Poll : Mothership

umm...I would hold my tongue before making such a bold statement. Being one of the few players who tested the game at Blizzcon I would have to say that the MS is really not the "domination" unit you are making it out to be. Is it powerful? Yes. But it really is a not match for a group of stalkers or anti-air forces (unless they are organic..marines..ghosts...ect.) in the game. What it comes down too is the MS is not that effective without backup. (Obviously depending on the situation).

I would still like to test the MS a little more to see if I can find a strategy that gives it a purpose, because as of right now...I see none.

 

Total Pwnage in a jar Kicks Azz

 

you know what drew... you're right i have posted a bold statement and after i saw that HD video of a guy beating up the Terran really did change my mind...

 

I think the the MS should go back to being a super unit and not just a powerful flag ship it should be their capitol ship. give it good abilitys and make it the head of the deadly spear the protos can be. it will be no fun if your a terran player and you take out a mother ship and then another floats into its place

 

Just make everyone happy and make this unit a one-at-a-timer insane unit, but make it slow as hell and need protection of other units. Sounds good to me. If you take it out all the "protection" units are now vulnerable.

 

Ok, Remy, I figured what I'm doing wrong. I shouldn't use sarcasm in my comments. Some ppl have serious trouble figuring what am I saying when I use that.

Getting things straight: I never said that Arbiters overlaps Carriers in SC1. That was an argument. If Arbiters didn't overlap Carriers in SC1, neither should a replacement of Arbiter's role overlap Carriers in SC2. And then I compared: "If it (the relationship) was ok in SC1, it will be ok in SC2 as well".

But I promise I'll refrain from using such sarcastic comparisons and say everything straight from now on. I bet if I did it ever since the beginning, we wouldn't have had so much misunderstanding. I remember someone who even thought I was going against both stronger MS and weaker MS. That's why you must have confused and thought I was contradicting myself.

Never thought sarcasm would cause me so much trouble. But anyway, I'll try harder (to be straight in what I say) now.

 

No offense Eye_Carumba, but I don't think you are even reading my posts. From the looks of it, you don't really even want to either. You keep side stepping everything that I pointed our clearly and then you start assuming I don't understand your point. I don't even know why you bring out the sarcasm point of view because seriously, I don't know what is the point of going on if you don't even read my posts. There is no point of having an argument if you don't read my point of view and begin to side step the things that I was talking about.

 

3 unit cap sounded okay... an entire mass of army of those "Motherships" sound awkward... im not sure if i would like that concept or not regardless of the nerf/buff on them. Although at first i loved the "Blackhole" ability it seemed so cool!! but i guess its not REALLY "Starcraft-ish" ..... perhaps give it most of the old Arbiter's abilities with the few new ones? If that happens we could keep the current nerfed version (weak against air) while since we gave it a host of various abilites, it would be capped to 3 Max... I mean that concept would make it an ideal, and very very versatile "spellcaster" or w/e u wanna call it - rather than that super unit we saw previously. But sitll it has sturdy hp, and uber pwnz ground units/buildings.

 

As of right now, the mothership looks like nothing more than a Guardian that has short range with more HP. Why bother redoing another unit? It looks even weaker than the carrier. There's no point in that. I don't know what the cost of building the MS is, but it looks like it is at least the same cost as the carrier if not more. If that's the case, why bother getting motherships at all? People will just go for carriers. As people on here have pointed out, as few air will kill the mothership. If the mothership stays like this, I don't think it will get much use, although I'm not exactly sure how good it is against ground. But from what I've seen the rang looks very short and might even be counterable by ground forces.

Either scrap it or return it to its former glory. A so call mothership with weapons against air is just useless.

 

Oops, sry Ych9! I forgot to reply your post. I was worried about straightening what I had tried to say, and forgot my promise to read yours some other time.

What you're saying about the Zealots is perfect. I agree and expect the MS to remain exactly as balanced as the Zealots are in relation to other infantry units. If that is what you call a super-unit, then I'm with you all the way. What I disagree, among what people here are saying, is that MS should be an only unit per player. And that I disagree very much.

