We really haven't done any real speculation (aside from all those joke ones we do ) on units so far;about their roles and other things they could do. I don't know if I should put this in the Zerg unit discussion or not since its kinda long and I wanted to prompt some focused discussion, but whatever go ban me . Anyways, I just wanted to discuss the concept of the new queen right now.
So right now we can only make one Queen, much like the old Mothership(I swear, change the name to TEMPEST) although I'm not really sold on the idea right now, but thinking about it now, it may not be much of a problem since the queen can teleport anywhere Zerg buildings are and thus are extremely mobile (or at least hatcheries, I'm sure...).
Other than that ability and the fact that they can one shot marines O_O, Queens can build defensive structures and probably are going to replace sunkens and spores built from drones and creep colonies. Coupled with the overlords new ability to move creep around, we may see some Queen/overlord early pushes where the defensive structures the Queen makes can be used for a contain. This is all depending on the fact that these features don't change, so don't get on back about it...
The news of the Zerg also vaguely say something along the lines of the Queen gaining more abilities as it evolves. I'm assuming this means the tech level (lair,hive, etc..), but maybe it could mean that the Queen can morph into higher "levels" (OH NOES A HEROOO). I don't think the press released much info on this (or maybe it wasn't in the build...? I doubt that though), so this is where real speculation starts. They say the Queen is geared towards defense so maybe now creep itself can damage if a Queen uses it or something (throws globs of it at marines xD). Someone also mentioned creep healing units, maybe the Queen can quickly heal units now too, kinda like a mobile shieldbattery medic thing.
The queen also lost some abilities, like broodling, which was sent to the Guardian (which I find extremely weird and not like the Guardian at all, just give the guardian faster rate of fire and/or splash damage and I'll be happy ) I find this extremely odd, since the Queen, unlike all other queens in the insect world doesn't produce new stuff. I always hoped, that if the Queen was going to change drastically, that it would sort of turn into a summoner unit or whatever, kinda like a mobile hatchery I guess. And thus I'm also saddened the Queen lost the infest ability (which I'm glad got souped up), but since we can only have one queen so far, I guess its a good thing that the infestor can do it now. Parasite and ensnare have gone too, and I don't think those spells have been moved to any other unit sadly. Hopefully they can come back (great now I'm dreaming of splash damage guardians and ensnare combo...). Although, they probably don't fit to well with the Queen's role now. So obviously Blizzard now has a better more focused idea for the concept and role of the Queen and can hopefully flesh out a interesting, fun, and balanced unit (as opposed to the Queen in BW, it almost seemed like a last minute thing)
This is kinda diverging from the topic, but wouldn't it be cool (for us Zerg players anyways) to be able to parasite a unit, then after some period of time the unit can be infested and can blow up in the middle of the opponents army xD.
In my opinion, the queen is more of a tool for the zerg campaign that got sort of warped over to multiplayer. Probably a big part of the storyline in single player.
Toxic creep sounds like an ability that damages enemy units on the creep, no? Anyway I think the new Queen is an interesting concept! It's extremely slow in movement and high base damage (1hit kill marines!) that it's truly a zerg caretaker (hey no more cerebrates!), plus the fact that it can make ANY zerg buildings have a temporary attack capability (said by the Blizz dude in the zerg announcement vid) coupled with it creating temporary defenses is very interesting. No more needs of sunkens and spores! This actually sounds cooler than the mothership
Yep, idealistically, the Queen is ten thousand times cooler than the mothership
its a unique unit with a purpose, protect the zerg bases, if it dies its not the end, but a big drawback, and you have a lot of freedom to micro it and do whatever you need to defend.
Wouldn't it still be good to have spore colonies so you can have some static detection? Especially since overlords must now morph in order to become detectors.
edit: also nobody has mentioned the Queens "regeneration" ability that makes buildings regenerate hp faster.
I like how you can get the queen early and use it for multiple roles such as rush/defense, making it integral to earlygame. At least, that's how I hope it is. As long as it can fill multiple niches without taking too much of the attention (read: MACRO MUST STILL BE THERE), I don't disagree with the inclusion of the queen.
I think it's sick, the Queen is SUCH a Zergly unit, and it sucked in SC1. It should definitely be more integrated, maybe to defiler like status because it seems like so much more of a symbol. Getting it early seems a bit stupid if it is so powerful, but perhaps upgrades can be an upper-tier type of thing to balance it out.
just want to point out that the queen is very slow and can be kited easily by ranged units. Its alot more of a strategic tool to defend your base than anything else.
Some sick push ideas do come to mind but I think they have their weaknesses too.
On March 11 2008 12:51 crazie-penguin wrote: Mothership(I swear, change the name to TEMPEST)
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.
On March 11 2008 13:00 Ancestral wrote: Yes, the "hero" idea is lame and scary. I like to idea about parasites though.
Hmmmmm, actually, I was mocking people worrying about that...
Unique units = gay
Not adding anything to the discussion, but I know at least a few people feel that way. I'm seeing that if they're really good, you'll get them every game. And if they're only good in certain situations, it seems that strategies would be built around them which seem stupid to me. It seems like it would be impossible to balance a unique unit.
But like Nal_rA said, worry about balance later...
Makes sense that you can only have one queen Also seems very zergish to me, i mean why wouldnt an alien bug race have some bigass creature lurking around defending their hive! Its just like out of a sci fi movie, which is what i really want, which is what makes BW so gr8
On March 11 2008 13:00 Ancestral wrote: Yes, the "hero" idea is lame and scary. I like to idea about parasites though.
Hmmmmm, actually, I was mocking people worrying about that...
Unique units = gay
Not adding anything to the discussion, but I know at least a few people feel that way. I'm seeing that if they're really good, you'll get them every game. And if they're only good in certain situations, it seems that strategies would be built around them which seem stupid to me. It seems like it would be impossible to balance a unique unit.
But like Nal_rA said, worry about balance later...
I'd like to know what you mean by that, are not many strategies in ZvT (hell the standard and mainstream one) about getting defilers at the right time? How about that new fast ultra and +1 armor build? When you go reaver/sair is your strategy not revolving around the killing power of reavers (and mobility of air)? Variation in strategy and tactics depend on this stuff. There's a risk/reward for everything.
And unique units are gay? If you ask me the lurker and reaver are some pretty DAMN unique, quirky, gimmicky, what have you units.
Although, I admit, that I don't really like the idea of a single limit on a unit (I actually support the idea of having a queen for every hatchery/lair/hive), some people are throwing out ridiculous reasons as to why they hate it and it just annoys the hell out of me. It seems most people are just complaining just to complain and fit in.
On March 11 2008 14:31 useLess wrote: sometimes, i want to kick some of you guys in the face.
"omg queen is so kewl" limit 1 "wtf hero unit thats gay your gay"
QFT.
I like the Queen. You can use it for defence and keep it save or you can use it for offence taking the risk of losing it. Its probably better for defence though due to its mobility. I like the look and everything, but for all the skills its pretty cheap.. 150/0 and 20 seconds to build.
Also you can evolve it
Queen -> Large Queen -> Huge Queen
If it dies you have to rebuild a normal Queen and evolve it again..
On March 11 2008 14:00 ATeddyBear wrote: queen looks like
Exactly what I thought. And I'm totally fine with that. Hopefully it keeps the cold aura.
edit: about the limit 1 thing. Generally, I'm against it, but this instance is one where I'm fine with the limit. It doesn't really make sense to have more than one queen.
i'm speaking strictly from a story line point of view: does it make sense there is only one queen? there is one overmind, and one kerrigan, but there are a lot of cerebrates, overlords and queens! no more cerebrates actually, but queens look after the hatchery/hive right? what bout hatcheries on other planets? i heard one idea on bnet forums that it might be a good idea to limit the queen by the number of hatcheries. i know i know the teleport ability and a whole lot of other stuff would have to be changed. this is a fundamental change, and it is fundamentals that i am talking about. shouldn't each hatchery have a queen? it's not like the queen is the new kerrigan. you', the player is essentially kerrigan.
nevertheless, i think the queen took leaps and bounds towards being what a queen is supposed to be from BW. like seriously, the unit description said "mainly hangs around the hatchery and protects the hive cluster".. with what.. ensnares and broodlings? anyway i love what it's become. we are all of course talking about more minor changes, since blizzard already took the first step of making the giant one. would love to hear thoughts on the multiple queen idea, and restricting it to the number of hatcheries, despite that it probably won't be implemented" i would just like to see what people think about it.
On March 11 2008 16:24 gwho wrote: i'm speaking strictly from a story line point of view: does it make sense there is only one queen? there is one overmind, and one kerrigan, but there are a lot of cerebrates, overminds and queens! no more cerebrates actually, but queens look after the hatchery/hive right? what bout hatcheries on other planets? i heard one idea on bnet forums that it might be a good idea to limit the queen by the number of hatcheries. i know i know the teleport ability and a whole lot of other stuff would have to be changed. this is a fundamental change, and it is fundamentals that i am talking about. shouldn't each hatchery have a queen? it's not like the queen is the new kerrigan. you', the player is essentially kerrigan.
nevertheless, i think the queen took leaps and bounds towards being what a queen is supposed to be from BW. like seriously, the unit description said "mainly hangs around the hatchery and protects the hive cluster".. with what.. ensnares and broodlings? anyway i love what it's become. we are all of course talking about more minor changes, since blizzard already took the first step of making the giant one. would love to hear thoughts on the multiple queen idea, and restricting it to the number of hatcheries, despite that it probably won't be implemented" i would just like to see what people think about it.
No offence to you but 8 hatchery queen rush anyone? It really deals damage and has a shitload of spells.. if you move all your queens to an expansion you will just destroy the opponent..
On March 11 2008 16:24 gwho wrote: i'm speaking strictly from a story line point of view: does it make sense there is only one queen?
Well, it seems like the Queen is the successor to the cerebrates storywise. And in Sc1 there was one cerebrate for every swarm. Assuming that now there is one Queen for every swarm, how does it fit being able to build (or to summon) multiple Queens while you're commanding only one swarm?
If the queen was limited to creep or something along those lines, I don't think I would care very much if it was a unique unit.
