In my opinion, the right choices were made.

[Noise]

All I can think of is that it is too many combat infantry, medic not counting.

But I think SC2 infantry is awesome.

[FlashWar]

They have four ranged infantry units whereas in SC1 they only had two, with one of those units (the Ghost) hardly ever being used. Hellion covers the role of the Firebat.

[Whanhee]

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.

Apparently I wasn't clear. So I'll just clarify right now. I don't want sc2 to be exactly like bw. Not to mention that had nothing to do with my comment. What I said was that vultures may have been designed by blizzard to be a scouting unit but there is absolutely no reason to use it solely for that purpose. Not sure what you read.

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.

What would you propose to make the goliath more interesting? Perhaps rainbow guns? Fluorescent armour? Perhaps even a SPELL?

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.

Reaver shuttle micro does exactly what it was meant to do. In fact, its not even very high on the learning curve at all. Maybe doing it at the same time as controlling your army in battle and expanding at the same time while keeping up your macro would qualify as difficult, but seriously dropping a unit then picking it up. Pretty foundational right there. It doesn't even require precise timing or speed. Forget to build scarabs? There's your learning curve.

Games also need a fair amount of creativity on the parts of players to take the mechanics and use them to their full potential. Take that fundamental aspect out of the game and you remove all the depth.

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?

Read the sentence carefully then come back. Or screw it, you didn't bother with that one, have another: I think cool units and mechanics are nice but making a sub par game simply because you want to keep a cool idea is not.

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.

No one plays with any unit perfectly the first time they use it. Getting better involves playing till you understand and can use the units you don't understand better. If you want units to be easy to use, you might as well just ask blizzard for spells that autocast, autoclone and autotarget as you attack move your army.

Besides, just because reavers can't be used in an attack move assault doesn't make them hard to learn at all.

[electricmole]

zerg 6 core attack units are all back in sc2(zergling,hydra,ultra,mutua,guardian,lurker) that is the problem.

i know the guardian is the broodlord now, but i the unit model should look completely different from the guardian to make it feel new.

I also suggest a complete lurker model change, make it bigger and nowhere like the old lurker in sc1 (hydralisk spider) and if possible change the name as well.

[ManjiSanji]

Or just scratch the Lurker and do something new.

[sandwich_bird]

Or just scratch the Lurker and do something new.

That's what I'd do. I liked the old lurker but I'd prefer something new.

[Nicol Bolas]

What I said was that vultures may have been designed by blizzard to be a scouting unit but there is absolutely no reason to use it solely for that purpose. Not sure what you read.

My point is this: if Blizzard designed Vultures to be a scouting unit, but they were useful in other roles too, this is a design flaw that:

1: shouldn't be fixed in the current game.

2: should be fixed in the next game.

So it's a perfectly valid line of criticism of SC1 to say that Vultures were outside of their intended role.

What would you propose to make the goliath more interesting?

Nothing. I don't agree with the original statement that the Goliath needs something to make it more interesting (I think it needed to be removed). But I likewise don't agree with your statement that anything that makes it "more intersting" automatically makes it a spellcaster.

The Goliath could have gotten the GtA equivalent of the Marauder's slowing effect: units they shoot with their missiles slow down for a brief period. That doesn't make them a spellcaster. Or they could get an active ability that forces them to stop moving for 5 seconds, but during that time they fire their GtG attack at double its speed. This also doesn't make them a spellcaster any more than Siege Mode makes STs a spellcaster or stim makes Marines a spellcaster.

Reaver shuttle micro does exactly what it was meant to do.

Reaver/Shuttle micro was never meant to exist. Blizzard did not intend this to happen. Reavers were made to move very slowly as a deliberate flaw; making them move fast, and as an air unit no less, worked against this flaw. This is like the Vulture issue: the Reaver slipped outside of the intended bounds, so they chucked it in favor of something a bit more reasonable.

I think cool units and mechanics are nice but making a sub par game simply because you want to keep a cool idea is not.

Restating your logical fallacy doesn't somehow make it not fallacious.

No one plays with any unit perfectly the first time they use it. Getting better involves playing till you understand and can use the units you don't understand better.

But what about those people who aren't trying to get better? The people who just want to have fun, and if they happen to improve their skills along the way, so much the better. Blizzard wants StarCraft to work for them too.

Now, I don't agree that the Reaver falls under this category, as it is a pretty strong anti-Zerg unit whether there's a Shuttle around or not.

[RamiZ]

That's what I'd do. I liked the old lurker but I'd prefer something new.

Yeah but only if the new units is original as Lurker in BW...Lurker was my fave BW unit, and i like it in SC2 too, but im ok with it being changed, just not extremely and giving it some dumb name and totally different role and boring way of using it....

[Norfindel]

Yeah but only if the new units is original as Lurker in BW...Lurker was my fave BW unit, and i like it in SC2 too, but im ok with it being changed, just not extremely and giving it some dumb name and totally different role and boring way of using it....

Then rejoice, because the Lurker has now a freaking 15 + 15 vs Armored attack with ***9*** range! It's quite a beast!

[Whanhee]

So it's a perfectly valid line of criticism of SC1 to say that Vultures were outside of their intended role.

Let's consider the role of workers in sc. Workers were designed to gather resources then use those resources to build structures. However, workers are also used to scout. They are used to block chokepoints and ramps. They can defend a base in the early game entirely on their own. They can tank for combat units, protecting them from melee, and can be used in some cases as offensive units. These are design flaws right? Not something that adds depth or strategy to the game but something that detracts from it?

The ability to think of new ways to use units, regardless of how they were designed, is what makes strategy. If units were restricted to their roles and only those roles, the game would stagnate and metagame would not evolve. Ever.

Reaver/Shuttle micro was never meant to exist. Blizzard did not intend this to happen. Reavers were made to move very slowly as a deliberate flaw; making them move fast, and as an air unit no less, worked against this flaw. This is like the Vulture issue: the Reaver slipped outside of the intended bounds, so they chucked it in favor of something a bit more reasonable.

How do you know what blizzard intended to happen? The odds are they discovered reaver shuttle during the development of starcraft. They're not stupid you know.

Secondly, I'd like evidence as to why you say that's the reason reavers were removed. Also, since you seem to have an in depth knowledge of the blizzard development team, any info on when sc2 will ship?

A thing about strategy, you need to cover the flaws of units with the strengths of others. If you know you can move reavers faster with a shuttle, you'd be retarded to not do so.

Restating your logical fallacy doesn't somehow make it not fallacious.

It's only fallacious under your understanding that revolutionary unit concepts equates to good gameplay.

But what about those people who aren't trying to get better?

They can mass carriers. Or just about any other units, but carriers are the most fun. In any case, what you've been saying this entire time, from my perspective, is that strategic depth is not fun, and should be removed for the sake of making a more fun game. That's like saying all chess pieces should be replaced with queens since they're easy and fun to use. Would that improve chess? I doubt it.