Zealots can be balanced out, and Motherships can be balanced out also. But not if they were made a 1 per-player unit. That's what I believe, and was trying to explain why I do believe so.

The reason I said I would read your post some other time is exactly because, from the beginning of the post, I knew I would certainly agree with what you were going to say. I know what you mean and I agree with you in that. The disagreement going on is entirely about whether should MS remain a reproducible unit, or be made a 1-per-player. And I think 1-per-player cannot be balanced with the rest of the units, for all the reasons I was trying to explain.

 

I don't think we're suggesting that player ACTUALLY be limited to having only one a time, but that the food required to create it would be too great to have more than one in an effective way. You could potentially make this unit a 20 -30 food requirement to balance out its power.

Your argument that it will be too powerful, etc. really has no basis. There are plenty of ways to balance this unit without giving in to the false logic that we need to have the same types of units that were in SC1.

You argument effectively limits SC2 to go no further than SC1 in terms of game development. If you have no room for a new system of gameplay, then we're going to end up with the same game and different unit features and names. I will be bored in under 6 months.

If we offer constructive criticism on Blizzard's development instead of simply claiming that a unit is entirely wrong in its design and creating this public uproar that influences Blizzard beyond suggestions. What everyone needs to realize is that Starcraft II is a completely different game from StarCraft. Do not limit your vision of what Starcraft II could be by the old standards set in place in 1998.

EDIT: This means new units, new abilities, new gameplay structures, new strategies, new weakness, new strength, and most of all new meaning. Think of how far humanity has come in terms of technology in the past 10 years. Then imagine what three advanced races like the Zerg, Terran, and Protoss could do in the same amount of time. I could hardly imagine they would leave much of anything of their original fighting equipment in place. They might use the same basic principles, but their entire strategy would probably have changed in order to attempt to outperform their opponents.

Each race would have come up with an advancement in an attempt to better an older unit of the other races, which would probably explain why some units will have completely disappeared in SC2. Any of the new units could have totally dominated some of the older technologies and therefore made them obselete and cause their race to abandon that unit because it was no longer effective in the face of this or that unit.

If you propose that after years of fighting with the other two races that the Protoss would not have played to their strength and come up with a unit that was massive in its capability as well as size and effect on the map, you have misunderstood the supposed technological capability of the Protoss. This unit (in its originally released form) fits the Protoss ethos in every way. It's large, strong, and frightening. The MS would be good for Starcraft II and should be left as it was originally intended, with the obvious revisements needed in any new game.

Look how far humanity has advanced in relation to technology in the last 10 years. Imagine what three advanced races like the Zerg, Protoss, and Terran could do in that same time. Their fighting equipment would hardly remain the same. They would try to outcompete each other in technological advancements. If each of them (

 

Eye_Carumba, I agree that balancing the Mothership as a Super-Unit with the 1 unit restrictment policy is going to be very difficult. But that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Infact, I think the only company that can balance this right is Blizzard.

Since SC2 has no set release date, it basically means that Blizzard has all the time they have to polish SC2 until they feel that it is an A+ game before it goes to the public. That means that there is still plenty of time for Blizzard to polish the MotherShip concept and find a balance for it if it remains a Super-Unit. So I think whatever direction Blizzard is going, we should trust them. In the end, if Blizzard still decides to make the Mothership a normal unit, I will still give full support to them. But I just rather see Blizzard implement the Mothership unit as a Super-unit concept because not only would it change the game entirely, but it really fits the theme of the Protoss.

 

I agree with Ych9, this the basis of the argument that Remy has put forward that I have supported (scary, I know).

I would like the MS to be a super-unit. Not a hero, mind you, that can continue to get more powerful, but a super-unit nonetheless.

"BEHOLD THE POWER OF THE PROTOSS BEHEMOTH!"

