|
If you include your Twitter ID with your reply, we can include it in a possible shoutout if your comment is interesting! |
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
I think Liberators will mostly see use in securing strategic locations like alternate attack paths and expansions. They’ll also see good use in sieging your opponent when you can’t kill a defensive player but it will allow the Terran to expand freely while knowing their opponent is stuck making units to be able to break their siege. They’ll also see use in mid-late game mineral line harassment with the current implementation of the anti-ground mode.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
For Terran, Vikings are pretty good at dealing with Liberators while they’re in anti-ground mode, and Marines in high numbers can deal with them effectively if they can get in range due to the huge overkill Liberators have on Marines.
Zerg has Ravagers which can 3-shot Liberators and Mutalisks while the Liberators are in anti-ground mode. If there is a particularly heavy usage of Liberators in large numbers, Corruptors can also be a decent answer to them due to their higher Armor able to soak up more Liberator shots if they clump up.
Protoss can deal with them with Phoenix when they’re initially out, but once the numbers get high enough a transition into Tempests seems necessary since they aren’t as susceptible to their Anti-Air mode and can attack from a distance. The only issue with Tempests is that they’re slow to get and slow to move so Terran has a good timing window during this transition to get good damage in if the Protoss makes the transition too early. Stalkers aren’t really a viable option since they should not be able to get under Liberators (even with Blink) if there is ground bio support.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
I believe it should be a reachable upgrade, but obviously not as early as it was pre-Tech Lab patch. Though, currently, I think it would be better to make the upgrade on the Armory. Having the upgrade on the Tech Lab makes it so Terran has to not only dedicate resources to the unit, but also time that could be better used in making one of bio’s core units: the Medivac. I think having an Armory would be better as it would be a smoother transition into Liberators for the later stage of the game, while also giving Terran the option to dedicate more towards Liberators by getting an earlier Armory than standard to get the upgrade faster for either a harass or siege strategy.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
This seems like a good cost. It’s a decent gas sink for bio play pre-Ghosts in TvP, and in general a good gas dump in the TvZ match up. I feel like they will be used in less numbers in TvT so the gas dump issue isn’t as strong there. I would like them to be more like 100/175 or something where they are not as mineral heavy since their usage in bio can really drain the bio count, and bio needs more gas dumps to have a more balanced spending quotient. I’m not sure how this will affect mech, since I don’t know how much they are used in that playstyle. If making them more gas intensive makes mech less viable, then 150/150 could be fine.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
I think it’ current implementation makes a really good core unit. An issue I have with it now is that it kind of replaces the Siege Tank in many ways. To remedy this, I think the Liberator should get a slightly slower attack speed and the Siege Tank should lose its ability to be dropped while sieged and get a damage upgrade to create more of a distinction in their usage.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
I agree they should be a reactored unit since, to make their anti-air property useful, they need to be in a large enough number. Also, making them a Tech Lab unit would make making liberators too much of a tech decision, rather than as an option, and would reduce the medivac count significantly.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
I think it currently overlaps with the Siege Tank a bit. As I said earlier, I would rather have a less mobile, stronger Siege Tank in the Terran arsenal for a good AoE anti-deathball unit, while the Liberator be more focused on killing larger, high-armored units such as Ultralisks, Archons, Thors, etc. This would create a nice distinction between these two siege options and would give Terrans more options to opt for one over the other.
What do you think about its design in general?
I think the design is interesting. It’s a nice form of anti air-ground for larger units that doesn’t really exist in the game maybe outside of Void Rays, but has a good distinction from other air units in the game of being a siege unit (outside of the Tempest, though I believe the Liberator does a much greater job at being a siege unit over the Tempest).
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Make it attack slower, maybe with a bit more damage to balance out the DPS. This would make it worse vs smaller, massable units and stronger vs larger, high armored targets. To supplement this, as I’ve said before, would be to make the Siege Tank not pick-up or droppable in siege mode while giving it higher damage in the AoE aspect to give it a clearer, more distinct role in the game.
|
On October 01 2015 23:27 DinoMight wrote:
I mean think about it...
For 150/150 you can have a Disruptor, or a Liberator.
I think you're using that to argue that the liberator is really cheap? But I'm not sure your point comes across that well, because I don't think it's very obvious whether disruptors or liberators are stronger. Certainly liberators are better against disruptors than vice versa, but which has more potential to be a total blowout in a battle? I'd say it's unclear at best.
