Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 98

Thread: Nullifier renamed + new model?

  1. #21

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    Sentries are too late to be used as comparable macro mechanics to OCC and Queens. Both of them require only the base building, while Sentries (unless they moved them, and I don't want to see Protoss with such fast access to Force Field) require a Cybernetics Core.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  2. #22

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    Sentries are too late to be used as comparable macro mechanics to OCC and Queens. Both of them require only the base building, while Sentries (unless they moved them, and I don't want to see Protoss with such fast access to Force Field) require a Cybernetics Core.
    Doesnt need to be the same for each race. For heavens sake a blue said that like two days cmon man


    And for the record Core and Obelisk are on the same level. All your talking about is the build time for a Sentry.

  3. #23

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    nice...

  4. #24

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?



    Looks good. Looks like they changed some of the Team Coloring, and they've tweaked the spec on the shaders. I wonder if the glowy bits will be Team Colored too.

    I can't wait to see this shader on the Carriers, it should make them look more rounded.

  5. #25

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    And for the record Core and Obelisk are on the same level. All your talking about is the build time for a Sentry.
    But once your Obelisk is complete, you have access to the spells. You have to build a Sentry after the Core finishes. That takes longer.

    Unless the build time for a Sentry is negligible, which would have innumerable ramifications for a caster, it is going to take significantly longer to get a Sentry up than an Obelisk.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  6. #26

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    But once your Obelisk is complete, you have access to the spells. You have to build a Sentry after the Core finishes. That takes longer.

    Unless the build time for a Sentry is negligible, which would have innumerable ramifications for a caster, it is going to take significantly longer to get a Sentry up than an Obelisk.

    Its like you didnt even read the two lines your quoting. Sentry build time is negligible expecially since all the races macro mechanics are different.

    Your stuck in the "all the races need to be the same or its imbalanced" mentality. Free yourself.

  7. #27

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    Sentry build time is negligible expecially since all the races macro mechanics are different.
    It is negligible? So you've played a build of the game and you know this for a fact? Or are you just making things up to fit your ill-informed hypothesis?

    Your stuck in the "all the races need to be the same or its imbalanced" mentality.
    And you're stuck in the "all changes must revolve around macro mechanics" mentality. Shocking though it may be to believe, not everything has to do with macro.

    Furthermore, Blizzard obviously thinks that races should get the mechanics at the same time, since that's how they designed them. If Blizzard wanted them at different times, they would have one of them different. They didn't.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  8. #28

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    Sentry as macro mechanic would probably help protoss anyway since they get it from just straight teching. Right now protoss does gateway, has to save 200 minerals for obelisks, then saves 200 more for a cyb. With Sentry it would just be gateway ->cyb, which would be a major cost saver in the early game (and you're probably going to make at least 1 sentry no matter what)

    No idea how build times between obelisk/cyb compare, but like Archer said the races shouldn't be identical. There's nothing innately game breaking about having the protoss macro mechanic take 30 seconds longer to get.

    Side-note: I doubt the sentry is replacing the obelisk
    Last edited by rcp181; 02-03-2010 at 02:35 PM.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    Whoot more models for mappers
    "No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other."
    Be sure to check out the best #$*&#$ video game show ever Epileptic Gaming and the lastest episode on youtube NOW IN HD
    - Oh its a egg I wonder whats inside! =)

  10. #30

    Default Re: Nullifier renamed + new model?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    It is negligible? So you've played a build of the game and you know this for a fact? Or are you just making things up to fit your ill-informed hypothesis?
    lol i have the same amount of evidence as you do, zero.


    And you're stuck in the "all changes must revolve around macro mechanics" mentality. Shocking though it may be to believe, not everything has to do with macro.
    That i am.

    Furthermore, Blizzard obviously thinks that races should get the mechanics at the same time, since that's how they designed them. If Blizzard wanted them at different times, they would have one of them different. They didn't.
    Ive made a habit of ignoring all statments that start with "Blizzard obviously..." since they are almost always wrong.
    (Seriously keep an eye out for those on this forum. Youll be amazed.)

Similar Threads

  1. 3D model Marine
    By cOntrol in forum Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-24-2010, 01:41 AM
  2. Broodlord Model
    By XSOLDIER in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-30-2009, 09:30 PM
  3. High Templar Model
    By Kalash in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 11-07-2009, 01:47 PM
  4. A Model for Zerg Genetic Engineering
    By ArcherofAiur in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-18-2009, 09:49 PM
  5. A Strategic Macro Model
    By ArcherofAiur in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 09:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •