EPTName one RTS made after wc3 that have no "one at a time" special units?
AoX.The new Queen - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On March 11 2008 14:00 ATeddyBear wrote: queen looks like ![[image loading]](http://www.diabloii.net/quests/images/a2-q6-duriel.jpg) The queen needs holy freeze asap. | ||
|
Morzas
United States387 Posts
Now that I've heard its stats, my fears are pretty much gone. Yes, this is a hero unit, but it's so much weaker than WC3 heroes that I have no fear that Zerg matches in SC2 will be defined by this unit. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On March 17 2008 23:25 Showtime! wrote: Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. First of all, WC3 is a hybrid. It isn't a straight up RTS. The mothership is definitely going to be toned down some more and it will resemble the Arbiter a lot more. I highly doubt they'll limit it to one as well. Instead they'll just nerf it down. We can agree on one thing though: the queen doesn't resemble a Hero unit at all, which I'm glad to say. Her functions will be vital to the zerg and it is a very good concept. The fact she can transport herself from creep to creep is good as well. When I first heard about her I thought it would be best to have 1 per base, but this would be too overwhelming. I don't think the Queen should be able to transport to an Enemies base though. I think that is too imbalanced. Maybe they should add some creep colour as a texture so people know who's creep it is. it doesn't transport from creep to creep, it can "Deep Tunnel" to any (self owned) building | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
Good argument for one Queen... I think that is even more relevant than what I was saying. 6 teleporting 600 HP units would be an issue. @Showtime! Yeah, I read that about deep tunneling to creep early on too, but since then they always said building. And that does make more sense. | ||
|
Aerox
Malaysia1213 Posts
I don't even want to mention the WC3 hero unit with tp scroll similarity. I hope they will realize and reserve these Hero "features/similarities" for just singleplay or scrap it all instead. Hmm.. a possible solution: combine the old Queen and the new Queen to make them related (nerfs needed of course) so that the new ones really deserved to be called Queens. Anyway, for now, we have now 3 types of Zerg Queens: old Queen, new Queen and Queen of blades. :S Well, good luck Blizz. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5656 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 11 2008 13:44 []p4NDemik[] wrote: I don't know how I feel about the queen and such, and this post is totally off-topic, but I 100% endorse this idea of re-naming the mothership to the tempest. More badass and not cliche at all. I like Lololol's suggestion (I think it was him) of Worldship much better. Also, to make this on-topic, I think the queen could potentially be one of the new non-production macro-timesinks. It seems possible that in late game ZvX the queen might have to jump around the map alot meaning you have to go back to your bases a lot. I dunno, but it's something to consider  | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
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. good point. that's the difference between wc3 and bw. in bw u can do anything, good or bad like 20 aribiter. there shouldn't be any limit like wc3 3 heroes or can only make a new hero after a certain time or townhall upgrade. the purpose of the queen is help new weaker players against early bunker rush i think. | ||
|
EarthServant
United States106 Posts
With the more recent patches, some units have been limited to one - for instance chaos has the possessed space marines & obliterators - each with a limit of one - that together can hold off a decent sized army. When you could spam them, it was just a race to tier 3 because everything else was almost a waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, there are three weaknesses in other games that StarCraft needs to avoid in order to be a decent game: 1) Too low unit cap (DOW, WC3) I believe that when the unit cap is too low, your army will be too small, and then it is almost useless for the attacker to divide their forces. If you have 3 or more base razing armies marching around, then the game is much faster, much more dangerous, and more fun. In WC3 you can probably build two base razing army, but even then, it just feels so limiting, when 12 crackings can do the same thing in SC. Personally, I think the DOW series keeps such a low unit cap because their graphics engine sucks. 2) Useless lower tier units (DOW:WA) the units that you make and maintain between tiers need to be capable of holding their own through improvements in the higher tiers, or have such a niche that they never become useless. This allows the better players, even though teching a bit more slowly, to maintain their superior armies. 3) Different strategic options Too many games lack different strategic options. With most RTS's, it's almost always the same builds, with very minor deviations, because it makes sense. Talking about DOW:DC, If you don't go tier 2 with chaos and build a couple of Khorne Berzerker squads attached with your Chaos Lord, your Sorcerer, and a couple of squads of heavy bolter marines + grenade cultists backing them up, then you're not doing it right. Also, in Tier 1 with Chaos, the way to win generally involves getting out your Assault Marines and rushing the based to destroy cappers, and builders. You then make sure you build some Horrors for the possible tanks - done. In DOW:DC, you don't need to see what they are working on at their base so much (although you want to destroy power generators), but instead you just need to see their army composition. Sad. In SC, you need to know what direction they are teching, and if you don't, you need to be prepared for 4-5 different lines of attack for each race. There are probably others, such as appropriate speeds, graphics, etc., for the game type, but from what I see of SC2, it appears to have the right elements. The battles are massive, and with the right strategy, and correct battle tactics, your opponent will fall fast and hard. [EDIT] I thought that I might add that I feel that unit caps at one force people to rethink their strategies, and, almost more importantly, their hotkeys. Because these units are so special, They will be treated a certain way in battle, and they will give attackers and defenders different options. | ||
|
[X]Ken_D
United States4650 Posts
On March 17 2008 05:57 ~OpZ~ wrote: I pray most of this post was sarcasm (but I doubt it): Warcraft 2 had the deeper Eco then SC... War2 had fucking Gold, Lumber, and Oil.... SC? Minerals and Gas...hmm...What's deeper? More options or less... Mana bars? Casters? Construction? You call that taking from WC? Have you played other RTS games? Contruction, "mana" bars, and units that use "mana" aren't exclusive to WarCraft and StarCraft universes. I think Red Alert (maybe it came out later, I dunno or care) had helicopters, please correct me if I'm wrong. Iron mines? War3 uses Iron? I think Klockan3 is saying BW fundamentals is base on wc2. If so he is correct. The way micro & econ works in blizzard games do not carry over to other games. | ||
|
MegaZergling
United States13 Posts
I think i saw it was like only 150mins and like 50 gas??? AWSOMENESS!!!  EDIT: i dont think it has 600 hp... zeolots in a movie killed it pretty fast. There were only 4 of em linky | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 11 2008 13:59 anch wrote: change the name to King, that thing deserves a penis if it eats marines in 2 chops. LOL! | ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On April 08 2008 12:05 MegaZergling wrote: The queen is kinda cheap for its amazing ness! I think i saw it was like only 150mins and like 50 gas??? AWSOMENESS!!! EDIT: i dont think it has 600 hp... zeolots in a movie killed it pretty fast. There were only 4 of em linky http://youtube.com/watch?v=STPx4M_yX_E Upgraded queen has like 600hp and one hit marine kills. :o Upgraded. | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On April 08 2008 15:44 Chuiu wrote: Upgraded queen has like 600hp and one hit marine kills. :o Upgraded. And when upgraded it costs like a carrier and still moves slow like reavers. And the upgrades are not evolutions, they are morphs so you have to pay the price for every new queen you make. | ||
|
Reach)
Sweden7 Posts
| ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
She's just like one big, fat SCV in steroids. | ||
|
Warbux
47 Posts
| ||
| ||
