's way, she's going to do things her way. Show nested quote +On March 12 2008 13:37 Chuiu wrote:3. They take ideas from WC3 and implement them into SC2. well, i have observed that blizzard puts alot of effort into their games, and they learn from their past accomplishments. i would dare to say that blizzard's ultimate game is starcraft. and i think when they make the warcraft games, it is like they're practicing making games, for the time when they must make starcraft. think about how original orcs are. they're not. blizzard was just copying other fantasy stories and whatever. great game. but when Blizzard wanted to do something original, like with protoss and zerg, they did it after they already knew what they were doing. so they did it right. and it was an excellent game. now i think sc2 is going to be like that because they made wc3 first.
A. Lore doesn't EVER justify gameplay changes.
B. Warcraft and Warcraft 2 came out before Starcraft and were good successes, they made RTS games popular. My point is that when they made Starcraft, the only thing they kept similar between the games was their overall feel and style of an RTS (how you select & move units etc). They didn't copy or borrow ideas from their previous games. And they shouldn't have to now, Starcraft is its own successful universe not a lame space ripoff of Warcraft.
On March 13 2008 23:58 FieryBalrog wrote:
ONE OF A KIND UNITS ARE NOT HEROES
If theres no experience system, theres no heroes!
Yes they are, its too bad you can't see this. All they did was replace an experience system with a system that forces you to invest ore and gas into the Queen to make her better and learn new abilities. If (a) you can only have one and (b) its super powerful or can be compared to normal units then its a hero. No one can deny that the Infested Kerrigan unit was a hero in SC and there were no experience systems or anything you would associate with heroes in WC3 to justify that.
|
On March 15 2008 00:08 Chuiu wrote:
If (a) you can only have one and (b) its super powerful or can be compared to normal units then its a hero. No one can deny that the Infested Kerrigan unit was a hero in SC and there were no experience systems or anything you would associate with heroes in WC3 to justify that.
Firstly, is that a typo? If zerglings had a buildlimit of one would it be a hero unit according to you?
And then, sigh, the first queen loses to a zealot and costs 150 mins and is slower than the zealot, how in hell can it be a super unit? And the last queen is like a slow ultra without an aoe attack, + it costs more, so how can it be a super unit?
Its a glorified builder, thats all, and its unique status is needed to keep the zero popcap cost and low buildtime wich otherwise could be abused, but really if the queen had a popcap and slow buildtime there would be almost no reason to build more than one ever. And why do we need no popcap and a fast buildtime? To diversify zerg openers ofcourse!
Also spending money on the queen is nothing like exping heroes, since if the queen dies you lose the whole investment just like as if a normal unit dies you lose its investment while in wc3 you never lost your heroes exp ever. And exp is freely gained when hurting your opponent through micro, money is never free though.
On March 15 2008 00:08 Chuiu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2008 10:52 dcttr66 wrote:On March 12 2008 13:37 Chuiu wrote:
The queen is the very essence of what I dislike about many of the things in SC2. My fears...
1. They drastically change current units so they no longer resemble what they once were or barely resemble their SC counterparts in functionality or form.
The queen is the true embodiment of that. It no longer flies, it looks completely different, it doesn't even have the same abilities or tech requirements, and you can only have one. maybe you didn't read anything about starcraft zerg storyline. the overmind is dead. kerrigan is in control. she can do whatever she wants. she's not going to do things the overmind's way, she's going to do things her way. On March 12 2008 13:37 Chuiu wrote:3. They take ideas from WC3 and implement them into SC2. well, i have observed that blizzard puts alot of effort into their games, and they learn from their past accomplishments. i would dare to say that blizzard's ultimate game is starcraft. and i think when they make the warcraft games, it is like they're practicing making games, for the time when they must make starcraft. think about how original orcs are. they're not. blizzard was just copying other fantasy stories and whatever. great game. but when Blizzard wanted to do something original, like with protoss and zerg, they did it after they already knew what they were doing. so they did it right. and it was an excellent game. now i think sc2 is going to be like that because they made wc3 first. A. Lore doesn't EVER justify gameplay changes. B. Warcraft and Warcraft 2 came out before Starcraft and were good successes, they made RTS games popular. My point is that when they made Starcraft, the only thing they kept similar between the games was their overall feel and style of an RTS (how you select & move units etc). They didn't copy or borrow ideas from their previous games. And they shouldn't have to now, Starcraft is its own successful universe not a lame space ripoff of Warcraft.
