Joneagle_X's (SC2F.org Admin) StarCraft 2 BlizzCon 09 Review

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forum...ad.php?t=11253

I haven't read it yet since it's got some decent size to it but it might be interesting.

-- Seradin has also added his own impressions:

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forum...ad.php?t=11258

thx for posting xD

I don't agree with a lot of his conclusions, but i'm impressed the DT has gone to low cost. Is that true?

Yeah I don't really agree with some of his points, good to hear other peoples thoughts though.

Jon played extensively and knows what he's talking about for the most part.

Sometime in the next few days, my comprehensive game review will be up as well.

~LoA

I laughed my ass off at his description of the Overseer.

Quote:

---

Needs to come with an owner’s manual. StarCraft isn’t meant for abilities that increase damage by percentage. I give it a B because I don’t want to have to buy a copy of “My Overseer and Me.”

---

Ok if Roach really lost his Regeneration, then that Sux some serious serious ass...
The Roach was unique Zerg tank, but not cuz of high armor and Hp, but of its regen ability, cutting it totally doesnt make any sense...

The Roach is defined by his regeneration. If he doesn't have regeneration why is he still called the Roach?! This is too stupid for words.

Not only that, but it was actually one of the few innovative units the Zerg had. "YEAH, ZERG HAS TOO MUCH INNOVATION ALREADY, LET'S DUMB DOWN THEIR MOST INTERESTING UNIT." Only, you know, not.

(YES, I am a Roach fanboy. YES, it IS called for.)

Out of curiosity, for everyone that disagrees about conclusions drawn... which ones do you mean? Can't really discuss if you don't share your opinions. ;)

The only one I strongly disagree with is the Planetary Fortress -- just because it's overpowered and "fun" doesn't mean it's a good thing for the game. I really agree with his points re: the Raven however. HMS has "lame" written all over it. Always did. It needs to go.

Great review, I loved it.

For the most part I agree with the review.

I really agree about the Raven. Hunter Seeker Missile is especially retarded.

I'm not sure I like the Thor, the Terrans were unique in the sense that all their units were glass cannons, humans are weak, but underestimate them and they can deal a damn lot of damage. Now the Thor's bombardment ability is great I love it, and I don't think its regular attack will really replace the splash damage of the tank but as a tanker I'm not sure I like it.

It's also good to see the planetary fortress as a useful option. From what I've heard recently anyway, the MULE doesn't seem to be as good as originally thought to be.

I agree about the Queen, I liked it more when it was on the evolutionary tree. This would allow it to have better and stronger abilities that contend with spawn larva, as well as just being unique.

Not sure how I'm liking cooldown on the High Templar's storm. Yeah I think I'm leaning more towards supporting it.

Carrier: Sounds as boring as ever.

Sucks to see that they've moved the Immortal to the robotics facility. Hope they move it back down.

The Roach hasn't lost its hyper-regen. Its regen rate was just decreased, and its max HP was increased. You guys need to learn to pay better attention.

Few more points:
- Base-focused Queen is a good thing. Jon is crazy for wanting her/them as an offensive unit or "hero."
- Immortal at RBay is a good thing. Its to purposely curb spamming them because their ability makes them so strong.