I don't like how sc2 is right now

Erm... why? They use totally different technologies. The immortal shoots phase disruptor um... spheres or whatever which does not have an arc during its flight as seen in SC because it's not even a regular material with weight or anything, while the tank projectile is a) a more primitive attack compared to the Protoss and b) does much more damage, so I guess the projectile is heavier and needs an arc for flight.
Immortals should attack air, period.

 

it was just a way to demonstrate that just the way a unit "looks" doesnt mean how the unit should act.and your theory about being a superior technology projectile isnt also a correct argument about why it should attack air,and neither is your last paragraph: "Immortals should attack air, period."

 

"it was just a way to demonstrate that just the way a unit "looks" doesnt mean how the unit should act" Like walking marines should fly or what? How the model and animation doesn't determine how the unit should work is beyond me.
"your theory about being a superior technology projectile isnt also a correct argument about why it should attack air" Please reread my post, I wasn't saying it's the reason Immortals should attack air, I said the superior technology rules out the possibility that the Immortal aims upwards for the same reason as the Siege Tank.
I love the concept of the Immortal and would like to see one of my favourite units be able to attack air, hence the last paragraph

 

no,thats is a dumb example,sorry. i mean its like saying that stalkers look like spiders,so they should climb cliffs with their legs, reapers have jet packs so they should be able to fly and attack battlecruisers, and a long etc.maybe these are not the best examples (cant think of better right now) but at least they make a little sense(not much,as i want to prove). marines flying is something that hasnt got sense and wasnt at all what i tryed to explain.

also,if you look at this screenshot at the immortal top left of the screen,you will see its not pointing at the sky,he is pointing at the tank.

http://images.google.es/imgres?imgu...es?q=immortals+starcraft&gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=es

so its not like they are always pointing air,they dont look like turrets,do they? also notice the amount of hitpoints that they have: 240 + 100 shield. thats a lot of hitpoints for a unit already with a good attack and hard to counter with heavy ground.as light ground is not very viable because of the weakness of its units,the only "usually usefull" counter is air.do you also want that already pretty good unit to be able to attack air,not allowing it to be countered by air? then you would have a unit that would be able to beat everything when massed except maybe marines and cobras,that are so weak(in hp terms) that will die to anything able to deal with them.

i know that you like it,but its not really a reason of why a unit should be this/that way,i prefer the game is balanced than vikings having yamato and camouflage (vikings are my favourite unit).

sorry if sometimes i seem rude but its hard to me to explain myself in english,as i havent practiced it for years.

 

@ kuvasz: And what exactly are phase disruptors? It is just a made up fancy pants word. If you want to bring realism into all this, consider that air units in StarCraft are actually miles high in the air, they can all fly into outer space after all. Phase disruptors might simply not be capable of reaching targets at that range, you can make up anything since it's a made up thing to begin with.

But on the other hand, even marines that shoot they hand-held rifles and hydras that shoot needle spines can hit these air unit that are such a great distance away. Realism doesn't matter on how a unit should function in a game. Realism should never dictate game design, so no, immortals should not attack air, period.

Tanks shoot plasma btw.

 

I think those are the old stats for the Immortal, the new ones can be found here. And as a matter of fact I would like to make the Immortal versatile, even against air. Don't call the huge ship Mothership if it's not something uniqely strong that the word mother implies. Don't call it Immortal if it's not something tough that could imply it's really 'immortal'. I'm saying the units should resemble their names. It's fine with me if they want to weaken it for the sake of balance, but then don't call it the 'mega-killer'.
"also,if you look at this screenshot at the immortal top left of the screen,you will see its not pointing at the sky,he is pointing at the tank." I don't understand what you mean by this. I never said it always pointed upwards. The animation at the official site shows it pointing straight ahead and then upwards. If it could only attack ground then what's the point in making it 'aim' straight ahead and then upward?

Remy: Phase disruptors are what Dragoons used in SC, which were bluish spheres flying straight without an arc, so I assumed (since the Immortal looks similar to the Dragoon and uses a very similar technology to attack) that the Immortal doesn't need to account for the arc of the projectile, whatever it is.

 

the info about the health may be incorrect,as i took it from that photo.
anyways,if an immortal is something very "hard" for you,then,do you think that 175 vespene and 75 gas is an adequate price for a "something tough that could imply it's really 'immortal'."? i also want to have "immortal" tanks for the price of 175 and 50 able to also attack air,resist nicely against heavy projectiles,have 240 health and still pack a good punch.(sarcasm)

 

I never said the costs should stay ???
Compared to the Dragoon's cost/effectiveness ratio, I'd say either have the Immortal ground only for this cost or make it anti-air and increase the cost to something like 200/75 (I'd prefer this).
But the strongest reason to make the Immortal anti-air is still because of its animation. The Goliath didn't have these kinds of barrels so it couldn't attack air with them.The Immortal can aim with those things.

 

ok,so i get the problem here finally.the problem is the animation.just change it.i mean,as i stated before,having immortals able to attack air is just immbalanced,as the immortals are in my eyes something similar for the protoss as the tanks are for the terrans:
heavy units with good attack,able to avoid a lot of firepower (tanks because of range and immortals because of shield). i want you to understand that immortals being able to attack air makes them extremely hard to kill and so would need a complete redesign,and you would end up with a different unit able to attack air but being more fragile and having less attack.(does this description sound familiar to anyone? the stalker... )

 

I agree with your 'Protoss Tank' concept and I'm aware of the overlapping roles anti-air Immortals would create with the Stalker but it just seems ridiculous to have Stalkers which don't even have 'arms' to aim upward attack air but not the Immortal which in fact can aim upwards. Without wanting to bring a ludicrous example, it's like saying the Marine can't attack air but the Viking in mech form can.

 

the biggest problem that i see is not the overlapping between both units, the biggest is the creation of a super unit that is also very versatile, leading to armies made just of one unit or 2 units. as the stalkers dont have such a high attack it will be fine as they wont control ground nor control air but will be versatile at helping at both levels,same as the viking.

i agree with you that it is ridiculous that some units that perform similar as others cant do what they do (viking in mech form also have a machinegun like the marines but cant attack air), but i really feel that the balance in gameplay is more important than appearance,and in consideration i dont really care a lot about the appearance or behaviour. some people like you also give some importance to those details,and its ok, but also take in consideration that the effect that immortals attacking air could have in the gameplay is really really big and could be a point of imbalance.

anyway,nice and long discussion here,gonna take a break

 

This is the official explanation of dragoon's attack on battle.net:
"Dragoons provide essential supporting fire for the Zealot legions by launching bolts of anti-particles sheathed in a psychically charged field."

Now I don't know if that's what phase disruptors are, but it really just doesn't matter. Gameplay and balance take the front seat over logic and realism any day. If you argued with that kind of logic, you can pick apart the entire game of StarCraft.

Why can't scourges dive into ground units? Why do needle spines and missiles do more damage to larger targets? Why can archons reach targets in the air with only an attack range of 2(same as firebat)? Why can't devourers attack ground when mutas can attack both ground and air? How can a marine take down a carrier in outer space with just a rifle? How can unit survive so many hits of direct fire? You can go on and on, but it's just silly. There are how they are to provide balanced and coherent gameplay, that's it.

The name thing is even more silly. Devourers don't devour anything. Corsair isn't a pirate ship. Reaver doesn't retrieve or harvest anything. The vulture isn't a bird or air unit. Valkyrie has nothing to do with the meaning of the word. But immortal doesn't necessary mean invincible anyway. If I understand correctly, fallen zealots are made into dragoons(extended life), and dragoons are now converted into immortals(extended life again). In that sense the immortals are indeed immortal, they have survived beyond their natural longevity.

Lastly, being able to point weapons up has nothing to do with whether a unit should be able to attack air. Reapers and colossi should be able to attack air also then. But no, the only things that really matter in game design is gameplay and balance. And if you think it doesn't make sense for stalkers to have an air attack, we should go back to SC1 and dig dragoons out of StarCraft history.