And yes starcraft borrowed everything it has from the wc series, it just updates them a bit. It expanded faction diversity and unit diversity, made ranged and flyers more powerfull and weakened casters, and retooled the economy.
However aside from starcraft being much better, having 3 sides instead of practically 1, a bit deeper eco and in space its basically the same game as warcraft 2.
For a perfect example of something it borrowed from the wc series, it took mana bars and casters, the construction system, the economy model with a few adjustments(But no more than your so called hero changes), it took floating flyers since all other games have flyers who are forced to constantly move, it took suicide units and the uppgrade system.
Blizzard could just have taken the whole starcraft game, redid the models to orcs, elves, gold patches, iron mines and voila they would have warcraft 3.
|
The queen is not super powerfull, it's expensive with weak combat abilities for the cost. It's not anything like a typical rpg hero. The most similar are the "hero" builders in tower wars in wc3, lol 
|
On March 13 2008 10:49 Ancestral wrote:
I don't understand the argument that it diversifies openings. Before, vs Terran Zerg would have to build lots of sunkens to fend off a timing attack when going for mutas. But now, what if they always have to build a queen to fend off timing attacks when going for mutas?
That doesn't diversify the possible openings, it just replaces one with another. My sole argument though, is that only being able to have one of something is stupid. If it's just a moving building, you can have multiple of each building right? Why can't they just balance it so it's not imbalanced to have several? Or perhaps even good. Make it so having few is strategically viable, but having many just isn't. You don't build 20 Arbiters. Why create an artificial limit of 1? Create a real limiting strategic factor.
I 100% agree with this, this is probably one of the most intelligent posts ive read
|
I like the idea queen to be upgradable as hatchery->lair->hive + gaining abilities (It's no hero it's just an upgradable unit)
But it shouldn't be limited to 1 (neighter mothership should but I can't think of how to do it for mothership right now)
For queen It should be like 10 supply cost and a lot of starting gas (I don't like that it cost only mins now it should be more like 100 100, so gas and supply limits it).
You can make as many as you want but the upgrades to higher queen levels would be costy and they would have an very supporting AOE aura, so you would max bother to have a few - 1 with each army.
Abilities it should have :
- It should be faster, but when moving out of creep it's HP will dramatically fall per sec.
- As you upgrade it it would gain a lot more hp so the former would became less significant.
- It should have "web" ability from w3 crypt fiend, to help fight off air units with ground units.
- Only queen should have consume ability.
- AOE aura, bonus %damage, hp regen, armor, lifesteal? (queen lvl dependand)
- Unit it attack should be infested and after death, hatch broodlings from corpse.
- Mutate spell, which would turn targeted unit into monster (+a lot dmg, taking amost no dmg(defensive matrix), + some speed&movement) but will die within 20 seconds(5% hp loss per sec).
- I would probably remove the deep-tunnel ability, since you could buy more of them and would - depend if you have it back home or in combat somewhere else.
|
Mutate is basically the current infestation mechanic. Just that there is no version for ground units (yet) just buildings and air units.
|
LastWish, that makes the Queen MUCH more of a hero than it already is.
Read my post again from page 5, where I already pointed out how the Queen is not like a War3 type hero at all.
or you can just click this spoiler...
+ Show Spoiler +They could accomplish making a unit unique in other ways; for example, if they made it cost 15 food or something. Then you wouldn't bother making more than one, especially if they had easy counters, unlike heroes in War3. This is just an 'artificial' limitation, makes it easier to balance, etc.
The Queen is MUCH different than a hero in War3, and no one is really bringing up reasons WHY heroes suck in War3, besides "it's borrowed from war3 wtf blizz!". The main reason heroes are bad in War3 (from a SC viewpoint) is that it focuses your attention too much on the heroes, you have to level them up, save them, focus your efforts on killing them, and in general just manage them too much. You cannot (generally) leave them alone, but even on their own they can be powerful, too powerful. Ever see a level 5 blademaster vs. 16 footmen? Blademaster will chew right through them. The Queen, and I assume the Mothership, are nothing like this. If it dies, it's not a huge problem like in War3, a Queen costs 150 minerals and 20 seconds to build? Plus at higher techs she can teleport to another spot? We don't know how long it takes to evolve into the higher 'stages', but at least her first stage she can create static D; so if she dies, you can make another quickly and have her set up defence. It won't be "instant GG" like it CAN be (not always I know) in War3... If any of you have watched War3 at high levels, often in a big fight at the end in the late game, if a player loses both their heroes they gg and quit. No reason to in this scenario. It also forces more micro, which I know is sometimes bad, but we want players to have more things to do back in their bases, right? (the whole MBS argument which I don't want to get into).
