-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
That part of the Tempest never made sense to me. Why would it's shields activate only against ground attacks?
Why do the Immortal's shields activate only against super strong attacks?
If you're looking for a lorexplanation, we can say that the generators needed to sustain a shield for 4x the surface area of what a ground shield needs to cover take up too much energy. By removing them -- since in deep-space combat Carriers are still not expected to take hits, because Interceptors do the close fighting -- that energy can be diverted to making them more devastating weapons.
You know, that or gameplay>lore. :P
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
A lot of people (myself included) have asked the same question.
Altogether too complex, the Carrier should have no more than two units, an [AtA]/[AtA/G] one and an AtG one.
Noo, I don't mean use all those things, only this suggested one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mr. peasant
Suggestion 2
1. Interceptors (same as before)
2. Scarabs (1 use only and requires constant manufacturing; either ATG only or targets both)
two kind of interceptors:
1.-Normal
2.- Scarab Styled suicidal interceptors (AtG)!
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
That part of the Tempest never made sense to me. Why would it's shields activate only against ground attacks?
They didn't "activate" only against ground attacks. The Tempest only had shields on its underside. Any ATA attacks went straight to the hull.
What this did is let the Carrier get a niche in the Protoss army. Instead of the Carrier being uber expensive and doing pretty much everything well, it received a decrease in cost, but became more effective at what it already did best regardless - siege. It also gave it real weakness: AtA. Which helped to promote Blizzard's goal of making air units (specifically ATA focused units) more valuable in the game. As for the Shurikens, they were melee, and thus could bypass Dark Swarm. The Tempest was the ultimate in combating ground-based forces, especially Zerg. And it gained no new weaknesses - Scourge and Wraiths and Corsairs already crippled them.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
Why do the Immortal's shields activate only against super strong attacks?
Bad analogy, Tempest shields introduce a weakness (remember Protoss can't repair either), Immortal shields introduce a strength.
Quote:
If you're looking for a lorexplanation, we can say that the generators needed to sustain a shield for 4x the surface area of what a ground shield needs to cover take up too much energy. By removing them -- since in deep-space combat Carriers are still not expected to take hits, because Interceptors do the close fighting -- that energy can be diverted to making them more devastating weapons.
Except that in thiscase the enemy 'will' then send units after the Carrier, if not for any other reason than it's comparatively weak. Glass cannons are fine, but the Tempest was practically a sugar cannon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
Noo, I don't mean use all those things, only this suggested one!
two kind of interceptors:
1.-Normal
2.- Scarab Styled suicidal interceptors (AtG)!
Fair enough, but why a Scarab style one, why not just something that could only hit ground (but hit ground for more damage)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
What this did is let the Carrier get a niche in the Protoss army. Instead of the Carrier being uber expensive and doing pretty much everything well, it received a decrease in cost, but became more effective at what it already did best regardless - siege. It also gave it real weakness: AtA. Which helped to promote Blizzard's goal of making air units (specifically ATA focused units) more valuable in the game. As for the Shurikens, they were melee, and thus could bypass Dark Swarm. The Tempest was the ultimate in combating ground-based forces, especially Zerg. And it gained no new weaknesses - Scourge and Wraiths and Corsairs already crippled them.
This could have worked about equally well IMO by making the Shurikens AtG only.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
As for the Shurikens, they were melee, and thus could bypass Dark Swarm. The Tempest was the ultimate in combating ground-based forces, especially Zerg. And it gained no new weaknesses - Scourge and Wraiths and Corsairs already crippled them.
Is Dark Swarm still around? how come, I thought Defilers no longer existed in SC2! If it's not around, Shurikens get no advantage from that fact thus making them just melee interceptors...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Bad analogy, Tempest shields introduce a weakness (remember Protoss can't repair either), Immortal shields introduce a strength.
Except that in thiscase the enemy 'will' then send units after the Carrier, if not for any other reason than it's comparatively weak. Glass cannons are fine, but the Tempest was practically a sugar cannon.
Fair enough, but why a Scarab style one, why not just something that could only hit ground (but hit ground for more damage)?
This could have worked about equally well IMO by making the Shurikens AtG only.