That said, from a story line point of view, it's probably something akin to an infested protoss. It has arms, and it has the protoss face and nerve cords. Pretty sick~ Is Razagal truly dead, I wondeR?
I love the idea of Parasite, it should cost like 100 mana, it would parasite something, and after 15 sec (could be chaned) it dies, can be casted only on living units or only on small or medium sized units. also i would make queen flying, cuz walking queen sucks
On March 11 2008 16:38 Krzycho wrote: I love the idea of Parasite, it should cost like 100 mana, it would parasite something, and after 15 sec (could be chaned) it dies, can be casted only on living units or only on small or medium sized units. also i would make queen flying, cuz walking queen sucks
That'd make the burrowing and coming out at any Zerg building on the map spell seem pretty strange, since it would picture the Queen being a faster digger than flyer.
It has the uniqueness of a mothership (ironic given the name of the ms lol)
It has very similar abilities to the nomad (build structures etc)
Thus is a unique nomad with some other spells
I wish it wasn't so.. but i wish for the queen to r-e-a-l-l-y become defined as a unique and interesting unit... perhaps have some evolutionary spells to evolve some units (like spin them into a web and have them hatch from that)
No offence to you but 8 hatchery queen rush anyone? It really deals damage and has a shitload of spells.. if you move all your queens to an expansion you will just destroy the opponent..
Jaedong: They said the queen was improved, but I was a bit disappointed. It has low HP, and died quickly.
Savior: I was expected a lot from the queen, but it wasn't as strong as I hoped.
The limit of 1 is integral to the current concept of the unit, that being the Zergs unique defense option. (I have yet to see any colonies) All her abilities need either creep and/or zerg buildings and combined with her slow walking speed she would be a poor offensive weapon. (notice how she doesn´t attack during the video)
As long as it doesn't gain experience (that introduces a new level into the resource model enabling you to grow army strength by just sitting in base and deflecting attacks), it's not a hero unit, and if she's available early game, I don't mind. The concept is vastly different from the mothership - what worked quite well in Dawn of War were commanders (and Queen is one) and what I hated were relic super units like Land Raider or Squiggoth (and that is closer to the Mothership).
I only wonder where the privilege of casters to cast spells is gone. Why do combat units gain so many spells? Everybody knows that it confuses the player to see 20 different spells everywhere on the battlefield at the same time. Well, seemingly not everybody, but I know it. Since when is SC all about spellcasting? The more we see about SC2 the more it looks like "Spellforce" or any game like that.
The privilege of casters to cast spells went the same way symmetrical factions and 2D went: a concept of the past. The current concept trys to make as many units as possible "involved" to avoid plain "a-attacks".
On March 11 2008 16:11 G.s)NarutO wrote: Also you can evolve it
Queen -> Large Queen -> Huge Queen
If it dies you have to rebuild a normal Queen and evolve it again..
source?
GeneralMensgk Broodwar.de
"Kann die Queen ohne Ressourcen erbaut/wieder hergestellt werden? Gibt es die Königin zu beginn um sonst? Oder muss man sie sich erst erschaffen?
Nein, die normale Queen kostet 150/0 (25 Sek. Bauzeit, 0 Depot) und diese kann man in der Hatch bauen, sobald man einen Pool hat. Es ist kein Held im WC3-Sinne, am ehsten noch ein Supporthero ähnlich manchen DotA-Casthelden, aber auch das trifft es nicht ganz. Die Queen muß wie jede andere Einheit neu gebaut werden und ihr Tod löst nix spezielles aus. Sie kann zur "Large Queen" und "Huge Queen" gemopht werden, ähnlich wie Muta zu Wächter oder Hydra zu Schleicher. Das kostet jeweils Ressourcen und erfordert Techstufen. Wenn sie stirbt, muß man wieder erstmal die normale Queen bauen, wie beim toten Schleicher eben den Hydra. Mehr dazu später in meinem Bericht."
"Is to possible to rebuild the queen without ressources? Is the queen free in the beginning or do you have to create "she" first?
No, the usual queen takes about 150/0/25/0 (150 minerals/0 gas/25 seconds to build/0 supply) and is built in the hatchery when you got a spawning pool. Its no hero in the common sense (WC3-ish). Its more like a Support "Hero" like the dota-castheroes, but thats not the exact way to describe it. (My note: Its kinda written confusing--a). The death of the queen doesn't trigger anything special, you will just have to rebuild it. You can evolve it to "Large Queen" and "Huge Queen" like you can morph a mutalisk to a guardian or a hydralisk to a lurker. That costs ressources and needs different tech levels. If the queen dies, you have to rebuild a "normal" queen first and evolve it again. More news about it later in my report."
I will update as soon as he posts his report..
More concerning the queen:
"Geht das Bewegen der Queen von einer zur anderen Hatch sofort, oder muss dazu ein Upgrade erforscht werden?"
Nein, das erfordet die Fähigkeit "Deep Tunnel", welche erst die "Large Queen" hat, d.h. Bau (Lair) und gemorphte Queen ist nötig. Der "Deep Tunnel" braucht als Ziel übrigens einfach ein eigenes Gebäude.
"Is it immediately possible to move queen from hatchery to hatchery or do you have to upgrade it?"
No, it requires the ability "deep tunnel", which first appears on the "large queen" which means that you requires a Lair also. An additional note is that the queen cannot just move from hatchery to hatchery, she can move to every single of your own buildings.
On March 11 2008 20:05 WiljushkA wrote: queen rocks
i think its exactly the kind of unit zerg needs to defend from dropship harrasment.
Not really, both Savior and Jaedong said the Queen was a lot weaker than they anticipated. Couple tanks and about a dozen mnms should be more than enough (if the Queen is alone)
the queen is alright, but the idea of 1 unit only is wrong, stop burrowing shit from wc3 and implement it in sc2. ive notice huge number of copying of wc3 shit and adding them into sc2...
you know WC3 took a bunch of shit from SC and SC took a bunch of shit from WC2 right?
invisibility = cloak cyclone = stasis ensnare = lockdown seige unit = seige tank heal = heal rifleman = marine
but WC3 is still vastly different from SC. Guess what, RTS games have been out there for a long time and a lot of things have already been done. Ideas come from somewhere, mostly from other games. One unit only has its own dynamics. Anyways, explain to me why having only one of something is bad? I mean I can see how its bad if you want TWO of it, but you're only allowed one.
Plexa: From the 9 minute gameplay video, if you go to the part that has the queen, it looks like first it kills the marines attacking the spawning pool using just it's melee attack, then it "deep tunnels"(or whatever) to the next area where the (looks like an extractor and a spire) throws globs of shit at the marines. So I don't think the queen builds defensive structures, I think it allows buildings to defend themselves. Which is entirely different from the nomad.
Anyways I really think we're jumping the gun, we really don't know all the details about the current build
Guys, the queen is just an oversized drone. She builds defensive structures in general and using her for combat would be a last resort just like workers, instead you build structures and cast spells with her.
And as said above she is no superunit before you tech up, just a slightly different drone, and even after you teched i don't think she is anything else than a large slow ultra. Since she is useless away from your base there is no point in allowing players more than one since then it would be extremely hard to balance queens to be worthwhile without making them spammable.
As a lot of people have said, having the queen being unique seems like a given and adds a lot more special feeling than for example an unique mothership, since the motherhsip is an offensive weapon it makes a huge difference and the bitter memory of black hole makes everyone hate the mothership even more.
On March 12 2008 00:12 maybenexttime wrote: What are her abilities exactly?
She builds eggs that hatches stuff wich defends your base, "creep colonies" that can be uppgraded into making the egg stuff close to it better, she can cast an aoe damage spell that only works on creep, she can heal buildings and she can cast a spell that gives structures an attack.
On March 11 2008 13:00 Ancestral wrote: Yes, the "hero" idea is lame and scary. I like to idea about parasites though.
Hmmmmm, actually, I was mocking people worrying about that...
Unique units = gay
Not adding anything to the discussion, but I know at least a few people feel that way. I'm seeing that if they're really good, you'll get them every game. And if they're only good in certain situations, it seems that strategies would be built around them which seem stupid to me. It seems like it would be impossible to balance a unique unit.
But like Nal_rA said, worry about balance later...
I'd like to know what you mean by that, are not many strategies in ZvT (hell the standard and mainstream one) about getting defilers at the right time? How about that new fast ultra and +1 armor build? When you go reaver/sair is your strategy not revolving around the killing power of reavers (and mobility of air)? Variation in strategy and tactics depend on this stuff. There's a risk/reward for everything.
And unique units are gay? If you ask me the lurker and reaver are some pretty DAMN unique, quirky, gimmicky, what have you units.
Although, I admit, that I don't really like the idea of a single limit on a unit (I actually support the idea of having a queen for every hatchery/lair/hive), some people are throwing out ridiculous reasons as to why they hate it and it just annoys the hell out of me. It seems most people are just complaining just to complain and fit in.
Sorry, I should have been clearer. By unique, I meant there is only one, not "original / different / creative" etc.
If they are able to implement it well, I guess it's a cool concept. It just seems very un-BroodWar to me. But I'm not #1 ranked progamer.
MSN Convo I just had with this one guy.. It's pretty funny.
Zyklon-B says: Did you ever play starcraft Moss says: yup campaign and like a dozen bnet games Zyklon-B says: I can't wait for Sc2 Hopefully it's not overly gay like wc3 Moss says: sc2 looks like sc with upgraded graphics and a couple new units pointless no heroes or anything Zyklon-B says: ... Heros are the gayest invention ever. They ruined Wc3 Moss says: ... No. You suck.
Maybe I'm just really tired, but wow. Why do people like the hero system?
On March 12 2008 04:30 Krohm wrote: MSN Convo I just had with this one guy.. It's pretty funny.
Zyklon-B says: Did you ever play starcraft Moss says: yup campaign and like a dozen bnet games Zyklon-B says: I can't wait for Sc2 Hopefully it's not overly gay like wc3 Moss says: sc2 looks like sc with upgraded graphics and a couple new units pointless no heroes or anything Zyklon-B says: ... Heros are the gayest invention ever. They ruined Wc3 Moss says: ... No. You suck.
Maybe I'm just really tired, but wow. Why do people like the hero system?
