GroundCraft 2

[TheEconomist]

It doesn't matter, it's obviously true.

No ....


There are MANY things since StarCraft 2 was announced that have been accepted as truth without basis that turned out to be false.

I assume you've been to other StarCraft 2 forums, so, what the hell?

[Aldrius]

No ....


There are MANY things since StarCraft 2 was announced that have been accepted as truth without basis that turned out to be false.

I assume you've been to other StarCraft 2 forums, so, what the hell?

They didn't add two really strong air to surface units because they were happy with the air model and refused to improve it.

I mean come on, that's just common sense.

[TheEconomist]

That could also be applied "logically" to other areas of gameplay that obviously weren't how you say it is.

Still, I see your point. But, I'm not going to accept that they said it just because. There's just too much misquotation and too many overly creative Blizzard fans to do so. Maybe they didn't say it publically but had that intention locally.

Like you said, though, it doesn't really matter since they've already made this a priority.

[Aldrius]

That could also be applied "logically" to other areas of gameplay that obviously weren't how you say it is.

What areas of gameplay are you talking about?

Still, I see your point. But, I'm not going to accept that they said it just because. Maybe they didn't say it publicaly but had that intention locally.

It doesn't matter if they say it or not, though. That's my point.

[TheEconomist]

It doesn't matter if they say it or not, though. That's my point.

I never said it mattered. I'm just saying I'm not going to accept that they released a statement saying that just because. It is, however, obvious that they had this intention anyways so it doesn't matter if they said it or not.

How long are we going to go back and forth?

[Nicol Bolas]

No ....

There are MANY things since StarCraft 2 was announced that have been accepted as truth without basis that turned out to be false.

Except that this happens to have a basis in reality.

There can be no doubt that air units in SC2 are more powerful than air units of the same Tier in SC1. The Protoss had nothing even remotely as strong vs. high Hp units as the Void Ray. The Terrans had nothing anywhere near as good at GtA pre-BCs as the Banshee, and certainly nothing cost-for-cost. And the Brood Lord is the equal of 2-3 of the old Guardians, in both Hp and firepower.

Similarly, there can be no doubt that there are fewer or less effective GtA options in this game. The Thor is best used for groups of attackers, and Ghosts are too expensive to get lots of (as well as specifically anti-light). Hydralisks are somewhat in flux at present, but even in their best GtA glory, they were still quite expensive. And Stalkers are nothing anywhere near as effective at GtA as Dragoons, cost for cost. Marines remain all-around good, particularly with the Hp buff.

Thus it is an undeniable fact that StarCraft 2 is better suited to air units than SC1. Fewer GtA options means that going for a strong air tactic, or even a mixed air/ground force can force your opponent to go for GtA options that weaken their ground units. And all-around more useful air units on top of this means that air units necessarily are more viable than they were before.

So, did this happen by accident? Or did Blizzard design it that way?

[TheEconomist]

The debate isn't whether Blizzard is trying to go in this direction; it's whether or not they voiced their purpose publically.

I don't really care either way.

[0neder]

How do you not see that air units will be more viable in SC2 than they were in SC1?

Scourge are gone. This was IMO the main hindrance to air units in SC1. Also, consider that balancing air units is tricky, because while we don't want underused air units in SC2, we also don't want air to be REQUIRED for victory.