Compared to a battlecruiser, a liberator technically has quite a bit higher DPS, but since that DPS will rarely be active since it requires your enemy to stand in a circle while you shoot them, they wind up having a lot less utility. Overall I think it makes sense for a liberator to cost about half of a battlecruiser. Technically that would be 200/150, not 150/150, but that's a really silly thing to make a fuss over. Surely no one actually thinks that would be an issue.
Some stats about the liberator I'd be interested to see added to the OP:
-The radius of the Defender Mode circle
-The splash radius of the AA attack
-the cooldown of the both attacks and the DPS of Defender MODE (since it's a little weird to report DPS on a splash attack)
|
I don't think that the Liberator is a particularly good or bad unit. They're a flying siege tank with all the weaknesses which that entails.
Interesting for sure, but certainly it's hard to use them right.
|
None of these questions matter because without a strong liberator, terran is useless. The only "hole" the liberator filled was giving Terran a unit that is so cost efficient that it makes up for the lack of tier-2 and tier-3 units at its disposal. Currently, every other race is much more efficient early game, and have powerful units to build when they get to the late game. The thor is awful for the cost and build time, the tank is too weak against all the fast units that can get right in its face, the mines are gimmicky, BCs take too long to get to, and the cyclone does nothing. There is and was a reason why bio has always been the mainstay of Terran and its because there is nothing else for them to build.
|
The hole that the liberator fills was artificially created through the ultralisk buff and the marauder change. It might lead to a healthy transition dynamic for bio-play, so that you will eventually go into different units than MMM as your core army. it was however not necessary to introduce a new unit for this, because multiple terran units would have offered that potential. Worst of all thisdynamic enforces the usage of ultralisks as zerg player, the most boring unit blizzard has ever created with close to zero micropotential and questionable movement behaviour on the usual starcraft maps.
|
@Guillermoman, current Terran HotS Diamond and former Master player. I usually only lurk on TL, but when it comes to the Liberator, I have used it a lot in all matchups and I have some perspectives that haven't been mentioned yet.
1. What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
I will break down its utilization for each matchup, since it serves a different purpose.
Vs Terran:
Initially (pre-upgrade) there were rushes to get Liberators sieged on your mineral line; however, Viking openings to counter tank drops also counter this play too. Vikings kill Liberators 1 on 1 but the Liberator can run away. I think in its current form early game Liberators won't be seen anymore.
Later in the game, Liberators will be more useful. The siege mode is really good at forcing tanks to unsiege, but with Medivacs these can be moved out of range. While few should be seen by each player in the Marine Tank mirror match, there may be strategies where bio players try to get air control and mix in a few Liberators to combat mech.
For mech compositions, Liberators have quite a bit of viability vs other mech players. To start, players will make Vikings with a Raven in support, but the later it goes there is pressure to switch to Liberators. Liberators in higher volumes (8+) can shred mass Viking with AoE and have the speed to pursue. Also interesting to note is that Raven PDD also negates Liberator shots; this allows a player to make only Vikings and punish a player during their transition to Liberators. Also, the siege mode is important as mech won't have the Medivacs to avoid the circle. So in mech vs mech it is more of a late game unit but it will be quite popular.
Vs. Zerg:
Opening 3 CC Liberator is not quite as safe after the upgrade was included, but is still viable. Especially on Orbital Shipyard, opening with 2 Liberators and a wall can hold early aggression, but Siege Tank drops are a safer opener. Liberator/Hellion timings can hit, but you have fewer Liberators as you can't immediately open with double Liberator production.
However, if you get past the opening with Liberators it provides for a really strong midgame. For mech, Liberators have replaced Vikings in the midgame as the go-to air unit to support the ground army. Once you get 8+ Liberators you can shred Corruptors and Mutas. These are really strong for any pre-Hive timing.