No idea, I played WC3 for two years and then switched to SC (notice the lack of "back" before "switched"). ^_______^
Hero system screw up the counter system, allows for less streategies (they're very similar because of the hero system), and makes gameplay ambiguous. ;;
Heroes just add another element of replayability to the game. For example, the hero system in WH40k: Dawn of War (I think it was DoW) was pretty fun. You get a hero depending on the race you chose, and depending on how well youre doing in the campaign, you gain points to build an advance army (kinda like the SC2 Terran campaign does with unlocking units) as well as points to go towards Hero upgrades.
As to why people wouldnt want heroes in SC2, they dont want having a superunit which can swing the tide with a few spells in ten seconds. It worked for WC3, since its slower and more micro-orientated, but it just doesnt have a place in the fast-paced SC world
I've been thinking about it and I really like the idea of a queen. The zerg used to have pretty much only large numbers of expendable units, but I think a large defensive unit would be really good. Having strong hive defense is very zerg-like. I think its a good complement to the rest of the swarm.
I really like how the zerg get an early game "super unit" to defend their hives while the protoss got a late game super unit to press on the attack. They re not over powered , just a very welcome boost to both races.
On March 12 2008 09:20 Famehunter wrote: I really like how the zerg get an early game "super unit" to defend their hives while the protoss got a late game super unit to press on the attack. They re not over powered , just a very welcome boost to both races.
On March 12 2008 09:20 Famehunter wrote: I really like how the zerg get an early game "super unit" to defend their hives while the protoss got a late game super unit to press on the attack. They re not over powered , just a very welcome boost to both races.
I would like 1 queen per Hive. Giving the players the option of evolving more than one of your hatcheries up to hives for added defense bonus. At the same time however, thats a LOT of cash to be sinking into another queen.
On March 11 2008 13:29 Quesadilla wrote: I think it's sick, the Queen is SUCH a Zergly unit, and it sucked in SC1. It should definitely be more integrated, maybe to defiler like status because it seems like so much more of a symbol. Getting it early seems a bit stupid if it is so powerful, but perhaps upgrades can be an upper-tier type of thing to balance it out.
Did you pick up the Warhammer expansions that allowed you to make more than 1 queen!?!
Would be alot niftier I think if Queens simply came with the hatcheries, once you build it you can make a Queen from there, and the Queens were able to spawn units (along with clicking hatchery, s, z, you could click queen, z, and she'd drop an egg or two.) Along with overlords sneaking some creep in close to the enemy base, this seems like an interesting tacc to overwhelm the opponent with. Maybe make sending queens to start or help along new expansions a given. I just don't want the queen to be unique, I want the possibility of having as many units, whatever they are, as I can pay for. Obviously, making the queen weaker would go along with this.
Simply nerf the queen and make it useable as for many units.
Having a powerful "central" unit breaks one of the golden game mechanics of starcraft, every unit was powerful under the right circumstances, and very weak against others. Dependency of one really destroys that foundation.
I hate to sound cliche, but that is such a wc3 move.
A nerfed/multiple queen would simply be a stronger zergling (they have banelings/roaches/ultras) or a much weaker ultralisk (Such as zerglings, banelings, roaches and queen if added.)
People whine to complain that the queen sucks, and that she is never usable. What does blizzard do? Make a decent queen which can easily be usable in many situations (Heck with 20 second build time you can make the queen when the drop ship appears and still be able to save the base) But nooooo the fact that the queen is a unique (cool if i might add) defensive unit is not good enough. Blizzard has to make a totally new usable queen which is mass produced while at the same time other people (Or you hero haters) don't want a completely changed unit because sc2 should just be a better sc1 without too many radical changes.(which a queen would have to undergo to be mass produced and still vary from the zerg units)
C'mon people the queen is a cool unit with cool abilities to defend a hatch, stop moaning, and it's not like anybody mass produced queens before anyways. (when was the last time you got over even 2 queens in a competitive match?)
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.
2. Heroes.
HEY we need a way of making a hero unit in SC2 but can't call it a hero unit. Lets refer to them as one-of-a-kind. Sorry, Blizzard, I see right through your ruse. You're making the queen and mothership to be hero units and I can see the Thor being the Terran one in the not-to-distant future. The mothership is awesome, I love the unit, but I don't want to see it in melee. The queen is no longer the queen, don't even fucking call it that. Call it something else then remove it from melee. Keep them in the campaign and map editor if you want, I would love to see them there!
3. They take ideas from WC3 and implement them into SC2.
This ranges from design to functionality to gameplay. The queen and a couple other new Zerg units look like they came right from WC3 or WoW, and I don't mean they look like they were designed by the same people who did those games, I fucking know they were, they look like they were inspired from units from those games and designed that way. The queen feels like some unnamed unit from the Undead in WC3.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is "this is not warcraft in space, its much more sophisticated".
On March 12 2008 13:10 randombum wrote: A nerfed/multiple queen would simply be a stronger zergling (they have banelings/roaches/ultras) or a much weaker ultralisk (Such as zerglings, banelings, roaches and queen if added.)
People whine to complain that the queen sucks, and that she is never usable. What does blizzard do? Make a decent queen which can easily be usable in many situations (Heck with 20 second build time you can make the queen when the drop ship appears and still be able to save the base) But nooooo the fact that the queen is a unique (cool if i might add) defensive unit is not good enough. Blizzard has to make a totally new usable queen which is mass produced while at the same time other people (Or you hero haters) don't want a completely changed unit because sc2 should just be a better sc1 without too many radical changes.(which a queen would have to undergo to be mass produced and still vary from the zerg units)
C'mon people the queen is a cool unit with cool abilities to defend a hatch, stop moaning, and it's not like anybody mass produced queens before anyways. (when was the last time you got over even 2 queens in a competitive match?)
Just sick and tired of whining.
Edit: clarity
I agree to some extent. Queen, has a lot of unused potential in Broodwar and has made for some rare, but highly entertaining games. But I dislike the idea of having a single unit as such a pivotal force.
I'm not "whining" but from the sounds of it, it very well sounds like a powerful support unit. Queen really becomes a "queen" like in chess.
Defliers in brood war, powerful they are, are pivotal and strong, but they were produced in multitudes and added intense moments of do or die between scenarios, where the unit would die shortly after, replaced, die again, and macroing intensively to keep the zerg steady.. If a queen dies in battle, it will be undoubtedly an expensive loss, probably slowing the flow of the game. A deflier dies, and its dependent on the scenario. Did it plague the units before it died or did it die before it could reach swarming his units, causing the rest of fellow support collapse before him? What should i do to delay him before he comes at me defenseless? How many defliers do I have at that moment, should I push anyways by consuming my lings even after being off a few pixels from the army?
Only way I see queen being a dilmena would be a simple scenario of economic advantage. I'm wealthy, I can sacrifice the queen here, get to the other side and get another one easy. I lost it early game, I'm screwed.
Unless the queen is real cheap and versatile cost wise, that completely obliterates my argument and would dumbfound me.
Please don't turn arguments into personal stereotyping and attacks, it has little basis for logical confrontations.
I will expect lots of extensive testing, and if they do manage to keep it, I hope its suitable to the flexibility of the Zerg, in terms of losses.
Speaking of which... Now that the defiler/infester no longer has consume, will it be remotely as useful? If it weren't for the consume ability, defilers would have been close to useless in BW, the TvZ matchup would have been ridiculously easy, as defilers would never be able to rack up enough mana before they were irradiated. Of course, the infester has the new building takeover, which I personally think is just awesome, and along with it being able to move while burrowed, maybe it'll be alright. As for the queen, another reason I'm not to keen on her is because she seems to be the replacement for the zerg static defenses. Watching that gameplay vid she seems to work like a Nomad, dropping perishable turrets. I really think I would still prefer to just sacrifice some drones and make me some sunkens.
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.
On March 12 2008 14:11 Meh wrote: As for the queen, another reason I'm not to keen on her is because she seems to be the replacement for the zerg static defenses. Watching that gameplay vid she seems to work like a Nomad, dropping perishable turrets. I really think I would still prefer to just sacrifice some drones and make me some sunkens.
Im pretty sure that she the defenses she makes are not on a timer, costs minerals and not energy.
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.
2. Heroes.
HEY we need a way of making a hero unit in SC2 but can't call it a hero unit. Lets refer to them as one-of-a-kind. Sorry, Blizzard, I see right through your ruse. You're making the queen and mothership to be hero units and I can see the Thor being the Terran one in the not-to-distant future. The mothership is awesome, I love the unit, but I don't want to see it in melee. The queen is no longer the queen, don't even fucking call it that. Call it something else then remove it from melee. Keep them in the campaign and map editor if you want, I would love to see them there!
3. They take ideas from WC3 and implement them into SC2.
This ranges from design to functionality to gameplay. The queen and a couple other new Zerg units look like they came right from WC3 or WoW, and I don't mean they look like they were designed by the same people who did those games, I fucking know they were, they look like they were inspired from units from those games and designed that way. The queen feels like some unnamed unit from the Undead in WC3.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is "this is not warcraft in space, its much more sophisticated".
I don't think this is quite as bad as you make it out to be. The queen, in my mind, is nothing more than a mobile zerg building. I think it makes a lot of sense for the zerg to have a strong defensive hive coupled with large numbers of expendable units. That is how a swarm would be. The terran should have overall strong defense (in their bases, expansions, and outposts) but it should be less than a hive. The protoss are somewhat more offensive.
As long as the zerg are vulnerable to rushes just like the other races, I think the queen is fine.
Remember, the queen is somewhat of a gamble. If it gets killed you are very far behind. Also, once you make one, your offensive capabilities diminish (because the queen is primarily defensive). It seems to me that the queen might be a natural choice for tech builds (because of the defense). It will also make ZvZ pretty crazy, assuming queens don't differentiate between your creep(s).
One thing I don't like about it though is that now you have a single unit which you are forced to micro. In the original starcraft, generally you weren't forced to micro any single unit. Of course you needed to have good micro to be successful, however, no one unit would make or break you. I hope we don't have a situation where if you lose your queen you basically lost when playing against a realitively good player.
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.