Killing them won't have as great of an effect as in War3, basically. in War3, you stop killing enemy units so you don't 'waste' experience, this won't happen here, the game will continue as normal. Will you rebuild your Queen right away? Sure...
To me, it opens up more strategies, more to think about when fighting a Zerg. Do you try and kill the Queen? Can you neutralize it in some way? (Mass ghost snipage? :D) Drop on a Z's expansion, have the big ass queen teleport there, then hit him at another expansion (the teleport has a long cooldown?). The Queen is both advantageous and disadvantageous, unlike a hero in War3.
|
The basic idea behind the Queen was that the old colony mechanic was limiting the Zerg defensivly since you had to use drones for them - especially early on problematic. A 2nd worker unit though would be lame so it had to be spiced up. "sniping" her would be difficult since she has deep tunnel AND you should have a nydus worm/deep warren around later on for reinforcements/escapes.
|
On March 15 2008 02:44 Unentschieden wrote:
Mutate is basically the current infestation mechanic. Just that there is no version for ground units (yet) just buildings and air units.
Swarm guardians brood all their kills, so you got one for each.
|
On March 15 2008 02:33 LastWish wrote:
I like the idea queen to be upgradable as hatchery->lair->hive + gaining abilities (It's no hero it's just an upgradable unit)
But it shouldn't be limited to 1 (neighter mothership should but I can't think of how to do it for mothership right now)
For queen It should be like 10 supply cost and a lot of starting gas (I don't like that it cost only mins now it should be more like 100 100, so gas and supply limits it).
You can make as many as you want but the upgrades to higher queen levels would be costy and they would have an very supporting AOE aura, so you would max bother to have a few - 1 with each army.
Abilities it should have :
- It should be faster, but when moving out of creep it's HP will dramatically fall per sec.
- As you upgrade it it would gain a lot more hp so the former would became less significant.
- It should have "web" ability from w3 crypt fiend, to help fight off air units with ground units.
- Only queen should have consume ability.
- AOE aura, bonus %damage, hp regen, armor, lifesteal? (queen lvl dependand)
- Unit it attack should be infested and after death, hatch broodlings from corpse.
- Mutate spell, which would turn targeted unit into monster (+a lot dmg, taking amost no dmg(defensive matrix), + some speed&movement) but will die within 20 seconds(5% hp loss per sec).
- I would probably remove the deep-tunnel ability, since you could buy more of them and would - depend if you have it back home or in combat somewhere else.
was this a joke post? this sounds exactly like a hero except you can build as many as you want
|
On March 15 2008 02:57 GoSuPlAyEr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2008 02:33 LastWish wrote:
I like the idea queen to be upgradable as hatchery->lair->hive + gaining abilities (It's no hero it's just an upgradable unit)
But it shouldn't be limited to 1 (neighter mothership should but I can't think of how to do it for mothership right now)
For queen It should be like 10 supply cost and a lot of starting gas (I don't like that it cost only mins now it should be more like 100 100, so gas and supply limits it).
You can make as many as you want but the upgrades to higher queen levels would be costy and they would have an very supporting AOE aura, so you would max bother to have a few - 1 with each army.
Abilities it should have :
- It should be faster, but when moving out of creep it's HP will dramatically fall per sec.
- As you upgrade it it would gain a lot more hp so the former would became less significant.
- It should have "web" ability from w3 crypt fiend, to help fight off air units with ground units.
- Only queen should have consume ability.
- AOE aura, bonus %damage, hp regen, armor, lifesteal? (queen lvl dependand)
- Unit it attack should be infested and after death, hatch broodlings from corpse.
- Mutate spell, which would turn targeted unit into monster (+a lot dmg, taking amost no dmg(defensive matrix), + some speed&movement) but will die within 20 seconds(5% hp loss per sec).
- I would probably remove the deep-tunnel ability, since you could buy more of them and would - depend if you have it back home or in combat somewhere else.
was this a joke post? this sounds exactly like a hero except you can build as many as you want
Do you see any XP or what makes this exactly a hero?
Where is the hero concept?
|
The fact that any army without a queen pretty much sucks... or if it's balanced around not having a queen, then they're very overpowered. Look at all the abilities you listed... right now she fills a very specific role, you want to turn her into a true super unit. Aka a hero. The "one unit limit" means absolutely nothing. Having XP isn't the only thing that makes a unit a hero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3511/72058420ux6.png)
![[image loading]](http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8889/wtfxzorbedispu8.png)