Zerg does have the ability to completely punish a high Liberator count at Hive because Viper's Parasitic Bomb 2 shots the Liberators and they tend to clump a lot (as a bit of an aside it is hard for me to identify which Liberator(s) has Parasitic Bomb on it with the current animation). Liberators in siege mode in theory should be strong against Ultralisks but in reality it is very hard to get the Ultralisks in the circle and it still takes six shots. Also, if Zerg goes for Broodlords alongside Vipers you lose if you only have Liberators because of the Viper's effectiveness and the accompanying mass Corruptor
Vs. Protoss:
I am sure that Liberators are also really good in the midgame utilizing siege mode. If you are able to survive early Adept timing attacks, Liberators really flip the HotS script on TvP. Liberators give bio play the heads-up strength that it hasn't had since the WoL 1-1-1 (which isn't really bio anyway). The move from Armory to an upgrade has made it hard to fit in the Defense Mode upgrade, but you can Reaper expand into 2 gas geysers to rush out Defense Mode. It is almost like you're Protoss forcing out Thermal Lance on 2 base. Liberators plus Meditanks are what Terran desperately needed to fight Protoss armies.
2. What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Protoss: Stalker, Phoenix, Carriers (late game)
Terran: Viking, Marine
Zerg: Ravager and Mutalisk early, Corruptor and Viper late 2 (Parasitic Bombs wrecks Liberators so hard)
3. Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
I think the move to an upgrade from Armory is what was needed to balance it early game vs Zerg.
4. Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
I think the cost makes sense. It is not too much gas to be dissuaded from Mech but also not too mineral intensive for Bio either.
5. Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
TvT: support unit
TvZ: support unit
TvP: core unit
6. Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Yes. This is a strong midgame unit in TvZ and TvP. Requiring a techlab will require 2-3 starports instead of the one currently required for production, and no Terran build will be able to
7. Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
8. What do you think about its design in general?
I think the Liberator is by far the best unit in the expansion. This unit is exactly what Terrans were missing in WoL and HotS for providing positional support, while its high single shot damage pairs nicely with the Siege Tank splash damage. If Blizzard isn't going to give high single target damage to the Siege Tank, this works as an alternative. I also like the air splash damage attack against
9. If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
The only suggestion I would have is to remove Liberator sight from the circle in siege mode and rebalance around that. With that change it might be able to go back to Armory unlock. The range sight is what makes the harassment option strong.
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
It's more of a harass unit in the early game, and a powerful zoning tool that allows Terran to entrench itself and do anything from turtle on multiple bases to hold a position outside it's opponents army. It reinforces the power of Terran pre-splitting and setting up a forward position, which your opponent can't really do anything to stop.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Speaking from strictly a Zerg perspective, Corruptors are really the only option in the late game. But in the early game, if they're in small numbers, ravagers can potentially deal with them effectively.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
If they decreased the distance the liberator has to be to it's circle (target area), then I would be okay with Defender Mode being a free ability. However, if they're going to continue to maintain the liberator as it is, then it should continue to be researchable.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
The cost seems fine. If they make Defender Mode free, gas cost should increase to 150/200. But if it continues to be an upgrade you purchase then the cost is fine.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Definitely more of a support unit.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Once again, returning to the condition of a researchable Defender's Mode, if it needs to be researched, then Liberators producing from reactors is fine. But if Defender's Mode comes free, then I believe it should require a tech lab.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
It overlaps. The aoe is approachable with Thor's AA or addressable by the Raven. It's siege capabilities overlap with the siege tank and, to some extent, severely outperform the siege tank.
What do you think about its design in general?
It's an unnecessary unit to add to the Terran arsenal due to how many overlaps it makes with other Terran units, but it's tolerable...
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Honestly, I would scratch the unit completely. But since that's unlikely, I would address the firing rate of the Liberator in it's siege mode to be slower, maybe even take a look at the damage it deals while in it. I would also decrease the distance the Liberator can be from it's target area so that it can be easier to deal with.
|
1.What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
I see the liberator being used against muta and phoenix for its air aoe. On the ground, it is an amazing unit. TOO GOOD in my opinion.
2.What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
ravager, corruptor, void rays, carriers, viking
3.Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
If this has to be kept in the game then yes
4.Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
More expensive
5.Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Support Unit
6.Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
no
7.Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
I think the liberator takes the role of the bee early game with its mineral line harassment. However, it is much much much less fun to watch and doesn't take as much skill. I think its air aoe was needed to combat large muta balls in tvz and phoenix in pvt, but I think the ground attack takes many aspects of the banshee and tank.
8.What do you think about its design in general?
I think it is a clunky and uninteresting unit. I think the unit should have 1 attack. That's hits both air and ground (like the tempest) but doing aoe to both. There is no air unit in the game (exception of seeker missle) that deals aoe to ground units. Something like a long range archon attack. I think the anti-ground mode promotes stale play as people will sit outside opponents bases with the ground mode activated and try to force their opponents to attack into them by using siege tanks in conjunction with them.