OK, how about this: bring back the shurikens but not the Tempest.
have two kind of "interceptors", you must simply choose which you build
1.-Weaker AtA,AtG interceptors
(30/30 and no HP heal while inside the carrier)
2.-Shurikens with Only AtG melee atack, they explode on death.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
This could have worked about equally well IMO by making the Shurikens AtG only.
Yes, but I'm assuming for
- racial diversity they felt the Tempest should be able to defend itself, unlike the Banshee and Guardian/Brood Lord.
- the sake of not making the Tempest look like a downgrade of the Carrier, they felt it should be able to defend itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
Is Dark Swarm still around? how come, I thought Defilers no longer existed in SC2! If it's not around, Shurikens get no advantage from that fact thus making them just melee interceptors...
At the time the Tempest existed, Dark Swarm was on the Infestor.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
Yes, but I'm assuming for
- racial diversity they felt the Tempest should be able to defend itself, unlike the Banshee and Guardian/Brood Lord.
- the sake of not making the Tempest look like a downgrade of the Carrier, they felt it should be able to defend itself.
At the time the Tempest existed, Dark Swarm was on the Infestor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
OK, how about this: bring back the shurikens but not the Tempest.
have two kind of "interceptors", you must simply choose which you build
1.-Weaker AtA,AtG interceptors
(30/30 and no HP heal while inside the carrier)
2.-Shurikens with Only AtG melee atack, they explode on death.
Since we like drawbacks, how about making Carrier's shields take full damage as in SC1?
I think this is a good offer, take it!
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
OK, how about this: bring back the shurikens but not the Tempest.
have two kind of "interceptors", you must simply choose which you build
1.-Weaker AtA,AtG interceptors
(30/30 and no HP heal while inside the carrier)
2.-Shurikens with Only AtG melee atack, they explode on death.
I only partially agree with 1. (20/20 and do get healed), and I don't agree with 2. (I'd prefer a 'bomber'ish unit of some sort).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
Yes, but I'm assuming for
- racial diversity they felt the Tempest should be able to defend itself, unlike the Banshee and Guardian/Brood Lord.
Except that this falls prey to another bit of racial diversity in the light of Protoss not being able to repair.
Quote:
- the sake of not making the Tempest look like a downgrade of the Carrier, they felt it should be able to defend itself.
Except that it evidently 'did' look like a downgraded Carrier, because this was one of the reasons they gave for dropping it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
Since we like drawbacks, how about making Carrier's shields take full damage as in SC1?
I think this is a good offer, take it!
Nah, I'd prefer weak shields, but make them 'hardened'.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Except that this falls prey to another bit of racial diversity in the light of Protoss not being able to repair.
So what you're suggesting is that... for the first time ever... a Protoss player with 12 Carriers WON'T be able to just A+click them anywhere he likes?! He'd actually have to stop and wonder if this won't get them all destroyed, first?!
I don't mean to over-dramatize, but the Carrier isn't exactly a balanced unit.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
I only partially agree with 1. (20/20 and do get healed), and I don't agree with 2. (I'd prefer a 'bomber'ish unit of some sort).
Except that this falls prey to another bit of racial diversity in the light of Protoss not being able to repair.
Except that it evidently 'did' look like a downgraded Carrier, because this was one of the reasons they gave for dropping it.
Nah, I'd prefer weak shields, but make them 'hardened'.
Sorry, I was going to add
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
Since we like drawbacks, how about making Carrier's shields take full damage as in SC1?
I think this is a good offer, take it!
that shields take full damage like in SC1 but only from AtA, so SC2 shield advantages won't apply. this would be better than no shields at all, which (I think) was too drastic for Tempests thus making them really look like a downgrade.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
So what you're suggesting is that... for the first time ever... a Protoss player with 12 Carriers WON'T be able to just A+click them anywhere he likes?! He'd actually have to stop and wonder if this won't get them all destroyed, first?!
Vikings will absolutely shred them, as will Void Rays, and probably Corruptors as well.
Quote:
I don't mean to over-dramatize, but the Carrier isn't exactly a balanced unit.
There are other ways of balancing it than removing AtA shields.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
Sorry, I was going to add
that shields take full damage like in SC1 but only from AtA.
How many times do I have to say that I don't like the idea of the Carrier's AtA shields being weaker than its GtA ones 'in any way'?
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Except that this falls prey to another bit of racial diversity in the light of Protoss not being able to repair.