2. Heroes.
HEY we need a way of making a hero unit in SC2 but can't call it a hero unit. Lets refer to them as one-of-a-kind. Sorry, Blizzard, I see right through your ruse. You're making the queen and mothership to be hero units and I can see the Thor being the Terran one in the not-to-distant future. The mothership is awesome, I love the unit, but I don't want to see it in melee. The queen is no longer the queen, don't even fucking call it that. Call it something else then remove it from melee. Keep them in the campaign and map editor if you want, I would love to see them there!
3. They take ideas from WC3 and implement them into SC2.
This ranges from design to functionality to gameplay. The queen and a couple other new Zerg units look like they came right from WC3 or WoW, and I don't mean they look like they were designed by the same people who did those games, I fucking know they were, they look like they were inspired from units from those games and designed that way. The queen feels like some unnamed unit from the Undead in WC3.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is "this is not warcraft in space, its much more sophisticated".
1. Oh fuuuuuck, CHANGE!!
2. Are you dense? Do you think theyre just limiting units just for the hell of it? "Oh yeah, we had heroes in WC3, so I guess we should copy that". Fuck that shit - theyre implementing and changing these things around for gameplay and strategy reasons. ZERG: THEY HAS EVOLVES.
3. Now it sounds like youre complaining for the sake of complaining. God forbid that a 3D model from one game might resemble a 3D model of another game. 4 legs on that horse? There are 4 legs on a Zergling, what a rip-off!
On March 12 2008 04:30 Krohm wrote: MSN Convo I just had with this one guy.. It's pretty funny.
Zyklon-B says: Did you ever play starcraft Moss says: yup campaign and like a dozen bnet games Zyklon-B says: I can't wait for Sc2 Hopefully it's not overly gay like wc3 Moss says: sc2 looks like sc with upgraded graphics and a couple new units pointless no heroes or anything Zyklon-B says: ... Heros are the gayest invention ever. They ruined Wc3 Moss says: ... No. You suck.
Maybe I'm just really tired, but wow. Why do people like the hero system?
Probably the same reason people play DOTA, or that people like heroes in the single player campaigns. Heroes have no place in SC2, but I think the queen sounds like an interesting concept.
On March 12 2008 09:20 Famehunter wrote: I really like how the zerg get an early game "super unit" to defend their hives while the protoss got a late game super unit to press on the attack. They re not over powered , just a very welcome boost to both races.
Also something has to stop those phase cannons!
because zerglings cant?
off topic, but does anybody else like the fluid way in which the zerglings move now (as seen in the savior vs bisu gameplay video)?
i think the queen is going to lead to two different openings for zerg-either aggressive zerglings (classic 9 pool) or defensive fe build into queen.
On March 12 2008 09:20 Famehunter wrote: I really like how the zerg get an early game "super unit" to defend their hives while the protoss got a late game super unit to press on the attack. They re not over powered , just a very welcome boost to both races.
Also something has to stop those phase cannons!
because zerglings cant?
off topic, but does anybody else like the fluid way in which the zerglings move now (as seen in the savior vs bisu gameplay video)?
i think the queen is going to lead to two different openings for zerg-either aggressive zerglings (classic 9 pool) or defensive fe build into queen.
I just found this neat article from GG.net about the "hero-ness" of the queen.
The Queen differs from all the other Zerg units as she does not hatch from an egg; she births directly from the Hatchery for a cost of 150 minerals. She follows the tech tree, as she may upgrade another level for each tier you go up. For the Lair, the Queen can go into a "Large Queen", and having the Hive you can upgrade the royal bitch insect to "Huge Queen". The higher level she is, the more hit points, mana, damage and spells she gets.
Putting all of these factors together: a unique unit since you can only have one at a time and that it can get upgraded, and all the spells really lure you into placing it in the 'hero' category. Many of you hardcore fans out there were totally freaked out by the Mothership and its dominance, and seeing the Zerg Cinematics video where the Queen hacked and slashed her way through the Marines must have surely sent chills down your spine. However, it is a different type of character, and putting the Queen under the magnifying glass more closely shows that it is nothing like the Tauren Chieftain nor the Blademaster from WarCraft 3.
First of all, when the Queen pops out of the Hatchery she only starts with 160 hit points and hands out 8 damage per hit. She is also slow-moving unit and is pretty tied up at her Creep to do some actual use. Let us have a look at her abilities.
...
So when playing Terran and Protoss, the Zerg Queen will only work best in defense tactics, more of a leader of the pack. But as mentioned earlier, in Zerg mirrors she will play a much bigger role offensively and you might actually place her in the hero category after all. In matches versus Terran and Protoss however, she is more of a construction manager on site, giving you the opportunities to turn your Zerg base into the hellhole it should be.
Only 8 damage per hit? No wonder Savior and Jaedong thought it was overhyped.
The uniqueness of the insect stills feels strange to me. But issues raised by multiple queens may be worse. Whatever choice they do, I hope they'll stick to this unique gameplay mecanic for Zerg defense.
With mobile PC, nomad turrets, salvageable bunkers and turrets and now the Queen, the whole SC2 defence sounds very interesting and more reactive than basic turtling.
Sometimes I really love to read the almost mean but actually quite smart and justified Useless posts. The above qualifies! Amen... we have enough whining.
The Queen is there to change the way Zerg is played. Terran and Protoss are very similar to their old selves, and that's fine. Zerg is looking similar in ways, but utterly different in other ways. I think that's a good thing. I want something to learn from scratch... to figure out, to try to break, to utilize in weird ways. If the Queen works out, I can see it doing a few different and good things:
1. More versatile early game for Zerg. You don't have to use half of your drones to build sunkens, meaning Blizzard will probably have an easier time balancing the cost of hatchery and the ability/requirement for Zerg to fast expand in 90% of Z vs Non-zerg matches. How many times did they change the cost and build-time of the hatcheries and spawning pools over the years in SC and BW? Lots.
2. Someone else mentioned dealing with worker harass (e.g. dropship harass). A good point, since there were situations where a single dropship could waste a Zerg player a ton of time. Even more relevant now probably with marauders/colossi jumping over cliffs, dark templar/ghosts vs non-detecting overlords, etc.
3. The gosugamers article makes it clear that the Queen doesn't act as a hero in most cases, which sounds good. It's mostly a part of your base... almost a combo of drones, buildings, and a caster. But the Queen can be an almost hero in ZvZ at the moment. Not sure I like that, but I'm willing to see how it turns out before calling foul. At worst, Blizzard may force Zergs to distinguish between each other's creep or buildings.
Sure, big change brings worry, but for some reason this Queen thing sounds like it's going to work in a good way by the end of the beta.
On March 12 2008 09:20 Famehunter wrote: I really like how the zerg get an early game "super unit" to defend their hives while the protoss got a late game super unit to press on the attack. They re not over powered , just a very welcome boost to both races.
Also something has to stop those phase cannons!
because zerglings cant?
off topic, but does anybody else like the fluid way in which the zerglings move now (as seen in the savior vs bisu gameplay video)?
i think the queen is going to lead to two different openings for zerg-either aggressive zerglings (classic 9 pool) or defensive fe build into queen.
and proxy hatch into queen/zergling rush anybody?
Deep Tunnel needs Lair, so no rush :p
perhaps i'm mistaken, but couldn't you proxy the hatch and build your queen there...?
You could but remember that the Queen is the personification of all Zerg static defense - such a "queen rush" would leave you completely open to a counter attack - also a "fresh" queen has no offensive abilities and has lousy combat stats for her price.
In any case, all these people who are saying "ZOMG PROXY HATCH QUEEN RUSH" if you read the progamer interviews, the queen is actually a very weak unit. This proxy hatch build would probably be even less effective than doing a proxy hatch in current bw =P (which actually is effective in some very very select cases, see oversky =P).
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.
2. Heroes.
HEY we need a way of making a hero unit in SC2 but can't call it a hero unit. Lets refer to them as one-of-a-kind. Sorry, Blizzard, I see right through your ruse. You're making the queen and mothership to be hero units and I can see the Thor being the Terran one in the not-to-distant future. The mothership is awesome, I love the unit, but I don't want to see it in melee. The queen is no longer the queen, don't even fucking call it that. Call it something else then remove it from melee. Keep them in the campaign and map editor if you want, I would love to see them there!
3. They take ideas from WC3 and implement them into SC2.
This ranges from design to functionality to gameplay. The queen and a couple other new Zerg units look like they came right from WC3 or WoW, and I don't mean they look like they were designed by the same people who did those games, I fucking know they were, they look like they were inspired from units from those games and designed that way. The queen feels like some unnamed unit from the Undead in WC3.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is "this is not warcraft in space, its much more sophisticated".
1. Oh fuuuuuck, CHANGE!!
2. Are you dense? Do you think theyre just limiting units just for the hell of it? "Oh yeah, we had heroes in WC3, so I guess we should copy that". Fuck that shit - theyre implementing and changing these things around for gameplay and strategy reasons. ZERG: THEY HAS EVOLVES.
3. Now it sounds like youre complaining for the sake of complaining. God forbid that a 3D model from one game might resemble a 3D model of another game. 4 legs on that horse? There are 4 legs on a Zergling, what a rip-off!
In summary: WAAAHHHHHH WAAAAAAAHHHH WAHHHHH
Wow you completely read my post wrong.
On March 12 2008 23:59 Steelflight-Rx wrote: In any case, all these people who are saying "ZOMG PROXY HATCH QUEEN RUSH" if you read the progamer interviews, the queen is actually a very weak unit. This proxy hatch build would probably be even less effective than doing a proxy hatch in current bw =P (which actually is effective in some very very select cases, see oversky =P).
Yeah the queen is very weak early game but Blizzard has implied the upgrades to her make having one a lot more worth it. It may be a unit to do drops and shit with.
Also, from the videos I saw Zerg are very vulnerable now due to the lack of sunken colonies early game. It seems like any player with good micro should be able to take them out fairly easily now if they try to early expand.
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.
They should make the queen not fit into transports and only able to port to creep within like 12 range of your own structures to remove the possible zerg laming. Also you shouldn't be able to port to allies or zz in 2v2 would become imba being able to help each other way to quick with queens, atleast they should need to build a structure there first.