9.If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
See above...Terran needs a BIO UNIT. Remove either the cyclone or liberator (preferable cylclone because it is just super marauder from the factory). Bio has become so weak with the marauder change, the disruptors and super ultras.
|
I wrote @iaguzSC2 for mine at the start, WHERE MAH SHOUTOUTS AT BROS?
|
Overlaps too much and thus is clumsy design. Scrap it or design it to do a niche like nearly all other tier 2/3 units.
***This consult was given free of charge***
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Harrasment, forcing armies into a spot where they dont want to go (liberators are extremely imba)
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Z Vipers P Tempest or Carriers T Vikings?
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
ABSOLUTELY
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
More expensive, 100/200
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Liberator is very IMBA nerf DMG already. (Legacy of the Liberators)
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Absolutely NOT
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
Terran doesn't have a hole in its arsenal
What do you think about its design in general?
Design in general is good but needs SEVERE TWEAKING AND NERFING
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Zoning, leap-frogging siege and anti-muta balls.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Corruptors, ravagers (early game), blink stalkers, void rays, carriers, vikings.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Yes. Otherwise all maps need to be designed so there's no possibility of an early Liberator sitting on the back of the mineral line, harrassing without any real counter.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
The cost seems very middle of the road and I'm ok with it. As is, it's clearly better for bio compositions than mech (it's a bit too gas expensive). I wouldn't mind seeing it changed depending on which type of army needs it more (125/175 to support bio better, 200/100 to help it become a core mech unit).
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Support for bio and core for mech, since mech lacks reliable anti air (mines are too random, thor and viking are just not good enough against mutas).
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Yes. Being "reactorable" and defender mode requiring an upgrade is the perfect place to be IMO.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
It overlaps with Thor and the siege tank. Kinda outclasses both of them simply because it cannot be targeted by many ground-to-ground units these two often have trouble with (marauders, zealots, immortals, tanks, lings, even roaches...).
What do you think about its design in general?
A bit boring, but still much better than the tempest  I could grow to like it.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
TBH, I would have scrapped the unit and added a bio or bio-mech kind of unit. As it is, I'd change the Defender mode quite a bit: slightly reduce the range (too many long range units, overlaps with tank), nerf the base damage so it doesn't one shot a hydra and give it a small bonus damage against massive (there's no such unit in the terran arsenal? Would help against ultras). If the result is too underpowered, then I would reduce the cost.
|
1.dps down units with high armor like Ultralisks, early harass.
2.spore, vipers rekts air units / cannons, voidray, phoenix / more liberators!!!
3.yes, early liberators behind mineral lines was a low risk high reward strategy, it was way too quick and way too cost efficient.
4.150/150 is reasonable, maybe minor adjustments.
5.definitely a support unit.
6.no, if banshees and ravens requires a tech lab to build, then so should the liberator.
7.no
8.I personally don't like the design, just too different from anything before.
9.reduce the fire rate of liberators on defenders mode.
|
After losing a few games to liberators when I first got into beta I was all for following the ways of freedom and whisky. I hopped into a new game and built a massive fleet. My army obliterated everything in it's path. Until at last I arrived at the zerg natural.
And five vipers parastic bombed and killed 14 liberators GG.
I fight for the swarm now.
|
On October 03 2015 09:52 TheDougler wrote:
After losing a few games to liberators when I first got into beta I was all for following the ways of freedom and whisky. I hopped into a new game and built a massive fleet. My army obliterated everything in it's path. Until at last I arrived at the zerg natural.
And five vipers parastic bombed and killed 14 liberators GG.
I fight for the swarm now.
This story sounded extremely painful, but made me laugh as a Zerg. :D
|
On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote:Here's a pretty standard logic from people who say BW was better than SC2: in SC2, high ground grants no advantage if your opponent has vision. Because of this and a huge number of other changes (maybe biggest is just how much easier it is to move your army around), defender's advantage is much weaker in SC2. Without a strong defender's advantage, if your opponent is knocking at your front door, it's a lot harder to stall his army while you harass him elsewhere around the map. As a result, if your opponent stacks all his supply on one big attack and pushes it towards you, the only good response is to gather your own army into one big defense and try to win the fight.
Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional [and resolved very fast]. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ).
Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva).