So you don't see how the ability to a fight back is a trade off to healing/repair?
:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Except that it evidently 'did' look like a downgraded Carrier, because this was one of the reasons they gave for dropping it.
Actually, the only reasons we ever got for the Tempest being removed were:
"...it just didn't work out..."
"...we felt the Carrier was iconic..."
Your facts are bull. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
Vikings will absolutely shred them, as will Void Rays, and probably Corruptors as well.
All three, and Phoenix, will also shred Banshees and Brood Lords. LIKE THEY"RE SUPPOSED TO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattII
There are other ways of balancing it than removing AtA shields
Agreed. But unfortunately Blizzard felt scrapping it and bringing back the Carrier was better.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
So you don't see how the ability to a fight back is a trade off to healing/repair?
:rolleyes:
No, because the Tempest is also much weaker vs. AtA (missing the Hp the shields added) so it's going to be focussed on by a lot of the enemy's AtA units, which means that the Tempest either becomes ineffectual because it's defending itself against enemy AtA, or it's getting badly damaged because it's not.
Quote:
Actually, the only reasons we ever got for the Tempest being removed were:
"...it just didn't work out..."
"...we felt the Carrier was iconic..."
Your facts are bull. Sorry.
Okay, fine. The first one is probably paraphrasing 'we hate the new shield mechanic', and the second could well mean 'pretty much everything else is the same, so why don't we just 'call' it the Carrier?'
Quote:
All three, and Phoenix, will also shred Banshees and Brood Lords. LIKE THEY"RE SUPPOSED TO.
Yeah, but those two can be repaired/heal, the Tempest didn't have that luxury.
Quote:
Agreed. But unfortunately Blizzard felt scrapping it and bringing back the Carrier was better.
I'll agree with you that 'that' was a mistake on their part.
At this juncture I will make another proposal I came up with a long time ago, swap the Interceptors to the MShip, and give the Tempest full shield's and the MShip's AtG missiles.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
It isn't like the Carrier nor the Battlecruiser are designed to take each other down, anyways. And the Carrier as well as the BC is quite the beast, and it should be able to take down a BC with some micro, as in BW.
Time for some numbers:
Code:
Life Armor Attack Range Att. Rate Cost
Battlecruiser 550 3 8x8 6 Slow 400m 300g
Carrier 250hp + 150sh 4 (hull) 5x2x8 12 Fast 350m 250g
A Carrier will need to attack a BC 550 / [(5-3)x2x8] = 18 times to destroy it.
A BC will need to attack a Carrier 150 / 8x8 = 2 times to remove the Shields, then 250 / [(8-4)x8] = 8 times to kill it for good. 10 times total, but the Carrier has 12 range, and the BC only 6.
In BW, the stats were:
Code:
Life Armor Attack Range Att Rate Cost
Battlecruiser 500 3 25 6 Slow 400m 300g
Carrier 300hp + 150sh 4 (hull) 6x8 8 Fast 300m 250g
A Carrier needed to attack a BC 500 / [(6-3)x8] = 21 times to destroy it.
A BC needed to attack a Carrier 150 / 25 = 6 times to remove the Shields, then 300 / (25-4) = 15 times to kill it for good. 21 times total.
My conclusion, is that both units have higher firepower, and a Carrier will go down in comparatively less attacks, if you just wait there under BC fire, but the Carrier has now 12 range, which is as long as the old Siege Tank, 4 more range than before, and double the range of the Battlecruiser. Still, both of them should be taken down faster by Corrupter/Viking/Void Ray fire.
Still, Yamato could kill Void Rays and soften Carriers a great deal, but i don't think it has 12 range.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
BC had 600 Hp last time I checked, not 550, Also, add 100 minerals to the Carrier cost for the other 4 Interceptors.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
No, because the Tempest is also much weaker vs. AtA (missing the Hp the shields added) so it's going to be focussed on by a lot of the enemy's AtA units, which means that the Tempest either becomes ineffectual because it's defending itself against enemy AtA, or it's getting badly damaged because it's not.
It's called "select your target and focus fire." If you don't want your Tempest attacking the air, then micro it. Just because the Tempest CAN attack air doesn't mean it HAS to. The versatility of it being able to defend itself against ATA is a perfectly reasonable trade-off to the Banshee and Brood Lord being sitting ducks who can get repaired if they're lucky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Okay, fine. The first one is probably paraphrasing 'we hate the new shield mechanic', and the second could well mean 'pretty much everything else is the same, so why don't we just 'call' it the Carrier?'