 

So i understand now, it helps a lot to me about the Dragoons, thanks for the info Sir Remy.

 

I haven't really done anything to deserve thanks, but you are always welcome Protosscommander.

 

Starcraft all about gameplay and balance you say? Well it might be for the über players but you know what? For me, as an average (or maybe even below that) player, the unit names do matter. And the portraits. And the sounds, and everything. It gives a different feeling to a unit. If it was all about gameplay and balance then Blizzard wouldn't work on the small visual details or the physics of destroyed parts of units, etc. So Blizzard's aim isn't just to create the sequel to be as balanced as possible and make it the next sport of pro gaming in Korea. Blizzard also aims to win the hearts of casual players like me.

 

Even the hardcore fan base that cares a lot about balance play the same game as the rest with all the visual effects, bells and whistiles. Otherwise, the hardcore folks would just be playing it pencil-and-paper RPG style, or with just a bunch of wireframes on screen.

It's not wrong to want a game to look better and feel smoother, where everything feels like they belong. But the reasons you've come up with are obscure nitpicking at best. Even for people who care about real world logic and realism, it doesn't make too much sense.

Gameplay is first and foremost for a game to succeed. There has been countless eye-candy games that didn't have good sales because the gameplay sucked, or isn't as polished as can be. Blizzard might care about appealing to all the different types of fans out there, but sales in the long run is still more important. If looks were more important, all of these people wouldn't all be here on internet forums talking about a game's sequel after 10 years.

 

I just think hardcore players don't need unit names that sound cool or good sounds or an absorbing storyline because they don't have time to appreciate them, but this is my opinion on it based on a youtube video where a Korean pro gamer shows Terran gameplay. It is insane how the camera is constantly jumping, I could hardly identify units and buildings. Now I'm certain that he will never see parts rolling off a ramp.

I find it strange to implement such physics (which do look realistic) but have units move in ways they can't make use of in-game, that's all.

 

I think every hardcore SC fan start out drooling over all the minute details in the beginning. I doubt even a single SC player jumped straight onto rigorous training for competition right from the start.

I think you have all the rights in the world for wanting the game to look a certain way or wanting a units to have a certain name. I don't even really like the immortal name myself, TBH. But the immortal having an air attack directly impacts gameplay balance, that's why I had to disagree on that one.

I hope you didn't feel like I was attacking you. I apologize if you felt that I was aggressive. I just get too into it and too serious when I get into discussions, particularly ones that have to do with strategy or balance.

 

It is natural to have different feelings toward different features of the game I might have too realistic expectations for a sci-fi game but I'm sure they'll all be blown away with whatever Blizzard throws at us.

Crash and burn, Remy! ;D

 

UNCLE REMY! TELL US ANOTHER STORY!!!!!!!

Lol. Remy's right in this case. I'd rather just have a decent name for a unit that allows me to set it apart in discussion and then allow it to have fair, balanced, and fun abilities.

And this very logic comes from the same source of logic that allows people to say that the Mothership being a super unit and one-per-player is imbalanced. Units aren't necessarily without weakness just because they are ultra-powerful in one way.

You can't have an air-only unit that is so good against air--like the Devourer, Corsair, or Valkyrie--suddenly turn its guns on the ground. The unit is perfectly balanced in that it is the ruler of the skies. Counter? GTA attack units. Perfect. Just because the name specifies a certain type of unit doesn't mean that is what it needs to be.

Also, to solve this whole logic problem for those of you who seem to be stuck in it, capital ships are supposed to have come down to the surface battle and are now in planetary space. Therefore shootable.

But seriously, it's the same with the Mothership. Just because it's name implies that it is a Mothership doesn't mean that it HAS to be a one-time unit, although it should be.

Our logic rather lies in that we don't want it overlapping the Carrier which it will inevitably do. The general consensus among us, including Remy, has been in support of this (relative) fact. The Mothership will be overwhelmingly weak against air attacks. That in itself is enough to counter the unit.

I got off topic, but w/e.