It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close).
|
On October 03 2015 19:12 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote:Here's a pretty standard logic from people who say BW was better than SC2: in SC2, high ground grants no advantage if your opponent has vision. Because of this and a huge number of other changes (maybe biggest is just how much easier it is to move your army around), defender's advantage is much weaker in SC2. Without a strong defender's advantage, if your opponent is knocking at your front door, it's a lot harder to stall his army while you harass him elsewhere around the map. As a result, if your opponent stacks all his supply on one big attack and pushes it towards you, the only good response is to gather your own army into one big defense and try to win the fight. Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ). Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva). SC2 had (past tense just kidding) some good ideas but failed to implement them smartly. It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close).
Two things for the record:
1) I meant no offense using the past tense, and that sentence maybe should have read "...people who think BW was better-designed than SC2." In that sense, you could talk about WoL and HotS in the past tense, too.
2) I had no intention of initiating a BW vs. SC2 fight here. TL has had far too many of those, and they tend to consume any thread where they're allowed to take hold, so forgive me if I don't engage too much with some of your broader criticisms. Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that BW is better than SC2, just noting a common criticism of SC2 which I have most frequently heard from BW fans. So you might not find me as much of an ally as you're hoping on a lot of your "terrible terrible damage is everything wrong with SC2" or "Dustin Browder doesn't know anything about Starcraft" claims. Personally I like SC2 quite a bit.
|
On October 03 2015 19:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 19:12 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote:Here's a pretty standard logic from people who say BW was better than SC2: in SC2, high ground grants no advantage if your opponent has vision. Because of this and a huge number of other changes (maybe biggest is just how much easier it is to move your army around), defender's advantage is much weaker in SC2. Without a strong defender's advantage, if your opponent is knocking at your front door, it's a lot harder to stall his army while you harass him elsewhere around the map. As a result, if your opponent stacks all his supply on one big attack and pushes it towards you, the only good response is to gather your own army into one big defense and try to win the fight. Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ). Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva). SC2 had (past tense just kidding) some good ideas but failed to implement them smartly. It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close). Two things for the record: 1) I meant no offense using the past tense, and that sentence maybe should have read "...people who think BW was better -designed than SC2." In that sense, you could talk about WoL and HotS in the past tense, too. 2) I had no intention of initiating a BW vs. SC2 fight here. TL has had far too many of those, and they tend to consume any thread where they're allowed to take hold, so forgive me if I don't engage too much with some of your broader criticisms. Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that BW is better than SC2, just noting a common criticism of SC2 which I have most frequently heard from BW fans. So you might not find me as much of an ally as you're hoping on a lot of your "terrible terrible damage is everything wrong with SC2" or "Dustin Browder doesn't know anything about Starcraft" claims. Personally I like SC2 quite a bit.
That's all right I wasn't expecting that you would agree or ally with me here, and I know you meant no offense with past tense. There are (good) reasons why these arguments have kept happenning. People knew when SC2 came out that bw was better but many wouldn't talk much about it because a lot of money was injected into a new competitive scene and everything controlled by the company. Day9 is an important example. But I don't want to blame him, his goal was to be an Esport ambassador and he did well. I don't think SC2 is a terrible game, but it is good not to over-hype it or overstate its quality. Further understanding of why / what is better helps people decide what they want to play and any future game designers to make better games.
I'll just add this little paragraph :
You know this thing with the past tense, I think there is this tendancy and it is in the advertisement and communication of the greedier companies like blizzard is now, they want us to view the latest release as the next best thing and whatever is previous to be forgotten (they intentionally destroyed the bw pro-scene, left battle.net public servers to die and stop supporting any tourneys long ago).
But the previous games are still all there. If WoL or HotS is better than LotV, that's what you should play. But all the eyes are on the thing that's put in front of everyone at the sponsored events. Does it matter? Community is very important. But it should be free from the $ interest of the companies.
It's important to say this I think, especially in an era where financial & market systems have made it difficult for quality games to be made by reasonable sized teams (small & medium companies). A lot of the games that came out the last 5-10 years are downgraded reiterations of some franchise, producing games industrially to make money out of it. There is little creativity anymore, and little love in making games. It has become financially focused. It is killing a lot of things in gaming, temporarily.
|
Liberators they need to be part of the core bio ball PvT for the sake of strategic depth and diversity. That's why I prefer liberators from reactors instead of tech lab.
|
added my twitter to post. nice to see so many detailed responses maybe blizz will listen to advice? :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