We have absolutely no way of knowing what did in the Tempest (if anything) other than nostalgia. All you have are assumptions based on no real data, and a very weak argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Yeah, but those two can be repaired/heal, the Tempest didn't have that luxury.
Again:
"Yeah, but the Tempest can attack air, the Banshee and Brood Lord didn't have that luxury."
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
It's called "select your target and focus fire." If you don't want your Tempest attacking the air, then micro it. Just because the Tempest CAN attack air doesn't mean it HAS to. The versatility of it being able to defend itself against ATA is a perfectly reasonable trade-off to the Banshee and Brood Lord being sitting ducks who can get repaired if they're lucky.
Well the Banshee is fairly fast, and has cloak, so I wouldn't exactly call it a 'sitting duck', although you may have a point with the BL. I also fail to see how the ability to micro is going to make the Tempest 'less' tempting, since it is weaker vs. AtA (both in straigh Hp, and in the ability to regenerate a portion of said Hp).
Quote:
We have absolutely no way of knowing what did in the Tempest (if anything) other than nostalgia. All you have are assumptions based on no real data, and a very weak argument.
You've yet to provide any actual counter-arguments as to why it was removed. Oh, and it basically was the Carrier, just with a few gimicks.
Quote:
Again:
"Yeah, but the Tempest can attack air, the Banshee and Brood Lord didn't have that luxury."
They do have the luxury of full hp though, which the Tempest doesn't.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Well the Banshee is fairly fast, and has cloak, so I wouldn't exactly call it a 'sitting duck', although you may have a point with the BL. I also fail to see how the ability to micro is going to make the Tempest 'less' tempting, since it is weaker vs. AtA (both in straigh Hp, and in the ability to regenerate a portion of said Hp).
An uncloaked Banshee is a snack for Phoenix, Corruptors, and Vikings.
And the micro doesn't make it less tempting. It makes it more effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
You've yet to provide any actual counter-arguments as to why it was removed. Oh, and it basically was the Carrier, just with a few gimicks.
There ARE no counter arguments. All we have are assumptions based a vague answer, and nostalgia. You keep trying to give you assumptions credit they completely lack.
Also, gimmicks can completely redefine a unit. The Hellion is just a Vulture with splash. The Viking is just a Goliath who flies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
They do have the luxury of full hp though, which the Tempest doesn't.
I think the Tempest had more than enough HP. It frikkin pwnd ground.
Its like, you don't understand the definition of trade-off.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
one of the problem was in sc1, was that the all around unit like the dragoon and hydralisk units are too damn imba for the battelcruisers.
dragoon is gone now. I want to see the nostalgic actually annoying kydralisk get a change.
Zerg in sc2 is less exciting with the hydraliska nd mutualisk back.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
one of the problem was in sc1, was that the all around unit like the dragoon and hydralisk units are too damn imba for the battelcruisers.
dragoon is gone now. I want to see the nostalgic actually annoying kydralisk get a change.
Zerg in sc2 is less exciting with the hydraliska nd mutualisk back.
Stalker = Dragoon
and the Hydra is even better GtA now.
Irony.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
An uncloaked Banshee is a snack for Phoenix, Corruptors, and Vikings.
Yep, except that they're generally going to be cloaked, because they'll be saving up their energy just for that purpose.
Quote:
And the micro doesn't make it less tempting. It makes it more effective.
You can still only have one target at a time.
Quote:
There ARE no counter arguments. All we have are assumptions based a vague answer, and nostalgia. You keep trying to give you assumptions credit they completely lack.
Well the shield mechanic obviously didn't work (else they wouldn't have removed it) and since that and a couple of stats were the only difference between the Tempest and the Carrier...
Quote:
Also, gimmicks can completely redefine a unit. The Hellion is just a Vulture with splash. The Viking is just a Goliath who flies.
And the Tempest was the Carrier with no AtA shield. Oh, and the Viking is a Wraith that can become a ground unit, not a Goliath that can fly, and ever that falls a bit short given that it's only got one attack in each mode, rather than both in a single one.
