In my opinion, the right choices were made.

[Noise]

I agree, but only if the replacements are as good or better though! It is dangerous to scrap heaps of units willy-nilly from such a perfectly balanced game. I think mostly good choices have been made for SC2.

[Whanhee]

Your reasons for disliking units include annoyance at abilities, underpoweredness and low aesthetic value.

In fact that's pretty much your entire reasoning. I'm not gonna lie, you're a scrub.

[DemolitionSquid]

Your reasons for disliking units include annoyance at abilities, underpoweredness and low aesthetic value.

In fact that's pretty much your entire reasoning. I'm not gonna lie, you're a scrub.

Yeah, because its not like those are valid reasons. Ugly, useless units should totally stay in the game.

I'm not gonna lie, you're a troll.

[Whanhee]

Yeah, because its not like those are valid reasons. Ugly, useless units should totally stay in the game.

I'm not gonna lie, you're a troll.

>_> K I'm not here to start a flame war.

So let's do a run through of his reasons for why he likes the choices blizzard made. Just as a personal note, I like a lot of changes in sc2, but this guy is just full of crap.

I always thought that using a flamethrower was pretty uninteresting as a unit's weapon.

You know what? So are guns. Every game has friggin guns. Maybe they should should rainbows at each other to make their projectiles more interesting.

Here is a unit that never should have become so used on the battlefield. The vulture was supposed to be a scouting unit, not a unit that you mass to counter zealots in a TvP match. Furthermore, spamming the whole map with mines is something terribly annoying.

Because a unit is effective at something it wasn't designed to do means that you shouldn't be allowed to use it for that purpose. If you can't deal with minefields, and lose half your army crossing the map, it means you have no detection. If you can't counter something, it means you need to learn how to counter it, instead of dismissing it as a valid strategy and calling it annoying.

The goliath was ok but really needed something to make him more interesting

NOT EVERY UNIT NEEDS TO BE A SPELL CASTER.

Science Vessel: [...] It's a flying building... Really not interesting.

Queen: Not really a popular unit, not really good looking either.

Dragoons: Honestly, they were ugly.

Again with the uninteresting and the aesthetic value. It's minor fluff that has little to do with the gameplay at all. The little it has to do with the gameplay involves being able to visually identify the unit.

Defiler: Dark Swarm was an annoying crap. It make useless almost every unit in the game.

Reaver: Way too hard to micro for newcomer

Once again, deal with it. If you can't, it means you have room to improve.

Shuttle: Wasn't original enough.

If anything, I want sc2 to be a great game. Revolutionary unit concepts may be nice, but if that means sacrificing gameplay for more original units and abilities, then I want nothing to do with it. (also, OP is right, the warp prism is a good improvement to the shuttle)


All in all, if OP plays at all, it seems to me that he plays on an extremely superficial level, mostly involving attack moving then watching the cool (or uncool as he describes several units) fight.

[Nicol Bolas]

Because a unit is effective at something it wasn't designed to do means that you shouldn't be allowed to use it for that purpose.

Yes, but when you go to make a new game, you don't keep things like that. There's a difference between "things you put up with in an already released game" and "things you keep between games". The Vulture is the former, not the latter.

It functioned within SC1's balance, but that doesn't mean you have to keep it around.

NOT EVERY UNIT NEEDS TO BE A SPELL CASTER.

First, STOP YELLING!

Second, there is a large difference between "unit needs to be more interesting" and "spellcaster". If you're going to argue against a position, then argue against the actual position, not some made-up strawman.

Further, in SC1, the Goliath was one of only two Terran units that didn't have an active ability of some kind (Valkyrie being the other), so there's a rather large quantity of precedent for it getting some kind of ability.

Once again, deal with it. If you can't, it means you have room to improve.

Asymmetric difficulty (something being harder to stop than it is to do, or vice-versa) has a number of properties. In small doses, it can help push people up the skill ladder. In large quantities however, it effectively makes the jump between skill levels so great that only the most pedantic and competitive players will jump it.

Reaver/Shuttle micro is part of the latter. Again, this is a new game; you don't keep mechanics that aren't doing what you need them to do.

Revolutionary unit concepts may be nice, but if that means sacrificing gameplay for more original units and abilities, then I want nothing to do with it.

Ignoring the fact that you've set up a false dichotomy so untrue that it also qualifies as an oxymoron (revolutionary unit concepts are the opposite of sacrificing gameplay), you haven't explained how this applies to anything the OP said. Indeed, you stated that you agreed that Shuttle->Warp Prism is a good thing. So where is this coming from?

All in all, if OP plays at all, it seems to me that he plays on an extremely superficial level, mostly involving attack moving then watching the cool (or uncool as he describes several units) fight.

Which has what to do exactly with his particular opinions on how units worked in the game?

You don't have to be a master composer to know crappy music when you hear it.

[sandwich_bird]

All in all, if OP plays at all, it seems to me that he plays on an extremely superficial level, mostly involving attack moving then watching the cool (or uncool as he describes several units) fight.

lol yeah right. No I'm actually a pretty competitive player on ICCup to clarify.

Nicol pretty summed up what I would have responded to you but also aesthetic is important. If Protoss were only triangles and Zerg various dots formations, this game would probably never have become what it is today. It's not always about the gameplay.

Also, when the game was made, it wasn't made for pro players, it was made obviously for newcomers, partly for people that match your description of me. If a unit, like the reaver, is too hard to even start playing with, then the developers didn't reach their objective of making a game that is easy to play but hard to master.

Anyways, most of this discussion is completely subjective. You don't agree with my opinion? That's ok, just don't go around thinking you're God and trolling this place.

[Noise]

If Protoss were only triangles and Zerg various dots formations, this game would probably never have become what it is today.

More like would DEFINITELY never have become what it is today.

[FlashWar]

I think most of the right choices were made, except for the Thor and to many infantry units for Terran.

[DemolitionSquid]

I think most of the right choices were made, except for the Thor and to many infantry units for Terran.

I'd like to hear your reasoning for your dislike of the new Terran Infantry. IMHO they are mostly an improvement over SCBW.

[Praetor_Ixab]

How many infantry units did terran used to have? Marine, Medic, Firebat, Ghost = 4. How many does it have now? Marine, Marauder, Reaper, Ghost = 4. Where is the "too many infantry for terrans" argument coming into play?