|
As I know Starcraft and Broodwar, and of course Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm, I like the number of units for each race we have in Legacy of the Void. Recently I began to wonder, if the array of units is optimal to get new players into the game. The amount of choices could be confusing.
I am not seriously proposing to remove units, this is a thought experiment: Could Starcraft II be a good game with some units removed? Like for Terran, no more Thor. For Protoss, no more Disruptor and Tempest. And does Protoss actually need a second core unit, the Adept? What if the Terran Marine would start with 1 less range, while having a range upgrade, in order to allow Stalkers to be stronger against Marines in the early game?
I am afraid that my noob-level theory-crafting carries me away. Though for Zerg, I think with the Lurker, one can live without the Swarm Host.
Or is my thinking wrong in general, because while a reduced set of units might ease the first steps in learning it, it also leaves too few choices to keep the players and viewers interesting in it?
|
No, you are right, SC II could be a better game with removed units, especially if removing overlapping units, just as it can also be a better game with more units. The problem was that some races, especially Terran and Protoss felt "complete" in WoL, but Blizzard have to justify their expansions with new units. The second expansion definately have overtones of too many overlapping units. Most of those units have now changed role significantly anyways.
|
too many units lead to hard times for balancing the game, cyclones, oracles, disruptors, ravagers are all unnecessary imo, especially cyclones on reactor and ravagers at tier1 is ridiculous, feels like they wanted new units being used as early as possible just because of new expansion.
|
On April 21 2018 02:12 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote: too many units lead to hard times for balancing the game, cyclones, oracles, disruptors, ravagers are all unnecessary imo, especially cyclones on reactor and ravagers at tier1 is ridiculous, feels like they wanted new units being used as early as possible just because of new expansion.
I don't feel most of those are unnecessary. Maybe disruptors, but it's just a unique form of splash for Toss, especially since it got changed.. Cyclones allow a mech anti armor that isn't a siege tank and can be used with hellions. This allows a fast battle mech style which has been entertaining and used effectively. Ravagers are primarily a defense to Protoss sentry all ins (which in many cases didn't have too much counter play. It often came down to hoping the toss messes up) and a form of aggressive anti air before hydras (siege tanks, liberators, and shield batteries would be extra strong without them), both of which Zerg needed. Oracles are now more of a scouting tool than a damage dealer.
|
On April 21 2018 02:12 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote: too many units lead to hard times for balancing the game, cyclones, oracles, disruptors, ravagers are all unnecessary imo, especially cyclones on reactor and ravagers at tier1 is ridiculous, feels like they wanted new units being used as early as possible just because of new expansion.
I think ravagers are necessary versus forcefields. Remember sentry immortal all in in wol/hots? Or dropping sentries in the zerg main and then force fielding the ramp to keep an entire zerg army stuck outside. That wasn't really fun since there isn't many viable counter play. Maybe ravagers at tier 1 is a bit strong, but they are definitely needed to counter forcefield.
I think cyclone is a good addition, imo thor is the unit that terran doesn't really need. If we can remove thors, then perhaps blizz can buff cyclone accordingly to make mech more mobile. Cyclone can then serve the role similar to goliaths in sc1.
I agree with disruptors being unnecessary. There are already high templars/colossus, disruptor just seems like a lazily designed unit.
|
Still think adding Adepts was a mistake -- virtually everyone thought so when they introduced them, but most people had got to use to them. The Zealot/Stalker/Sentry trio is great and instead of adding the new unit, they might've tweaked them somehow.
|
On April 21 2018 05:00 seopthi wrote: Still think adding Adepts was a mistake -- virtually everyone thought so when they introduced them, but most people had got to use to them. The Zealot/Stalker/Sentry trio is great and instead of adding the new unit, they might've tweaked them somehow.
I didn't get that sense at all. I mean, at first they were OP and they remained that way for too long, but they were an absolutely necessary addition to make low tech Protoss more viable. That was something everyone wanted for a long time. Zealot Stalker Sentry was not that good. Zealots and Stalkers got separated too easily, and both didn't really do enough damage. Sentries made it work with forcefields because Zealots could get on top of armies, but forcefields needed a nerf because they were just frustrating for other races to play against and there wasn't enough counter play.