Quote:
I think the Tempest had more than enough HP. It frikkin pwnd ground.
The Tempest has fewer hp vs. air (ie, no shield), and on top of that, none of them were regenerative.
Quote:
Its like, you don't understand the definition of trade-off.
Oh I understand the definition of the term, I just don't agree that the AtA shield/cost trade-off of Tempest was a good one. The Immortal shield is a good trade-off (comparatively weak shields overall, but very tough vs. some attacks).
And just to try to veer back on topic, I repeat part of my first post in this thread:
I don't really agree with the OP statement about the BC being unuseful, but I will suggest a few extra upgrade:
-Sensor Suite: The BC becomes a detector.
-Shuttle Bays: The BC can transport a Medivac's worth of units.
-Overhaul: The BC gets 4 more batteries (so the BC gets 8 damage by 12, rather than 8 by 8).
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Yep, except that they're generally going to be cloaked, because they'll be saving up their energy just for that purpose.
Another tradeoff- low HP for Cloak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
You can still only have one target at a time.
Funny thing - Carriers (and Tempest) can attack multiple enemies at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Well the shield mechanic obviously didn't work (else they wouldn't have removed it) and since that and a couple of stats were the only difference between the Tempest and the Carrier...
Your logic is faulty. Stop taking lessons from Archer, please. They removed the entire Tempest and replaced it with the full Carrier. It could have been any aspect of the Tempest they didn't like, not just the shield. Hell, they could have removed it SOLELY because of nostalgia, given the vagueness of their "reasoning."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
And the Tempest was the Carrier with no AtA shield. Oh, and the Viking is a Wraith that can become a ground unit, not a Goliath that can fly, and ever that falls a bit short given that it's only got one attack in each mode, rather than both in a single one.
What I'm saying is your dismissing the Tempest in an inappropriate manner. Your logic of saying "the Tempest was just a gimmick-ed Carrier," is hypocritical if you don't also oppose the Viking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
The Tempest has fewer hp vs. air (ie, no shield), and on top of that, none of them were regenerative.
The Tempest's under-shield regenerated. It was supposed to own ground and die to air. Just like the Banshee and Brood Lord. Different =/= bad. I already said I agreed that having to AA shield was a bad way to set it, so wtf is your problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MattII
Oh I understand the definition of the term, I just don't agree that the AtA shield/cost trade-off of Tempest was a good one. The Immortal shield in a good trade-off (comparatively few shields, but very tough vs. some attacks).
We AGREE on this issue. Geez.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
Stalker = Dragoon
and the Hydra is even better GtA now.
Irony.
Sadly, I have yet to understand his views of StarCraft/StarCraft II.
Hydralisks were powerful, but not imba. If you couldn't fight them, then I question your StarCraft skills. Hell, I might even challenge him to a couple of games of StarCraft.
Dragoons were closer, but they just required some overwhelming force. Ala Siege Tanks, Guardians/Zerglings, or Reavers/psi storm.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
Stalker = Dragoon
and the Hydra is even better GtA now.
Irony.
stalkers is no dragoon. They play differently. The hydralisk is almost if not completely the same as it was in sc1 specially if it still has decent ground damage. Changing the hydralisk stats doesn't make it or the zerg exciting.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
stalkers is no dragoon. They play differently. The hydralisk is almost if not completely the same as it was in sc1 specially if it still has decent ground damage. Changing the hydralisk stats doesn't make it or the zerg exciting.
Check the stats. What you just said could be equated to pure ignorance.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
Sadly, I have yet to understand his views of StarCraft/StarCraft II.
Hydralisks were powerful, but not imba. If you couldn't fight them, then I question your StarCraft skills. Hell, I might even challenge him to a couple of games of StarCraft.
Dragoons were closer, but they just required some overwhelming force. Ala Siege Tanks, Guardians/Zerglings, or Reavers/psi storm.
Its not about the skills to counter them but the overall effectiveness and always usable roles of the hydralisk and dragoon which makes it imba in a way.
Those 2 units are way ahead in terms of effectiveness compared to all other units in sc1.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
Check the stats. What you just said could be equated to pure ignorance.
Check the looks and the play style of both and you see a major difference.
The hydralisk is a overly used unit in sc1, its play style, look, feel are pretty much the same as it was before.
