Printable View
I think it looks pretty sexy, although very reminiscent of the original Guardian. But I'm okay with that.
However, if they're gonna give it the same looks and nearly similar role to the original Guardian I wish they would just retain that name. Also, save the original model for the Swarm Guardian for an expansion unit...because that thing looked cool as hell.
Such an ability would be entirely antithetical to the functioning of the Zerg race. It is a basic trait of Zerg units to be "simple". That is, if they have specific abilities at all, they are passive. Obviously spellcasters break this, but that is true only of spellcasters. Outside of Burrow, which is a global upgrade shared by almost-all ground units, non-spellcaster Zerg units don't get active abilities. Zerg unit micro is a function of spellcaster usage, basic unit control, and burrow.Quote:
each "large" tentacle was essentially a missile purchased with minerals in the same way Scarabs were purchased for the Reaver
StarCraft 2 has held on to this design ethic of the Zerg race. It's one of the reason why Zerg units seem so dissimilar from SC1. A ranged unit that can hit both ground and air is a Hydralisk, if for no other reason than that you can't really do much more with it than that without giving it an active ability of some kind (blink, stim, etc).
If you want to have something "Reaver-like" among the Zerg, it needs to follow Zerg design principles. My old suggestion of the "Hunter Killer" did something like this. It was basically a unit that required ammunition, but it generated ammo automatically. It was like a Reaver, but different in that it was centered around giving a powerful attack initially and then being relatively useless over the course of the next part of the battle. The HK would run out of ammo fairly frequently.
By contrast, Reavers rarely run out of ammo. The ammo requirement is basically an APM and money sink. You couldn't really have a unit that builds its ammo from resources automatically; auto-spending money is a big no-no. And since Zerg units can't have active abilities, you can't have a Zerg unit that uses money like a Reaver or Carrier.
Nicol, it would be easy to combine your Hunter Killer idea (which I remember fondly) with the Brood Fiend tentacles. They regrow over time, there is an initial "spike" of damage where it generates a sizable army of Broodlings, but then the rate of fire slows down as it has to grow new tentacles.
I thought about something like that too, where they regrow over time, and, perhaps normally slowly, or you could pay minerals for them to regrow immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderBrigade
So Hunter Killer Tentacles? Could be fun.
I don't know if that's good for a flying unit, particularly a slow one. The main reason I felt the HK could get away with it was that it could always burrow to recharge. That's not perfect protection, but it's pretty good, especially if there are other dangerous units around.Quote:
They regrow over time, there is an initial "spike" of damage where it generates a sizable army of Broodlings, but then the rate of fire slows down as it has to grow new tentacles.
Flying units can't exactly hide when they run out of ammo. So if anything survived the first attack, the flier is basically at the mercy of whomever can shoot at it.
Well, from what I remember, the limiting factor was the regrowth rate of the spines/tentacles. It sounds like you're imagining something that would take far too long to be useful in combat. However it could also be made equivalent to a regular (if slow) attack cooldown.
So the Brood Fiend could have a maximum of, say, 5 tentacles. In the first few seconds of combat it would fire all of these off, giving it a powerful initial attack as you've described. But then it would still be able to contribute for the rest of the battle, similar to other slow-firing ranged units like Siege tanks or the old Guardian (although slower). Keep in mind that the initial attacks are generating a huge swarm of support units, which will continue to be replenished by subsequent attacks.
Hmm, so the initial 5 tentacle-missiles would be the big punch, and then it could still fire off a weaker attack? Or the tentacle-missiles would be like a sort of...special attack or strong support attack while it also still has a regular, weaker attack used in the replenishment period?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderBrigade
I wish there was a way to have a unit like that; it sounds fun.
ManjiSanji, the Tentacles would be the only attack the unit has. They take a certain amount of time to regrow, and the unit can have a certain number at any one time. So if it is fresh it will have all 5 (or however many is balanced). Then before it can fire again it needs to regrow a new tentacle, which would create a cooldown similar to other units.
Oh I see. Ok, I like that. So, dismissing the Reaver, "cost-for-ammo," idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderBrigade
I'm fine with that, just throwing ideas around, honestly.
I'd also like to see the Broodlings sort of changed in to similar, "Tentacular monstrosities," to coincide with the whole idea. Sort of like the Brood Fiend is spitting out chunks of itself that don't survive very long away from the host body, and tear themselves apart attacking the enemy.
I look forward to seeing this unit in a custom mission, if nothing else :D
I agree. I wonder how many people would hate the current model if it was just called "guardian" to begin with? Probably fewer...I have no problems with the current model, and guardian is better than brood lord.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazur
Why, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by 0neder
It doesn't really guard anything. It's a unit designed for offense, not defense.
Cuz it simply is better, it is better name then Brood Lord....It doesnt have nothing to do with a name....Like if it have Guardian name, it must defend something...well no...that is just plain stupid....Like i would say that Marauder is ba name cuz it doesnt have anything to do with a unit....Quote:
Originally Posted by ManjiSanji
Damn, I thought it would be more better. but it looks exactly like the Guardian in 3d. Hell. Blizzard just rename it the Guardian since it looks exactly like it.
@ManjiSanji: I don't like the idea of a Zerg air-to-ground Reaver. See Nicol Nolas' post for an opinion similar to my own.
I hope they do this as well if they keep this current model. I enjoyed even the caterpillar look much more than this. Granted, it is unfinished and the Zerg models have changed a lot since they were announced. I doubt I'll be disappointed with what they do with this model in the end so I'm not worried at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazur
Oh big sadz. Could have at least made a new model that didn't look like the Guardian. I always felt it just looked like a flying crab.
Guardian was really too ambiguous, any of the races could have had a unit with the name. Brood-Lord on the other hand is a properly Zergish name. As for the model, that's just a placeholder, I've no doubt they'll improve it later (hells knows they need to, it's nearly the ugliest Zerg model in SC2, secong only to the original Infestor).
Actually I have Nicol on ignore, so if he replied to my comment, I have no idea what it said.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
I'm fine with there being no Reaver-like unit, but I thought the idea of paying for high-powered ammo to be a really neat and fun dynamic.
Also, to RamiZ, no, it is not just plain stupid for the unit name to have some reference to what it does. Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true; it is odd for the name of something to have nothing to do with the unit, and, worse, the complete opposite. Frankly, I'm confused as to why you're arguing for something that is, frankly, wholly without logic.
How about we change the name of the Banshee to Defender? Change the name of the Observer to Destroyer? It doesn't work.
Brood Lord is, agreeably, not the best name ever, but at least it relates to the unit; it produces Broodlings. Even the name of the Phoenix, which, in another thread, I was arguing for a change, makes sense, because the unit flies and appears bird-shaped. "Guardian" for a unit that is not designed to guard is just...weird.
looks like a guardian to me.
Ok, could you please explain how?Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwich_bird
Extremly similar form. The only big difference is that the long branch things on the side that serve as wings are connected. http://www.concept13.com/flq/Starcra.../Guardian1.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by ManjiSanji
...that's not at all what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by sandwich_bird
I was talking about the definition of the word, versus the use of the unit.
Actually, everyone's major complaint about the Brood Lord is that it basically looks just like the old Guardian, and they want something new and original looking, with a different name.
It also functions like the Swarm Guardian. I think what a lot of us are waiting for is for Blizzard to announce that there is actually a difference between the SG and the BL other than the aesthetic one.
I think they did mention that it has 350 HP, which is fairly significant, but I wouldn't say game changing. I think it's more to account for the (hopeful) increase in air-to-air units.
Can't be, there's no more AtA units now than there was before, there's less in fact (Wraith->Viking, Valkyrie->?, Mutalisk->Mutalisk, Devourer->Corruptor, Scourge->?, Scout->Void Ray, Corsair->Phoenix). The reason that was done probably is because of the sudden increase in AtG, now that air can have some influence on a battle (beyond transport and support roles) AtA is becoming more common.
@ManjiSanji
Wait you dont understand? Lets put it this way on whole this forum i think you are the only one that accept name Brood Lord, its disgusting....especially for the Zerg....They dont need Lords and blah blah yes i know Overlord got lord in name but it is one word, and btw i didnt see people complaining over Guardians in SC BW and they didnt complain about Swarm Guardians, so your point Fails, cuz yeah it would be wrong to call all that units that way, but Guardian is old unit and accepted by community, why would they change it now, I know it is different from Guardian but it still has his role, AtG Siege Attacker, and it is Stronger, My favourite would be Brood Guardian, but not the whole name...
Actually Valkyrie->Viking, Wraith->Banshee...Quote:
Wraith->Viking, Valkyrie->?
Blizzard had the Swarm Guardian. It wasn't terribly inventive, but everybody liked it. And whatever their thoughts about the unit, most people loved the model. The unit's name represented its similarity to the original and did not try to pass it off as something completely new when it was not something completely new.Quote:
Originally Posted by ManjiSanji
And cue Blizzard fixing what wasn't broken. They change the name to pretend that it's something cool and different (when it isn't); they make it look worse; they give the Zerg a capital ship-class air unit, the absence of which has for a long time been seen as part of their identity.
None of these are huge, but when you take it all in at once, it's jarring.
No, they did not.Quote:
they give the Zerg a capital ship-class air unit
It doesn't matter how many HP the Brood Lord or whatever it is has; it isn't a capital ship unless it can attack both air and ground. Carriers and BattleCruisers can take care of themselves; Brood Lords can't. The Hp are there so that they don't die instantly when Vikings/Corruptors/Phoenixes show up on the scene, and thus there is some chance to defend them with your own Corruptors/Mutalisks.
That's a pretty random definition you got there, Nicol. Gonna bring up Wiki on this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
"The capital ships of a navy are its "important" warships; the ones with the heaviest firepower and armor."
Seems like the Brood Lord, what with increased cost, increased HP, and its steady ridiculous firepower, would fit their definition no problem. The only ships that qualified for capital ship status in the original game were ones that happened to attack both air and ground; that is a coincidence, not a law writ in stone.
By your definition, the WWI Mothership less its air attack and with a Black Hole tuned to ground units instead of air would not have been a capital ship... when in reality, it would remain the most capital ship-like candidate of them all.
It also effectively describes the two ships that had "capital" status from SC1: things that if you get enough of them, can take care of themselves. Mass BCs is really hard to stop, and mass Carriers is hard to stop.Quote:
That's a pretty random definition you got there, Nicol.
Mass Brood Lords will never be hard to stop. Nobody will ever GG to pure mass Brood Lords.
Not... really...Quote:
Actually Valkyrie->Viking, Wraith->Banshee...
In terms of it's stats, the Viking is something of a mix between the Goliath and the Wraith. While the Banshee is just... a completely new unit entirely.
And would any IRL army ever GG to pure mass naval forces, which are the very definition of capital ships? No. Then your interpretation of capital ship means squat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
That both the BC and the Carrier could attack air and ground and qualified as capital ships is coincidence. Judging SC2 units by a standard set through coincidence will lead to bizarrely incorrect conclusions, as evidenced by the ones you have drawn here.
Once again, I repeat that that version of the Mothership would not fall under your definition of 'capital ship' despite the fact that it would be the "most important" ship with the "heaviest firepower and armor." Your classifications would prevent the most capital ship-esque capital ship in the game... from being classified as a capital ship. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.
Gameplay wise, the Brood Lord has no relationship to the gameplay functionality of the BattleCruiser or the Carrier. The point of having general classes of units is to discuss how they could be used; all units in the same general class should be able to generally do the same things. If BLs can't be used in the same way as BCs or Carriers, then classifying them in that same category is necessarily wrong, regardless of what the military definition of how many definitions of the word "capital ship" is.
However, let's say that your definition of "capital ships" is correct. I contest that the Zerg not having this definition of "capital ships" was a Zerg racial trait at all.
What makes the Zerg interesting is that they really rely on a mix of units to be effective. They have generalists and specialists; this is an outgrowth of their unit production mechanism and tech tree. Because of that, their army is generally built around 1-2 units that have 1-3 additional helper units to make them more effective.
Thus the Zerg racial trait wasn't not having a high Hp flying unit, but instead it was that they didn't have a single high Hp flying unit that they could build lots of and win. No matter how many Hp you give the Brood Lord, it will never be anything more than a flying Siege Tank. It will always have explicit and hard counters, just like any good support unit. Sending Brood Lords into a battle alone is the best way to watch them die, whereas sending BCs and Carriers in alone is perfectly reasonable if you build enough of them.
Brood Lords have nothing gameplay-wise in common with BCs and Carriers.
Since when did the Banshee get AtA, and the Viking splash-damage?Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
How about "giant siege airship that's meant to devastate enemy bases from afar"? Seems like he fits right in with the Battlecruiser and Carrier of yore, although less with the BC of SC2, and more with the Carrier of SC2 (increased range).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
If that's not similarity enough, then I'm not sure what sort of huge similarities you're seeing between the Battlecruiser and Carrier. For simplicity's sake (since both were considered capitals back then, too) let's compare them in their SC1 forms:
Battlecruiser, especially with Yamato, is a lot more powerful vs. single targets and armored foes... whereas Carrier is a lot stronger against masses of biological units that have little armor. In one on one, the BC always wins, no contest.
So there are huge differences between the two capital ships we already have. The only things they have in common is relative tech position, cost, hefty HP/armor, potential for devastation, and ability to attack ground and air... but the last is clearly coincidental, not a mandatory guideline. And the Brood Lord fits along with the Carrier and Battlecruiser on all other counts no problem.
The funny thing is, I don't even care about the capital ship business. It's something I heard about on the forums that other people didn't like, and it made sense to me, so I threw it in there for good measure.Quote:
However, let's say that your definition of "capital ships" is correct. I contest that the Zerg not having this definition of "capital ships" was a Zerg racial trait at all.
For me personally it's that Blizzard fixed something that wasn't broken in such a hideous, hideous fashion that's unlikable. A lot of the cooler new units have been brought down to be more in line with their SC1 counterparts, Mothership = Arbiter, Infestor = Defiler, Phoenix = Scout/Corsair, Ghost = less massable than before, Nydus Worm = Nydus Canal... and it's really disappointing to see. And then on top of it all Blizz takes a unit that we all knew was almost a SC1>SC2 copy/paste job but were fine with and tries to sell it off as something completely new? Maybe it would have been fine when the game was just announced, but after so many disappointing throwbacks to the original game, it's a little too much.
To be fair, I seriously doubt they did this on purpose, ie. someone said, "Let's fool everybody into thinking this is a new unit by naming it something different!" But it's the unintentional straw that broke the camel's back, as it were.
I already addressed this above, but specifically the "GG-inducing" factor of BCs and Carriers... Brood Lords can attack ground, and that's the most important part. In fact, attacking ground they pack probably the most heavy punch of all these guys. And that's the most important part in inducing GG, because that's what buildings and 2/3 of units are.Quote:
Brood Lords have nothing gameplay-wise in common with BCs and Carriers.
A simple mass of any air units will destroy them? Well, in SC2, masses of Void Rays will have equally little trouble with Battlecruisers, masses of Vikings will have equally little trouble with Carriers... so these units are hardly win buttons.
It doesn't matter how much armor or Hp a unit has: mass Carriers will kill it fast enough. Why? Because they can't shoot back. Carriers have long range (even longer in SC2); they can kite virtually any unit that isn't flying and faster than them. The reason Goliaths are a strong counter is because they are cheap, plentiful, and can strip them of Intercepters relatively quickly.Quote:
Battlecruiser, especially with Yamato, is a lot more powerful vs. single targets and armored foes... whereas Carrier is a lot stronger against masses of biological units that have little armor.
That Carriers will kill certain units faster than others is irrelevant when a hundred Intercepters darken the skies. Mass Carriers win, just like mass BCs win.
Guardians weren't broken? Going for Guardians in SC1 was, at best, a crap-shoot. Ultralisks and Defilers were the preferred Tier 3 tech of choice. At least these guys can survive some anti-air fire long enough to either escape (if it's ground stuff) or be rescued by AtA (if it's flying).Quote:
For me personally it's that Blizzard fixed something that wasn't broken in such a hideous, hideous fashion that's unlikable.
Maybe, but that's the nature of balancing: dialing back what is too powerful until it works.Quote:
A lot of the cooler new units have been brought down to be more in line with their SC1 counterparts... and it's really disappointing to see.
No, a single air unit that can attack other air units will destroy an arbitrarily large fleet of them. That's the difference. BCs and Carriers will at least take some of the Void Rays and Vikings down with them.Quote:
A simple mass of any air units will destroy them?
Brood Lords are stopped with ease if they are alone. BCs and Carriers are not. To stop a lone BL fleet, you just need enough AtA to kill them "fast enough". To stop BCs from the air, you need lots of AtA (to cover losses during the battle), as well as micro in case of their missile swarm attack. To stop Carriers, you need AtA that can out-run them (or flank them somehow) in addition to having enough AtA to cover losses from attrition.
So essentially what you're saying is that Carriers and Battlecruisers are completely different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Right. Should I pretend that doesn't help the Brood Lord's case by making the guidelines for "capital ship" far less strict?