|
On April 21 2018 04:50 phodacbiet wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 02:12 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote: too many units lead to hard times for balancing the game, cyclones, oracles, disruptors, ravagers are all unnecessary imo, especially cyclones on reactor and ravagers at tier1 is ridiculous, feels like they wanted new units being used as early as possible just because of new expansion. I think ravagers are necessary versus forcefields. Remember sentry immortal all in in wol/hots? Or dropping sentries in the zerg main and then force fielding the ramp to keep an entire zerg army stuck outside. That wasn't really fun since there isn't many viable counter play. Maybe ravagers at tier 1 is a bit strong, but they are definitely needed to counter forcefield. I think cyclone is a good addition, imo thor is the unit that terran doesn't really need. If we can remove thors, then perhaps blizz can buff cyclone accordingly to make mech more mobile. Cyclone can then serve the role similar to goliaths in sc1. I agree with disruptors being unnecessary. There are already high templars/colossus, disruptor just seems like a lazily designed unit.
ravagers should require at least evo chamber like it was with droplords, it's too much of a hard counter to CC first builds, cyclones on reactor is cancer in earlygame TvT cuz it's too good vs everything ground and air both offensively and defensively, thors have their place in bio vs mech TvT, and need to fight muta and broods since vikings are too fragile vs parasitic bombs.
|
Reactor Cyclone is completely fucking broken. It's fucking absurd how ridiculous it is. Also I think Libs are broken as well.
|
Please don't buff the cyclone, TvT sucks enough as it is
|
On April 21 2018 05:50 Syn Harvest wrote: Reactor Cyclone is completely fucking broken. It's fucking absurd how ridiculous it is. Also I think Libs are broken as well. broken in what matchup? in pvt it's automatic loss if you don't scout it and play greedy, but it's not prohibitively hard to beat if you scout well. it's annoying but there are many things in the game that are like that. in zvt i can't recall ever having problems with mass cyclone unless terran already had an economic lead. tvt im not familiar with
lib pushes are also very obnoxious but they have specific technical counters and i don't think they're broken at all. they're also not very easy to control from my limited experience with playing terran
personally i would rather late game air units be phased out like raven, carriers, vipers, etc. the fact that blizzard considers mass air the logical tech conclusion of late game has always bothered me, and i think air should be oriented more toward niche harass like oracle, banshee and muta. i know some people would prefer tempest removed than carriers because carriers are more iconic, but tempest has a more logical niche role in countering brood lords, BCs, etc
|
I guess each race could have a few removed. Overall I'm also quite satisfied though. For Protoss I do like the adept the least. Other units seem fine to me. Maybe even missing some anti air from robo.
Terran. I don't know how to feel about Cyclone's always being this transition unit. Same with reapers, where you only build one or two. Liberators I am kind of used to now, but can understand that they are a bit weird.
Zerg I find most confusing with tons of units. Couldn't name one though I would get rid off the top of my head. Maybe swarm hosts, but then I also think they are sometimes quite funny.
|
On April 21 2018 07:35 DSh1 wrote: I guess each race could have a few removed. Overall I'm also quite satisfied though. For Protoss I do like the adept the least. Other units seem fine to me. Maybe even missing some anti air from robo.
Terran. I don't know how to feel about Cyclone's always being this transition unit. Same with reapers, where you only build one or two. Liberators I am kind of used to now, but can understand that they are a bit weird. Reaper: I like the style and idea of the unit. But I am not sure if it should be in multiplayer, as I find the tier 1 / tier 1.5 balance without reapers (and without adepts) a much clearer design choice.
I don't like that the widow mine and disruptor feel too much like banelings, even with all the differences.
Zerg I find most confusing with tons of units. Couldn't name one though I would get rid off the top of my head. Maybe swarm hosts, but then I also think they are sometimes quite funny. Corruptor could be removed if the viper would get an ability to allow air superiority. Brood Lords could then be morphed from Mutas.
In the current game, the infestor does not infest (just summons infested), the corruptor does not corrupt, the mutalisk no longer mutates. Protoss have two capital ships plus the mothership, I see room for consolidation. I am not sure if that could potentially lead to a better game (and don't expect hat Blizzard does any further redesigns anyway.)
|
When you start playing the better way to learn the game is use only very limited amount of units of your own race, and don't really care about the units of the other race. Care only about how much eco do they have, etc.
Its not something new with LOTV, this is the way it was back in SC1 and SC:BW, SC2:WOL. So the number of units doesn't matter here. The new players doesn't have to be introduced with each unit of the game before playing for the first time, or before reaching a good enough level of understanding economy, etc.
The large amount of units make more strategies be viable and more meta shifts, as there are more stuff that can be checked out. It also makes it more entertaining for the people who played the game for many years to have units which are new and learn how to use them, or how to counter those units, including strategies that rely partially on those units.
|
before the merger of all 3 tiers of the game the WoL ladder was a good intro for people attempting the multiplayer ladder for the 1st time. the players on the WoL ladder were not super serious; the pace was slow; the unit count was low.
|
|
|
|