The stalkers. The look alone is new. Who cares about the stats and old effective gameplay, this is sc2 new things should be introduced to the zerg just like stalker being introduced removing the old yet very effective dragoon.
The hydralisk is not like the marine, zergling, zealot, they are like the dragoons very effective and no real weakness in sc1.
If they are strong against air units now and weak again ground, might as well change the look or assign it to a new unit and remove the damn hydra they look stupid shooting at air units anyway.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
Check the looks and the play style of both and you see a major difference.
The hydralisk is a overly used unit in sc1, its play style, look, feel are pretty much the same as it was before.
The stalkers. The look alone is new. Who cares about the stats.
The hydralisk is not like the marine, zergling, zealot, they are like the dragoons very effective and no real weakness in sc1.
You're arguing gameplay changes with aesthetics? HAHAHAHA.
I'm done with this conversation. That is SAD.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
Another tradeoff- low HP for Cloak.
Fair enough, it's not like we're trading unrepairable for cloak.
Quote:
Funny thing - Carriers (and Tempest) can attack multiple enemies at the same time.
Really, I thought they could only select one at a time.
Quote:
Your logic is faulty. Stop taking lessons from Archer, please. They removed the entire Tempest and replaced it with the full Carrier. It could have been any aspect of the Tempest they didn't like, not just the shield. Hell, they could have removed it SOLELY because of nostalgia, given the vagueness of their "reasoning."
Okay, what are the differences between the Tempest and the Carrier:
Shield Mechanic
Subunits - can be changed
Stats - can be changed
Image - can be changed
Quote:
What I'm saying is your dismissing the Tempest in an inappropriate manner. Your logic of saying "the Tempest was just a gimmick-ed Carrier," is hypocritical if you don't also oppose the Viking.
Okay, let's count the differences between the Viking and the Wraith (both units can be produced from the Starport with no extra requirements):
No cloak
No AtG attack
Can become a ground unit
Stats
Image
Okay, stats and images can be changed, but as for the rest of it, it seems quite a big change.
Not that I like the Viking much, it seems overly complex, and the ground form seems to be of marginal usage in any situation other than one where the battle is already pretty much won anyway.
Quote:
The Tempest's under-shield regenerated. It was supposed to own ground and die to air. Just like the Banshee and Brood Lord. Different =/= bad.
Agreed different =/= bad, but IMO Tempest Shields = Bad.
Quote:
I already said I agreed that having to AA shield was a bad way to set it, so wtf is your problem?
When I first mentioned this I was arguing with pure.Wasted, not you.
BTW, we're getting way off-topic here, the original debate was about Battlecruisers, which belongs to another race totally.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Your logic is faulty. Stop taking lessons from Archer, please. They removed the entire Tempest and replaced it with the full Carrier. It could have been any aspect of the Tempest they didn't like, not just the shield. Hell, they could have removed it SOLELY because of nostalgia, given the vagueness of their "reasoning."
The problem is that there aren't very many differences between the Carrier and the Tempest. There are basically two differences:
1: Shurikens vs. Intercpeters. This is largely visual; melee vs. ranged only matters to the extent that there are special abilities or effects that only work on ranged or melee attacks.
2: The ground-only shield.
Now, if the ground-only shield was a really worthwhile idea, and they wanted Intercepters back instead of Shurikens, they could easily have made Carriers have a ground-only shield. After all, they've tried several other changes to Carriers, like giving them those "Escorts" they tried for a couple of weeks.
However, if the ground-only shield were the problem, the slight difference between Shurikens and Intercepters wouldn't be enough to make them choose Tempests over Carriers. It just wouldn't be worthwhile to have a "not-Carrier" when they could just call it a Carrier and be done with it.
If anything, the problem with the Tempest was that it was too Carrier-like. They tried to make some slight modifications to turn a Carrier into an AtG specialist. But since that failed, the recourse was to revert back to Carriers. The proper course would have been to chuck the Carrier entirely and make a unit fit the AtG role.
Quote:
Sadly, I have yet to understand his views of StarCraft/StarCraft II.
Hydralisks were powerful, but not imba. If you couldn't fight them, then I question your StarCraft skills. Hell, I might even challenge him to a couple of games of StarCraft.
Dragoons were closer, but they just required some overwhelming force. Ala Siege Tanks, Guardians/Zerglings, or Reavers/psi storm.