Queens being able to port into opponents creep would be like as if toss could teleport in units within other tosses pylon power and would make the queen have a way to important role in zvz for anyone thinking its ok to have them unique.
The Queen differs from all the other Zerg units as she does not hatch from an egg; she births directly from the Hatchery for a cost of 150 minerals. She follows the tech tree, as she may upgrade another level for each tier you go up. For the Lair, the Queen can go into a "Large Queen", and having the Hive you can upgrade the royal bitch insect to "Huge Queen". The higher level she is, the more hit points, mana, damage and spells she gets.
Putting all of these factors together: a unique unit since you can only have one at a time and that it can get upgraded, and all the spells really lure you into placing it in the 'hero' category. Many of you hardcore fans out there were totally freaked out by the Mothership and its dominance, and seeing the Zerg Cinematics video where the Queen hacked and slashed her way through the Marines must have surely sent chills down your spine. However, it is a different type of character, and putting the Queen under the magnifying glass more closely shows that it is nothing like the Tauren Chieftain nor the Blademaster from WarCraft 3.
First of all, when the Queen pops out of the Hatchery she only starts with 160 hit points and hands out 8 damage per hit. She is also slow-moving unit and is pretty tied up at her Creep to do some actual use. Let us have a look at her abilities.
...
So when playing Terran and Protoss, the Zerg Queen will only work best in defense tactics, more of a leader of the pack. But as mentioned earlier, in Zerg mirrors she will play a much bigger role offensively and you might actually place her in the hero category after all. In matches versus Terran and Protoss however, she is more of a construction manager on site, giving you the opportunities to turn your Zerg base into the hellhole it should be.
Only 8 damage per hit? No wonder Savior and Jaedong thought it was overhyped.
QFT. Queens are here to further diversify zerg from terran and toss. plus it radically changes zerg build dynamics, which is absolutely awesome, while at the same time not overpowered. her move speed is so slow (in the vids) some air units or ranged ground units can kite her to death easily.
On March 13 2008 01:08 Klockan3 wrote: They should make the queen not fit into transports and only able to port to creep within like 12 range of your own structures to remove the possible zerg laming. Also you shouldn't be able to port to allies or zz in 2v2 would become imba being able to help each other way to quick with queens, atleast they should need to build a structure there first.
Dunno about that, currently both Protoss and Zerg have the means of instantly transporting over large distances via warp in and nydus. As far as I know, these are fairly early techs. I'm concerned about the lacking mobility of the Terran really. While the Zerg seem able to just pop a nydus right into the enemy mineral line, what can the Terran do but walk across the entire battlefield?
On March 13 2008 01:08 Klockan3 wrote: They should make the queen not fit into transports and only able to port to creep within like 12 range of your own structures to remove the possible zerg laming. Also you shouldn't be able to port to allies or zz in 2v2 would become imba being able to help each other way to quick with queens, atleast they should need to build a structure there first.
Dunno about that, currently both Protoss and Zerg have the means of instantly transporting over large distances via warp in and nydus. As far as I know, these are fairly early techs. I'm concerned about the lacking mobility of the Terran really. While the Zerg seem able to just pop a nydus right into the enemy mineral line, what can the Terran do but walk across the entire battlefield?
On March 13 2008 01:08 Klockan3 wrote: They should make the queen not fit into transports and only able to port to creep within like 12 range of your own structures to remove the possible zerg laming. Also you shouldn't be able to port to allies or zz in 2v2 would become imba being able to help each other way to quick with queens, atleast they should need to build a structure there first.
Dunno about that, currently both Protoss and Zerg have the means of instantly transporting over large distances via warp in and nydus. As far as I know, these are fairly early techs. I'm concerned about the lacking mobility of the Terran really. While the Zerg seem able to just pop a nydus right into the enemy mineral line, what can the Terran do but walk across the entire battlefield?
I really like the queen now. When I first saw it, my reaction was something along the lines of "oh no, not another super unit".
But the way it seems to work is totally not like that, it's like a part of the zerg hive cluster and it seems like the kind of unit that can really increase the versatility of zerg strategies (zerg has always had the least room for displays of creativity).
Of course this hugely depends on how viable it is to actually use it offensively I guess, but even on the defence it might open up more options. Overall I really like it.
On March 13 2008 01:08 Klockan3 wrote: They should make the queen not fit into transports and only able to port to creep within like 12 range of your own structures to remove the possible zerg laming. Also you shouldn't be able to port to allies or zz in 2v2 would become imba being able to help each other way to quick with queens, atleast they should need to build a structure there first.
Dunno about that, currently both Protoss and Zerg have the means of instantly transporting over large distances via warp in and nydus. As far as I know, these are fairly early techs. I'm concerned about the lacking mobility of the Terran really. While the Zerg seem able to just pop a nydus right into the enemy mineral line, what can the Terran do but walk across the entire battlefield?
Drop pods.
Hmm score :3 Was gonna counter with Terran actually having to get a ghost over there, but while getting a ghost into the enemy base may seem a chore, the ghost is actually the number one reason why I'll be playing Terran first. I mean, now that its no longer a good for nothing, who doesn't want to be a ninja? Or a pair of them, sending down drop pods the second after the nuke goes off... Yum.
People complain about Terran being boring, and overall I agree that's true, but the Ghost is surely the most fun unit in the game atm. I will definitely start by centering around a turtle/ghost heavy build.
after seeing the queen and reading the gg.net article I think that it's a welcome addition to the swarm and we could se some very creative uses like fe with queen as defence or maybe some zerg sort of push like thing where you have an ovie drop creep so that queen can drop down some defencive structures (sorta thinking along the lines of a terran push in sc1 with lurks replacing tanks and hydra stead of vults)?
On March 11 2008 13:56 Steelflight-Rx wrote: Makes sense that you can only have one queen Also seems very zergish to me, i mean why wouldnt an alien bug race have some bigass creature lurking around defending their hive! Its just like out of a sci fi movie, which is what i really want, which is what makes BW so gr8
hahaha. i agree.
On March 11 2008 16:24 gwho wrote: i'm speaking strictly from a story line point of view: does it make sense there is only one queen? there is one overmind, and one kerrigan, but there are a lot of cerebrates, overlords and queens! no more cerebrates actually, but queens look after the hatchery/hive right? what bout hatcheries on other planets? i heard one idea on bnet forums that it might be a good idea to limit the queen by the number of hatcheries. i know i know the teleport ability and a whole lot of other stuff would have to be changed. this is a fundamental change, and it is fundamentals that i am talking about. shouldn't each hatchery have a queen? it's not like the queen is the new kerrigan. you', the player is essentially kerrigan.
of course there isn't one queen. there is only one queen per hive cluster.
when you are attacked you are told the hive cluster is under attack.
the hive cluster is the group of zerg under your control.
and about it sharing the same title as kerrigan, that's right. you see, back in the old days like in babylon and such, a king would be a king and perhaps also his son, although just a prince, would actually have the title of a king. instead of being mr. lazy king the father would go out and battle and let the son king stay at the castle and take care of the people. well, that is basically the same thing. the mother queen, kerrigan can go fight on the front lines while these daughter queens get to defend the hive clusters. and if there are multiple castles, of course there will need to be another king for each castle. same thing with hive clusters and the queens.
further, cerebrates were sortof helpless gooey brain thing dudes, and they were kinda like the overmind. well i guess these things will be kinda like kerrigan.
as for the story, i am really interested to see how they will make this queen fit. it's not going to be like warcraft 3 i hope where all their explanations for night elf units were like, umm, bears and talons are druids, so they're sleeping, and oh yeah....mountain giants are sleeping too...and they never even bothered to explain fairie dragons i think...fairie dragons reminded me of the lurker that way.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 02:33 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.
On March 15 2008 04:18 SoleSteeler wrote: 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.
The abilities are not some more than regular defiler, templar or science vessel has. Question you need to ask yourself is : Does Zerg army suck witout defiler, Toss army without templar, Terran army without Vessel? 10 supply is an investment you can have 2+ ultras for that or rather a support queen if your army is large enough.
Web ability is a defence compensation for mutas. Consume is there so you can cast web more times, but sacrifice your units. Mutate is defence breaker, and can be used from ling(power fighter which could die, since it is low on hp) to ultra(20 second power tank). It would not deal significant damage over time so alone it wouldn't stand chance and most units would catch her up. The Aura doesn't mean it's like +50% damage or +3 armor, it would be like +1 +1 or something...
I don't think the mothership is a hero, no. But we also don't know what her current abilities are, and how potent they are.
My point is, the fact that you can only have "one" of a specific unit doesn't make it a "hero". Especially if we're thinking of War3 heroes (which is where everyone sees a problem). I don't know why you're so against only being able to have one unit. Especially if it's not as powerful as what a hero is in War3; the queen, if you watch the videos, is easily countered. Like others have said, it's more of a mobile building.
I suppose you're right that current defilers/templar/vessels also have strong abilities, but I think your suggestions would be better off on a different unit. I like the current concept of the queen, and don't feel it should be changed to what you said, is all I mean.
I very much dislike the Queen in her current form. The fact that I can only have one is Blizzard basically saying you HAVE to pick this unit, upgrade it, and keep it alive to not be at a big disadvantage. It's so not Zerg to me...
So its not Zerg to have a Queen unit guarding the Hive? Yknow, despite half the storyline involving Kerrigan, Queen of Blades defending and ruling the Hive clusters.
And yeah, you basically have to get it for the defense structures and support spells, just like you basically have to pick the drones to mine minerals and basically pick the spawning pool to jumpstart your army. Basically.
On March 17 2008 05:14 ggfobster wrote: I very much dislike the Queen in her current form. The fact that I can only have one is Blizzard basically saying you HAVE to pick this unit, upgrade it, and keep it alive to not be at a big disadvantage. It's so not Zerg to me...
It's DoW all over again...
Your post holds a lot of credit - a player shouldn't be FORCED to get ANY specific unit beside the drone/overlord. Forcing build orders/unit choices is never a good start. Modern RTSes tend to get cookie-cutter enough on their own..