Why would you assume that I have a problem with the Guardian's stats being changed? I already said that I was pro- Swarm Guardian, which is already different from the original in a fairly significant respect. They're free to change the unit as much as necessary... but they haven't changed it enough for it to warrant a name change. The model regressing even closer to the Guardian is simply icing insult on an injury cake.Quote:
Guardians weren't broken? Going for Guardians in SC1 was, at best, a crap-shoot. Ultralisks and Defilers were the preferred Tier 3 tech of choice. At least these guys can survive some anti-air fire long enough to either escape (if it's ground stuff) or be rescued by AtA (if it's flying).
There's a difference between dialing something back in order to balance it and removing it completely because you haven't found a way to balance it. As trite as this is -- and as loathe as I am to repeat it -- this is SC2, not SC1.5, and there must naturally be a line where we say, "That's enough removing of new things in the name of balance. Take the time to make the new things work instead."Quote:
Maybe, but that's the nature of balancing: dialing back what is too powerful until it works.
That there is such a line is inarguable. The question is whether we've come to that point or not -- whether the units I noted have become too close to the originals, or this is still acceptable.
Frankly, given SC2's necessarily non-revolutionary approach to gaming, I think it's pretty mandatory for the folks at Blizz to make what new abilities they come up with work. I don't think they're in a position to say "it didn't work out so we'll go with the tried-and-true," and if all else fails, should simply try it out in the Beta and look for the fans suggestions (and there will be plenty) to make it work. Any regressions are huge steps back, and as I said, here was simply the ugly, ugly one that put a stamp on the whole deal.
Okay, and BCs and Carriers are stopped with ease if you have Lockdown, whereas Brood Lords are not. BCs and Carriers are practically neutered by EMP, whereas Brood Lords shrug it off.Quote:
No, a single air unit that can attack other air units will destroy an arbitrarily large fleet of them. That's the difference. BCs and Carriers will at least take some of the Void Rays and Vikings down with them.
Brood Lords are stopped with ease if they are alone. BCs and Carriers are not. To stop a lone BL fleet, you just need enough AtA to kill them "fast enough". To stop BCs from the air, you need lots of AtA (to cover losses during the battle), as well as micro in case of their missile swarm attack. To stop Carriers, you need AtA that can out-run them (or flank them somehow) in addition to having enough AtA to cover losses from attrition.
All you've succeeded in demonstrating is that they are different and have different advantages and disadvantages. This is exactly as it SHOULD be. If it weren't so, then we would have reason to become suspicious.
Imagine if SC1 had come out with only the Protoss, no Zerg or Terran. The only infantry we have are Zealots. So what is infantry in SC1? Infantry are tough melee soldiers that have no abilities. BW comes out and Terrans are thrown into the mix. Suddenly, Marines are being touted as infantry, when they are NOT tough (but expendable), NOT melee, and have Stim Packs.
Following your reasoning, we could stubbornly refuse to accept Marines as infantry because they don't fit pre-established criteria... even though the common sense approach suggests that the Marine is more akin to infantry than the Zealot.
You're allowing the incredibly limited examples of the SC world provided by SC1 turn into laws that are set in stone. There is no law that says a capital ship must attack air units; as long as most criteria are met (high tier, high cost, priority target for the enemy to destroy [either because of damage, or abilities, or both]) then it works, simple as that.
All that said, I'm going to go back on calling the Brood Lord a capital ship. 350 HP just doesn't cut it. It is the toughest air unit outside of Carrier/BC/MS, but I don't think that's enough. The rest of my argument still stands -- if a Brood Lord existed with 500 HP instead of 350, but all other stats remained the same, I would fully expect it to deserve capital ship status. ;)
You are comparing stats? Ok, i compare it with unit Role, and Banshee is Cloak Harasser like Wraith, and Viking is AtA unit(ofc in air mode), just like Valkyrie, and it doesnt need to have splash to be the same unit with same role -.-Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
Problem is, those are the units' conceptual unit roles. But the Wraith is no good at actual cloaked harassment (except in some TvT situations or all-in builds). If anything, mostly it's just used as a straight-up AtA fighter to counter Dropships.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
As far as the Valkyrie/Wraith split is concerned, however, the Viking definitely lands on the Wraith end of things. V/W are both AtA fighters (both with a twist; cloak twist is active, splash twist is passive), but Wraith is anti-big ship and Valkyrie is anti-small ship. This time it is about the unit roles, and you fluxxed them up. :p
The Banshee is more like a cloakable, shorter-range Guardian than it is a Wraith.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
The Wraith was horrible at AtG, even with cloak.