He's not talking in general. He's talking about the effects of these units on the utility of using air units.
If every Protoss player brings a significant quantity of Dragoons, how could you ever use air units against them? Even Mutalisks vs. Protoss tend to avoid Dragoons; they may suicide in to snipe some Templar, but that's, you know, suicide.
Having cheap, massable, and very effective GtA makes flying units that much more difficult to use effectively. It forces flying units into minor harassment roles rather than being line units.
As for the current stats of these units, the Hydralisk is the one I'm most concerned about, though its price may keep it from being massed in sufficient numbers. The Stalker is going to have it's attack strength nerfed; they can't give a cheap unit with Blink that much damage. Pros will murder everyone.
Quote:
Agreed different =/= bad, but IMO Tempest Shields = Bad.
The question with the Tempest really was "how much does it cost?" If they're sufficiently throwaway, then cheap disposable Tempests that force your opponent to use air against them are pretty powerful. They make your enemy go for a particular tech choice to counter.
Of course, nobody around here played a build of the game with Tempests in it, so nobody ever got the cost of the unit. But it would only ever work if it were fairly cheap.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
You're arguing gameplay changes with aesthetics? HAHAHAHA.
I'm done with this conversation. That is SAD.
Very Sad indeed. i had enough of multiplayer gameplay obsessive fans.
Lets go single player and starcraf lore. Screw the damn hydralisk and how it plays and introduce something new which will add new to gameplay as well fresh fun and excitement for the sc2 zerg.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
Check the looks and the play style of both and you see a major difference.
The hydralisk is a overly used unit in sc1, its play style, look, feel are pretty much the same as it was before.
Well, given how old favorites have returned, it's really no surprise that the Hydralisk has returned. While I would like to see some new mechanic given to it, it's fine as it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
The stalkers. The look alone is new.
And the role. And the blinking. And the stats.
If it weren't on four legs, you wouldn't have said that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
Who cares about the stats and old effective gameplay, this is sc2 new things should be introduced to the zerg just like stalker being introduced removing the old yet very effective dragoon.
There is a huge difference between keeping a fine balance of old and new, and tossing all the old crap out the window, as you want Blizz to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
The hydralisk is not like the marine, zergling, zealot, they are like the dragoons very effective and no real weakness in sc1.
Unless you know how to counter them.
If you want to argue, I could say that the Marine had no real weakness in StarCraft: Brood War, with the addition of the Medic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
If they are strong against air units now and weak again ground, might as well change the look or assign it to a new unit and remove the damn hydra they look stupid shooting at air units anyway.
More aesthetics. Like you wanting the Thor to have a Wave Motion Gun, or better yet, a Wave Motion Tuning Fork.
They aren't WEAK against ground, they're more effective against air.
Rest assured, the Roach seems to have bumped the Hydralisk off it's Jeep* role. So it's not the all-versitile unit it used to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
Its not about the skills to counter them but the overall effectiveness and always usable roles of the hydralisk and dragoon which makes it imba in a way.
Those 2 units are way ahead in terms of effectiveness compared to all other units in sc1.
But they're still counterable. That's what Imbalanced means, there's no way to counter them, or they'll win a game all on their lonesome.
This is just (mostly) like the classes in World of WarCrap. Most of the "Imbalance" is because people don't know how to use or counter them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
DemolitionSquid
You're arguing gameplay changes with aesthetics? HAHAHAHA.
I'm done with this conversation. That is SAD.
Go check out the Thor and Marauder Fix thread. It's even funnier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
Very Sad indeed. i had enough of multiplayer gameplay obsessive fans.
I've played more single-player than you ever have. I can guarantee it.
But hey, the Hydralisk is probably THE iconic Zerg unit after the Zergling. It works well, and it isn't going to leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
electricmole
Lets go single player and starcraf lore. Screw the damn hydralisk and how it plays and introduce something new which will add new to gameplay as well fresh fun and excitement for the sc2 zerg.
You mean like the Baneling, Roach, Swarm Guardian, and Queen?
Hey, I have an offer for you.
I'll play you in a game of StarCraft. If you can beat me with Hydralisks and Zerglings, I'll admit I was wrong.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
Well, given how old favorites have returned, it's really no surprise that the Hydralisk has returned. While I would like to see some new mechanic given to it, it's fine as it is.