Useless, in that case you'd be looking at the queen as some sort of defensive constructor, which I suppose would be fine. But do we know the prerequisite for the Queen? If it comes straight from the Hatchery without any tech buildings required, then that'd be alright I guess - but if it requires you to follow a specific tech tree then that's really not a good way to go.
On March 17 2008 05:34 useLess wrote: So its not Zerg to have a Queen unit guarding the Hive? Yknow, despite half the storyline involving Kerrigan, Queen of Blades defending and ruling the Hive clusters.
And yeah, you basically have to get it for the defense structures and support spells, just like you basically have to pick the drones to mine minerals and basically pick the spawning pool to jumpstart your army. Basically.
SC lore =|= SC multiplayer, and the emphasis is not on basically, it's on ONE.
Basically, if I want to mass Queens at my own peril, I should be able to.
On March 15 2008 00:32 Klockan3 wrote: 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.
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?
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude, you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. Ban yourself plz? (Msg a mod and request a self ban.)
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
Have you guys seen the gameplay video with a BO3 between zerg and toss? The queen is most definently not a hero, it get's owned by 3 zealots at it's first level (and I mean owned, not just defeated). I think it's main benefit early on is that you don't have to sacrifice drones to build defense anymore. It's certainly not going to be used offensivly, it got owned very quickly most of the time and it's really slow.
It's the zergs version of both mobile defense and constructor of static defense. I think it's pretty cool.
On March 17 2008 06:33 Famehunter wrote: imo the queen, the mothership and all the new ingenious casters are special units that bring a complexity to the game that sc1 was lacking.
And so , I aprove of the queens uniqueness.
I think that sc1's simplicity was what made the game special, unique, and interesting not saying I disaprove of the queen, just saying that things like items and heroes and mercinaries make an rts suck :/ (in sum, I hate war3 :/)
On March 15 2008 00:32 Klockan3 wrote: 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.
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...
The depth of the economy of games does not come from the number of resources you dimwitt, sounds like you have no clue about these games at all. Starcraft had an deeper eco since gas collection speed is extremely limited while lumber is unlimited, gold collection speed was basically unlimited and exactly the same at all mines while minerals have different caps at different expos. And oil is just a gimmick for naval units, doesn't effect the landgame or air game at all.
Mana bars? Casters? Construction? You call that taking from WC? Have you played other RTS games?
Yes in fact i have, warcraft invented mana bars, no other game besides warcrat 1-2 have had anything like manabars untill starcraft came. Copters didn't have manabars but instead had limited ammunitions wich is nothing like manabars, just forces them to rearm at the helipad after every attack run. warcraft 2 were the first game using workers to build structures, it wasn't the only game since every other rts copied but starcraft also copied it.
HOWEVER, warcraft 3 is surely not the only RTS to use heroes, experience, 3d and so on? So really starcraft 2 wouldn't be copying from warcraft 3 if it used heroes since heroes is such a standard implementation today? Have you played other RTS, how many of them can you name wich doesn't have one of a kind units and is not older than 5 years? I can name, cnc generals, cnc3, RA2, supcom, dow, coh, rol. Hmm, i cant really think of one game wich diedn't have one of a kind hero like units...
Iron mines? War3 uses Iron?
I said iron mines just to fit the warcraft fantasy theme... And i didnt mean warcraft 3 as in the current warcraft 3, but instead warcraft 3 as in the would be warcraft 3 if Blizzard released warcraft 3 instead of starcraft at that time. If they just took the whole starcraft game and redid the models it would be exactly like a better variant of warcraft 2 with a few tweaks, that was the point.
On March 17 2008 06:15 SoleSteeler wrote: Yeah I saw that video... Colossus looked incredibly strong, when it went behind the minerals and owned a shit load of drones.
Reaver looks incredibly strong when it goes behind the minerals and owns shitloads of drones too.
Well, testers call the Colossus "extremely strong", and 4 collossi quite unstoppable by ground.
@Klockan3 : +1. It's a no brainer that SC took the whole crat-like mecanic and feeling. Wouldn't you know blizzard you could flag all the craft game as being a sole family nonetheless. Today this fact is thruer than ever, with stationnary flying unit, mutilevelled flat maps and others Blizzardish stuff being quite inexistant in current proeminent rts.
On March 17 2008 05:38 GinNtoniC wrote: Useless, in that case you'd be looking at the queen as some sort of defensive constructor, which I suppose would be fine. But do we know the prerequisite for the Queen? If it comes straight from the Hatchery without any tech buildings required, then that'd be alright I guess - but if it requires you to follow a specific tech tree then that's really not a good way to go.
From the people who have played it so far, Spawning Pool and necessary resources are its only prereqs.
On March 17 2008 06:44 Klockan3 wrote: The depth of the economy of games does not come from the number of resources you dimwitt, sounds like you have no clue about these games at all. Starcraft had an deeper eco since gas collection speed is extremely limited while lumber is unlimited, gold collection speed was basically unlimited and exactly the same at all mines while minerals have different caps at different expos. And oil is just a gimmick for naval units, doesn't effect the landgame or air game at all.
Mana bars? Casters? Construction? You call that taking from WC? Have you played other RTS games?
Yes in fact i have, warcraft invented mana bars, no other game besides warcrat 1-2 have had anything like manabars untill starcraft came. Copters didn't have manabars but instead had limited ammunitions wich is nothing like manabars, just forces them to rearm at the helipad after every attack run. warcraft 2 were the first game using workers to build structures, it wasn't the only game since every other rts copied but starcraft also copied it.
HOWEVER, warcraft 3 is surely not the only RTS to use heroes, experience, 3d and so on? So really starcraft 2 wouldn't be copying from warcraft 3 if it used heroes since heroes is such a standard implementation today? Have you played other RTS, how many of them can you name wich doesn't have one of a kind units and is not older than 5 years? I can name, cnc generals, cnc3, RA2, supcom, dow, coh, rol. Hmm, i cant really think of one game wich diedn't have one of a kind hero like units...
I said iron mines just to fit the warcraft fantasy theme... And i didnt mean warcraft 3 as in the current warcraft 3, but instead warcraft 3 as in the would be warcraft 3 if Blizzard released warcraft 3 instead of starcraft at that time. If they just took the whole starcraft game and redid the models it would be exactly like a better variant of warcraft 2 with a few tweaks, that was the point.
Ok...I don't think I resorted to name calling, but I did insult your knowledge of RTS games. Which I was correct. War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold. Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game.
So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock?
And you said it wouldn't be copying war3 if it used heroes...Now...I'm not going to argue that it wouldn't be copying, CONSIDERING SC had it's own "Hero" units, but with that said, not one of SC's hero units gained experience. I support the "hero" units, one of a kind, IN single player. It's just wrong in multi.
Generals has one of a kind hero units? (Also, I like StarCraft and WarCraft(s) BECAUSE no super weapons...) (Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much)
I really can't believe you are comparing StarCraft to WarCraft 2 like they are the same. Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races. Not one....They REDID EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME when they realized it had a WarCraft feel to it. That is SPECIFICALLY why Artanis has the line in the game, "This isn't warcraft in space." -_-
On March 11 2008 22:27 Vaanelo wrote: the queen is alright, but the idea of 1 unit only is wrong, stop burrowing shit from wc3 and implement it in sc2. ive notice huge number of copying of wc3 shit and adding them into sc2...
So they should ignore any good ideas they had with WC3? Are you kidding me?
On March 17 2008 06:15 SoleSteeler wrote: Yeah I saw that video... Colossus looked incredibly strong, when it went behind the minerals and owned a shit load of drones.
On March 17 2008 06:44 Klockan3 wrote: The depth of the economy of games does not come from the number of resources you dimwitt, sounds like you have no clue about these games at all. Starcraft had an deeper eco since gas collection speed is extremely limited while lumber is unlimited, gold collection speed was basically unlimited and exactly the same at all mines while minerals have different caps at different expos. And oil is just a gimmick for naval units, doesn't effect the landgame or air game at all.
Mana bars? Casters? Construction? You call that taking from WC? Have you played other RTS games?
Yes in fact i have, warcraft invented mana bars, no other game besides warcrat 1-2 have had anything like manabars untill starcraft came. Copters didn't have manabars but instead had limited ammunitions wich is nothing like manabars, just forces them to rearm at the helipad after every attack run. warcraft 2 were the first game using workers to build structures, it wasn't the only game since every other rts copied but starcraft also copied it.
HOWEVER, warcraft 3 is surely not the only RTS to use heroes, experience, 3d and so on? So really starcraft 2 wouldn't be copying from warcraft 3 if it used heroes since heroes is such a standard implementation today? Have you played other RTS, how many of them can you name wich doesn't have one of a kind units and is not older than 5 years? I can name, cnc generals, cnc3, RA2, supcom, dow, coh, rol. Hmm, i cant really think of one game wich diedn't have one of a kind hero like units...
Iron mines? War3 uses Iron?
I said iron mines just to fit the warcraft fantasy theme... And i didnt mean warcraft 3 as in the current warcraft 3, but instead warcraft 3 as in the would be warcraft 3 if Blizzard released warcraft 3 instead of starcraft at that time. If they just took the whole starcraft game and redid the models it would be exactly like a better variant of warcraft 2 with a few tweaks, that was the point.
Ok...I don't think I resorted to name calling, but I did insult your knowledge of RTS games. Which I was correct. War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold. Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game.
So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock?
And you said it wouldn't be copying war3 if it used heroes...Now...I'm not going to argue that it wouldn't be copying, CONSIDERING SC had it's own "Hero" units, but with that said, not one of SC's hero units gained experience. I support the "hero" units, one of a kind, IN single player. It's just wrong in multi.
Generals has one of a kind hero units? (Also, I like StarCraft and WarCraft(s) BECAUSE no super weapons...) (Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much)
I really can't believe you are comparing StarCraft to WarCraft 2 like they are the same. Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races. Not one....They REDID EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME when they realized it had a WarCraft feel to it. That is SPECIFICALLY why Artanis has the line in the game, "This isn't warcraft in space." -_-
Then how can you say that sc2 is anything like wc3? The "Heroes" don't gain exp, the resource modell is exactly the same as sc, the units resemble starcraft units a ton, the lethality level is the same as starcraft, the popcap system is the same as starcraft...
And just too
War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold.
Ofcourse i know that, i have played like vefry rts out there and i never forget stuff, its just that every mine gives the same income potential, the only difference is how much you can get untill they run out. A starcraft field however, dpending on the number of mineral fields, have different harvest caps on how fast they can be harvested.
Also the hardcap on gas income, while also gas is the tech resource makes the economy spending a lot harder while in wc2 it was just to task as many wood guys as you needed in comparison to gold since neighter had any real limit.
So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock?
Nope, mana reggen is extremely slow, does not take a special building and the only reason to have it is to balance out the units powerfull abilities, and adds a lot of tactics depending on when to use the mana. Ammo is used to make the air behave in a remotely realistic way using runs instead of normal hover n shoot, and you never try to preserve the ammo since it reloads extremely quick once you get to an airport.
Generals has one of a kind hero units?
Yes, cl burton, black lotus and the GLA sniper.
Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much)
Ofcoure i can't get the names of every rts released the past 5 years but can you name any of them wich didn't have heroes? And if you wich bfme1/2 also have heroes, UAW had heroes, aoe3 had heroes, generals is exactly 5 years old now and supcom is barely 1 year old, how the fuck could you believe that supcom is over 5 years??
Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races.
Like the sc2 ones play anything like the wc3 ones at all, wc2 and sc are a lot more similar than wc3 and sc2.
Just to quote you again:
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.
So you call the queen/mothership a concept borrowed from wc3, eventhough they doesn't resemble anything from wc3 at all? Heroes in wc3 can't build structures, are all ground units, you get one for free at the begining of the game, gets experience to grow more powerfull, can use items, can be revived for a cheap cost at their previous powerlevel, are very strong offensive units fast and at last you can get 3 heroes in any one game just one of each type.
Trust me, this starcraft2 "hero" type is atleast as different from wc3 heroes as anything in starcraft is different from wc2. And then the hero concept is in every damn game out there, its not a special thing with wc3 and these heroes looks the most to be like the heroes in cnc generals.
So if starcraft is unique from wc2 then starcraft 2 is defenitely extrelemy unique from wc3 since the difference between those games are a ton larger than the difference between sc and wc2.
Edit:
Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game.
If you wanted to get naval you had to get oil, if you didn't want to get naval you didn't need to get oil. Its kinda as if only air units in sc required gas, its not a choice but instead its just the gas for boats. Also lumber and gold is basically the same resource since you can transfer pesents between them at will meaning that you can always get the right ratios for the specifik units you want.
On March 17 2008 06:44 Klockan3 wrote: The depth of the economy of games does not come from the number of resources you dimwitt, sounds like you have no clue about these games at all. Starcraft had an deeper eco since gas collection speed is extremely limited while lumber is unlimited, gold collection speed was basically unlimited and exactly the same at all mines while minerals have different caps at different expos. And oil is just a gimmick for naval units, doesn't effect the landgame or air game at all.
Mana bars? Casters? Construction? You call that taking from WC? Have you played other RTS games?
Yes in fact i have, warcraft invented mana bars, no other game besides warcrat 1-2 have had anything like manabars untill starcraft came. Copters didn't have manabars but instead had limited ammunitions wich is nothing like manabars, just forces them to rearm at the helipad after every attack run. warcraft 2 were the first game using workers to build structures, it wasn't the only game since every other rts copied but starcraft also copied it.
HOWEVER, warcraft 3 is surely not the only RTS to use heroes, experience, 3d and so on? So really starcraft 2 wouldn't be copying from warcraft 3 if it used heroes since heroes is such a standard implementation today? Have you played other RTS, how many of them can you name wich doesn't have one of a kind units and is not older than 5 years? I can name, cnc generals, cnc3, RA2, supcom, dow, coh, rol. Hmm, i cant really think of one game wich diedn't have one of a kind hero like units...
Iron mines? War3 uses Iron?
I said iron mines just to fit the warcraft fantasy theme... And i didnt mean warcraft 3 as in the current warcraft 3, but instead warcraft 3 as in the would be warcraft 3 if Blizzard released warcraft 3 instead of starcraft at that time. If they just took the whole starcraft game and redid the models it would be exactly like a better variant of warcraft 2 with a few tweaks, that was the point.
Ok...I don't think I resorted to name calling, but I did insult your knowledge of RTS games. Which I was correct. War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold. Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game.
So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock?
And you said it wouldn't be copying war3 if it used heroes...Now...I'm not going to argue that it wouldn't be copying, CONSIDERING SC had it's own "Hero" units, but with that said, not one of SC's hero units gained experience. I support the "hero" units, one of a kind, IN single player. It's just wrong in multi.
Generals has one of a kind hero units? (Also, I like StarCraft and WarCraft(s) BECAUSE no super weapons...) (Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much)
I really can't believe you are comparing StarCraft to WarCraft 2 like they are the same. Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races. Not one....They REDID EVERY ASPECT OF THE GAME when they realized it had a WarCraft feel to it. That is SPECIFICALLY why Artanis has the line in the game, "This isn't warcraft in space." -_-
Then how can you say that sc2 is anything like wc3? The "Heroes" don't gain exp, the resource modell is exactly the same as sc, the units resemble starcraft units a ton, the lethality level is the same as starcraft, the popcap system is the same as starcraft...
And just too
War 2 all mines didn't have the same amount of gold.
Ofcourse i know that, i have played like vefry rts out there and i never forget stuff, its just that every mine gives the same income potential, the only difference is how much you can get untill they run out. A starcraft field however, dpending on the number of mineral fields, have different harvest caps on how fast they can be harvested.
Also the hardcap on gas income, while also gas is the tech resource makes the economy spending a lot harder while in wc2 it was just to task as many wood guys as you needed in comparison to gold since neighter had any real limit.
So...If they run out of ammo in the choppers...it isn't just like if you run out of mana with your warlock?
Nope, mana reggen is extremely slow, does not take a special building and the only reason to have it is to balance out the units powerfull abilities, and adds a lot of tactics depending on when to use the mana. Ammo is used to make the air behave in a remotely realistic way using runs instead of normal hover n shoot, and you never try to preserve the ammo since it reloads extremely quick once you get to an airport.
Generals has one of a kind hero units?
Yes, cl burton, black lotus and the GLA sniper.
Also, Generals, RA2, Supreme Commander, are 5+ years old...So you didn't do a good job naming all that much)
Ofcoure i can't get the names of every rts released the past 5 years but can you name any of them wich didn't have heroes? And if you wich bfme1/2 also have heroes, UAW had heroes, aoe3 had heroes, generals is exactly 5 years old now and supcom is barely 1 year old, how the fuck could you believe that supcom is over 5 years??
Each race in SC plays nothing like EITHER WarCraft 2 races.
Like the sc2 ones play anything like the wc3 ones at all, wc2 and sc are a lot more similar than wc3 and sc2.
Just to quote you again:
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.
So you call the queen/mothership a concept borrowed from wc3, eventhough they doesn't resemble anything from wc3 at all? Heroes in wc3 can't build structures, are all ground units, you get one for free at the begining of the game, gets experience to grow more powerfull, can use items, can be revived for a cheap cost at their previous powerlevel, are very strong offensive units fast and at last you can get 3 heroes in any one game just one of each type.
Trust me, this starcraft2 "hero" type is atleast as different from wc3 heroes as anything in starcraft is different from wc2. And then the hero concept is in every damn game out there, its not a special thing with wc3 and these heroes looks the most to be like the heroes in cnc generals.
So if starcraft is unique from wc2 then starcraft 2 is defenitely extrelemy unique from wc3 since the difference between those games are a ton larger than the difference between sc and wc2.
Edit:
Calling oil a gimmick to get out of it still being a use. (WarCraft 2: Tides of Darkness anyone?) I believe naval warfare was a part of the game.
If you wanted to get naval you had to get oil, if you didn't want to get naval you didn't need to get oil. Its kinda as if only air units in sc required gas, its not a choice but instead its just the gas for boats. Also lumber and gold is basically the same resource since you can transfer pesents between them at will meaning that you can always get the right ratios for the specifik units you want.
That quote "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."
Is not me...The chiui so the last argument you had...has nothing to do with me, so don't argue someone elses view with me. K?
Thanks...I actually was asking if Generals had heroes...
AND WOW...I just realized I said supcom was 5 years old...got my games mixed up. My bad on that one...
No sense fucking arguing. We both think we're right. And all you did about oil, was validate my point that it adds depth. Unit choice is depth..."if you wanted naval you had to get oil"...Ok...If I want naval I have to get oil...So my choice here (here's the depth) I have to invest to get oil....
On March 17 2008 11:20 ~OpZ~ wrote: No sense fucking arguing.
Agree! And sorry for misinterpreting that you did that quote.
But anyway, at least hero like units is the norm and not the exception of RTS games today so thats hardly borrowing from wc3, its just following a general RTS trend.
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.
agreed. if the queen is so strong that you need a limit of 1 queen, there is not much to decide, because you're gonna build her anyway. replacing sunkens by a queen's ability not only NOT diversifies openings, it rather takes away some options. if you have the option to build sunkens or save the drones for a better eco, this already provides diversity. but if your queen, that you will build anyway, replaces stationary defense, you have less flexibility in the early game. and that's one of the key features that make the zerg unique and fun to play: huge flexibility between mass and economical power.
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.
agreed. if the queen is so strong that you need a limit of 1 queen, there is not much to decide, because you're gonna build her anyway. replacing sunkens by a queen's ability not only NOT diversifies openings, it rather takes away some options. if you have the option to build sunkens or save the drones for a better eco, this already provides diversity. but if your queen, that you will build anyway, replaces stationary defense, you have less flexibility in the early game. and that's one of the key features that make the zerg unique and fun to play: huge flexibility between mass and economical power.
Um, you only need to get the queen if you want to build the new sunkens, otherwise she is just a huge waste of money that you could use on combat units, gatherers or new hatcheries instead.
Queen costs 150 min and is weaker/slower than a zealot but as big as an ultra making her die extremely easy, can build defensive structures costing 75 min each and those warp in so you can build as many as you wish. If you have no plan on building those then there is no reason at all to build the queen since she provides very little strength per space and strength per minerals.