The dragoon was also an old favorite but it was removed apparently because its too good being an all around unit. The same thing can be said with the hydralisk even though its more iconic. Blizzard could have lore changes like an evolution of the hydralisk with a new look and name which is very strong against air unit. And yes, its no longer the hydralisk no matter how you see and play it, aesthetics makes a big difference here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
And the role. And the blinking. And the stats.
If it weren't on four legs, you wouldn't have said that.
Stalkers are very different from the dragoon. Stalkers blink, different stats, good against unit and bad against other units. the dragoon on the other hand was basically good on all units, no ability, and you just mass them up and hit attack command.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
There is a huge difference between keeping a fine balance of old and new, and tossing all the old crap out the window, as you want Blizz to do.
I don’t want to remove all the old crap. I was only pointing out to the zerg, they have 6 core attack units back. I want to see 1 or two get replace by a new opne with new gameplay role and mechanics. This can be done as long as you forget about some of the old zerg units and be open and accept new gameplay styles for the zerg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
Unless you know how to counter them.
If you want to argue, I could say that the Marine had no real weakness in StarCraft: Brood War, with the addition of the Medic.
Marines are no match for hydralisk/dragoons. In terms of cost and attack effectiveness ratio, nothing beats both the dragoon and hydralisk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
More aesthetics. Like you wanting the Thor to have a Wave Motion Gun, or better yet, a Wave Motion Tuning Fork.
They aren't WEAK against ground, they're more effective against air.
Aesthetics are importantly just as well as gameplay if not then starcraft will be just like tetris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
Rest assured, the Roach seems to have bumped the Hydralisk off it's Jeep* role. So it's not the all-versitile unit it used to be.
Sure. Ok make the hydralisk crappy against ground units, change it stats, and increase its cost. Im ok with that.
But I still prefer a big makeover with the zerg line up just like the toss and terran got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
But they're still counterable. That's what Imbalanced means, there's no way to counter them, or they'll win a game all on their lonesome.
I know they are countable. But the units are so effective that they are the main units you will always find to build and not much of anything else. Mass them and it’s a win win situation most of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
This is just (mostly) like the classes in World of WarCrap. Most of the "Imbalance" is because people don't know how to use or counter them.
Yes they are counterable. But the point is their value or worth is so very high, other units are useless or is unnecessary most of the time. Both units are cheap, massable, and can do devastating damage in any situation. Like I said in terms of effectiveness ratio in sc1, both hdyralisk and dragoons or maybe even the mutualisk, are on the very top. I believe in sc2 all units should have counter and almost equal effectiveness and not by a large gap by what the hydralisk and dragoons can do in sc1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
Go check out the Thor and Marauder Fix thread. It's even funnier.
I don’t find it funny. Aesthetic and gameplay can go hand in hand, just like actual unit design and gameplay. Lets give the thor a n energy weaponthat deals aoe damage in gameplay, lets try if it works, now whats funny about it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
I've played more single-player than you ever have. I can guarantee it.
But hey, the Hydralisk is probably THE iconic Zerg unit after the Zergling. It works well, and it isn't going to leave.
I don’t care. Ok continue loving your hydralisk to death.
I want a new which offer more exciting gameplay. Im ok if the hydralisk gets removed I will accept and love any new one that will replace it as long as it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
You mean like the Baneling, Roach, Swarm Guardian, and Queen?
Ok compare those to what the terran and toss got.
Swarm guardian is just a guardian. Baneling is just like a zergling suicide skill, a spider mine.
The only actual new attack unit is the roach and corruptor. Toss got phoenix, warp rays, immortals, colossus, stalkers. Terran got hellion, marauder, Viking, banshee, thor, and reaper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quirel
Hey, I have an offer for you.
I'll play you in a game of StarCraft. If you can beat me with Hydralisks and Zerglings, I'll admit I was wrong.
That’s the point. What other units I can use in sc2? Mutualisk, utlralisk, lurker, guardian?
Ok, I will use all the 6 units again in sc2 with addition to the roach. Wow. Might as well use hydras and mutuas all over again since both are the shit.
-
Re: Battlecruiser as a support unit
Well I was going to ask you lot to get back on topic, but I've just gone back and reread the opening post, and I can't quite figure out if we've got much of a topic to get back on.