With the queen zerg can do a single hatchery tech strat, without that strat would be impossible. All old strats wich didn't use sunkens wont use the new queen either while all old strats wich used sunkens will be more diverse today.
ok, i don't know how cost-effective the queen really is. but if she really is that expensive, weak and only useful for defensive strategies, why do we need a limit of 1 queen at a time then?
On March 17 2008 21:26 Wuselmops wrote: ok, i don't know how cost-effective the queen really is. but if she really is that expensive, weak and only useful for defensive strategies, why do we need a limit of 1 queen at a time then?
so SC2 can be more like War3 and piss tl.net off even more.
The limit is more to create the dynamic of having to move the Queen to the right location in order to have some defence boost (abilities and repairs), imho. With the special instant movement, one can protect two successive locations but cannot alternate. Without limit, players would just post a queen on each expand and voila : nerfed down abilities and second basic ground caster. It may end like this, but would be another drawback for innovation.
On March 17 2008 21:26 Wuselmops wrote: ok, i don't know how cost-effective the queen really is. but if she really is that expensive, weak and only useful for defensive strategies, why do we need a limit of 1 queen at a time then?
so SC2 can be more like War3 and piss tl.net off even more.
Yes, because we all know every single feature War3 has and SC doesn't is bad and must be rejected off the bat. It doesn't even matter the queen acts nothing like a hero; it barely vaguely almost resembles something that could remind you of a flavor of War3 if you squint your eyes and look sideways, therefore it must be complete and utter shit.
I'm glad you're not suffering from war3phobia and are clearheaded about this.
On March 17 2008 18:33 Klockan3 wrote: But anyway, at least hero like units is the norm and not the exception of RTS games today so thats hardly borrowing from wc3, its just following a general RTS trend.
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.
On March 17 2008 05:14 ggfobster wrote: I very much dislike the Queen in her current form. The fact that I can only have one is Blizzard basically saying you HAVE to pick this unit, upgrade it, and keep it alive to not be at a big disadvantage. It's so not Zerg to me...
It's DoW all over again...
Your post holds a lot of credit - a player shouldn't be FORCED to get ANY specific unit beside the drone/overlord. Forcing build orders/unit choices is never a good start. Modern RTSes tend to get cookie-cutter enough on their own..
Actually from the play testing there were much much better things to get than the queen. Did you even read the teamliquid play testing report? You state things as "facts" when you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.
On March 17 2008 18:33 Klockan3 wrote: But anyway, at least hero like units is the norm and not the exception of RTS games today so thats hardly borrowing from wc3, its just following a general RTS trend.
Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. First of all, WC3 is a hybrid. It isn't a straight up RTS.
Name one RTS made after wc3 that have no "one at a time" special units?
Because really, that is the only thing that would make the mothership or queen a hero. And yes i agree that the queen is as far away from hero its possible to get with a one at a time kind of unit.
On March 17 2008 06:07 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote: Have you guys seen the gameplay video with a BO3 between zerg and toss? The queen is most definently not a hero, it get's owned by 3 zealots at it's first level (and I mean owned, not just defeated). I think it's main benefit early on is that you don't have to sacrifice drones to build defense anymore. It's certainly not going to be used offensivly, it got owned very quickly most of the time and it's really slow.
It's the zergs version of both mobile defense and constructor of static defense. I think it's pretty cool.
Is this for real? Where is this video? Some kind moderator might need to organize a post with all the recent video links (I don't think we've had one like that for a long long time).
On March 17 2008 21:26 Wuselmops wrote: ok, i don't know how cost-effective the queen really is. but if she really is that expensive, weak and only useful for defensive strategies, why do we need a limit of 1 queen at a time then?
I think b/c the only way to make her balanced/useful right now is making her cost minerals but no supply (since her main point is taking over suken production and freeing up larva). And if you can build queens inifinitely without building overlords, there would be some build order that capitalizes on this and ends up being broken, is my bet. Or even in the odd 200/200 max supply situation, keep building queens for free to get an effective 220/200 advantage.
I think the reason the queen is single build is because a lot of it's abilities are going to be really powerfull if you could have a group. Sure the queen gets pretty owned at it's first and second level by a few units. But a group of lair queens or hive queens (apparantly 600 hp) could kill any kind of harassment option and deep tunnel anywhere on the map instantly. As it stands now it's a decent defence against a weak harass, has a lot of usefull abilities and can travel to places quickly to build defences. But it can't stop a dedicated attack from a small army.
But if you could have 6 queens, regardless of the cost, the enemy would have to bring their entire army anytime they wanted to attack an expansion, basically killing their mobility.
At the same time those abilities is what makes it an intresting unit so they should still be there IMHO. Otherwise just remove it. It's a fresh new intresting mechanic. It's not a hero. I like it.
My initial reaction was "unique unit, uber spells, gains more spells when your town hall upgrades, town portal ability = hero".
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.
On March 17 2008 18:33 Klockan3 wrote: But anyway, at least hero like units is the norm and not the exception of RTS games today so thats hardly borrowing from wc3, its just following a general RTS trend.
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
Ah, thanks for clarifying that because I could have sworn a few people mentioned it could do that in ZvZ games, i.e. tunneling to the enemies base as well, which is just plain stupid.
I am disappointed with the Queen concept. I think they should tone it down and allow for more Queens because I had felt Protoss would be unique to be the only race with a unit type with a limit of one (mothership). And I should think they better come up with a better name. It just feels like they are erasing the old Queen thinking it was a mistake. They should give it a new name.
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.
On March 11 2008 12:51 crazie-penguin wrote: Mothership(I swear, change the name to TEMPEST)
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
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.
I play DoW:DC a lot (because the rest of my family loves it, my heart will remain with the RTS that I'm worst at: StarCraft), and I understand the use of unit caps in that game, as it means that although you reach a higher level of tech, the cost in time & resources spent getting there can result in you being punished by someone who stayed at a lower tech, pumped a few units and did a few upgrades at the lower tech level. In previous incarnations, because buildings take a decent amount of time to destroy with basic infantry, you could fast tech while almost ignoring Tier 1 heavy infantry, and spam high tier units ftw.
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.
On March 15 2008 00:32 Klockan3 wrote: 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.
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.
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.
The queen isn't so much of a second worker because at higher levels she seems to have a great attack. It's more like, you wouldn't want to engage her in combat because she also seems pretty fragile. She probably can't take on two consecutive marine drops or so.
On a side note, is she considered a big unit or small unit?
1. As others have mentioned, not having to waste larva for static defense. Plus, hopefully defenses can be deployed *when needed*, not because they might be needed later.
2. Easier expansion. Build a hatchery -> move queen, build defenses -> move on.
3. Tactical considerations for the enemy. When I attack a zerg base, can I expect the queen to be there, or get there soon?
The one unit limit is a game mechanic, nothing more. If it makes gameplay more interesting, keep it. I do hope it makes ZvZ games more diverse, it would be welcome. It's the most boring mirror matchup.
Does anybody think the Queen should be able to "deep-tunnel" to Ovies dropping creep? Otherwise, in my opinion, this ability (creep drop) would be kinda useless as an offensive tool.
hell no, Ovies droping creep is really good as it is. It can be used offensively with the queen to place the defensive structures that the queen builds on the creep patches.
On April 12 2008 00:29 Famehunter wrote: hell no, Ovies droping creep is really good as it is. It can be used offensively with the queen to place the defensive structures that the queen builds on the creep patches.
Queen is slow as shit, how on earth do you think she'll get there before she gets killed? T___________T
On April 12 2008 00:29 Famehunter wrote: hell no, Ovies droping creep is really good as it is. It can be used offensively with the queen to place the defensive structures that the queen builds on the creep patches.
Queen is slow as shit, how on earth do you think she'll get there before she gets killed? T___________T
On April 12 2008 00:29 Famehunter wrote: hell no, Ovies droping creep is really good as it is. It can be used offensively with the queen to place the defensive structures that the queen builds on the creep patches.
Queen is slow as shit, how on earth do you think she'll get there before she gets killed? T___________T
queen can tunnel through from creep to creep
No, from building to building, and that's a huge difference.
On April 12 2008 00:29 Famehunter wrote: hell no, Ovies droping creep is really good as it is. It can be used offensively with the queen to place the defensive structures that the queen builds on the creep patches.
Queen is slow as shit, how on earth do you think she'll get there before she gets killed? T___________T
She is as fast and about as strong as a single zealot. And people do use zealots offensively you know
Actually, in one of the SC2 ZvP videos (check the video thread) the guy queen rushes and she gets there just a little bit after the zerglings. If there were an overlord around (with creep upgrade?) he could very well have cannon rushed.
On April 12 2008 00:29 Famehunter wrote: hell no, Ovies droping creep is really good as it is. It can be used offensively with the queen to place the defensive structures that the queen builds on the creep patches.
Queen is slow as shit, how on earth do you think she'll get there before she gets killed? T___________T
queen can tunnel through from creep to creep
No, from building to building, and that's a huge difference.
EPT
) on units so far;about their roles and other things they could do. I don't know if I should put this in the Zerg unit discussion or not since its kinda long and I wanted to prompt some focused discussion, but whatever go ban me 
) I find this extremely odd, since the Queen, unlike all other queens in the insect world doesn't produce new stuff. I always hoped, that if the Queen was going to change drastically, that it would sort of turn into a summoner unit or whatever, kinda like a mobile hatchery I guess. And thus I'm also saddened the Queen lost the infest ability (which I'm glad got souped up), but since we can only have one queen so far, I guess its a good thing that the infestor can do it now. Parasite and ensnare have gone too, and I don't think those spells have been moved to any other unit sadly. Hopefully they can come back (great now I'm dreaming of splash damage guardians and ensnare combo...). Although, they probably don't fit to well with the Queen's role now. So obviously Blizzard now has a better more focused idea for the concept and role of the Queen and can hopefully flesh out a interesting, fun, and balanced unit (as opposed to the Queen in BW, it almost seemed like a last minute thing)
![[image loading]](http://www.diabloii.net/quests/images/a2-q6-duriel.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3511/72058420ux6.png)
![[image loading]](http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/8889/wtfxzorbedispu8.png)