*Zerg swarm annihilates it anyway*

 

ok, that's not actually what I said. What I said was: a 1-per-player unit, would require to be too powerful to compensate that (to be 1-per-player), and thus would loose it's balancing with other races. If you balance it with other races, a 1-per-player would unbalance the Protoss.

There's a strategy thing in ecology, that the only game so far to implement succesfully to this date was Starcraft: it's the 'emerging properties'. Whenever 2 diferent species associate their current properties, and a third property arrives, one that was non-existing before their work together, that's an 'emerging property'. In easier words, it's when the sum of 1 + 1 = 3.

By adding different units in a group, units that work together strategy-wise, they're not anymore the sum of both, but a new group that works differently, and better, than just simply the whole bunch of any units in the same place. I can give you very nice examples of this, but would make my post really huge, so I'll save that for later. Balance must take these also in account, even more than just "numbers" the units have.

I'm not saying we must have same types of units that in SC1, even because, we don't have them already. Colossus is not the new Reaver, or Warp Ray. And even though the storyline claims that the Immortal is the new Dragoon, they're quite different to have the same role.

Not really. "My vision"? I never said that! You are the one inferring that, because I'm against 1-per-player
units, I'm against novelty. This logic that you credit to me is only your imagination. It's a baseless assumption of what going on in my mind, and it's wrong. The only thing I'm against is MS as 'super-unit' (read: 1-per-player unit), and you cannot broader the meaning of what I said on your own, when nothing I said was in that sense. This entire part of your post, and mines', were just wasted because of a careless assumption.

Yeah, I think this is the spirit: make new units that overcome the older ones, and create new roles. What I do disagree is that no unit should be made 1-per-player, and period. That's not such a big novelty strategy-wise anyway, it's just a major restriction, based on a major importance that a unit would have. And speaking in regard to Ych9's post as well, I know Blizzard's competence, and if somehow they find a way to do it, one that I can't think of right now, gratz to them. I just don't believe it can be even done, because of the mechanics I've so much repeated over and over.

Think of balancing like a small blanket: if you pull out on one side, the other will be uncovered. And a 'super-unit' would be a hack of a pull!

 

Eye, i understand most of what you're saying, but i just dont get how having multiple Motherships is more balanced than just one?  Thats pretty much saying:

"This unit is imbalanced, even though they can only make one of them. Hey, lets let them get more than one of these because having multiple super units is more balanced than just one!"

that just doesnt make any sense to me.

 

Because upon making a group containing a MS, it would have to be your "main group". If it's reproducible, you can make 2 waves of attacks, and/or have one in standby for defensive purposes in a nearby area, so your base will still have a defense, in case the enemy, upon her destruction, has a 2nd wave made of the exact thing she counters.

And/or to enable the player to still have that kind of unit just in case, even if one is destroyed. If it doesn't overlap with any other unit, it's better to always have one of her kind. If she can counter something, the enemy could use a squad to counter her, and then launch exactly the unit she counters, leaving your guard open. If the enemy can make 2 waves, so should you.

Hope I made some sense. Don't know if I wrote that so clearly. ???

 

i do understan what you say eye_Carumba, but how can you say with such ease, i quote

" What I said was: a 1-per-player unit, would require to be too powerful to compensate that (to be 1-per-player), and thus would loose it's balancing with other races. If you balance it with other races, a 1-per-player would unbalance the Protoss."

man, you havent even played the game!, you either havent seen the zerg!, or even used the mothership tin any way, you are trying to be logical, but it´s impossible if we dont know anything about zerg, or the game for real, jus relax and let blizzard do the magic, and hell yeah! bring back our super mothership! and for god´s sake axe that damn star orb! and bring some real protoss unit

 

Edited out quotes. Please read the forum rules and refrain from quoting unnecessarily.

Yeah, same goes for everyone else then, cuz' besides from that guy drewCBarnard, I didn't c anybody saying they actually played the game, or used any argument related to that. I do want Blizzard to do it's magic, and to make a great game. But I really don't like the idea of a 1-per-player unit whatsoever, for all the reasons I mentioned b4.

You can say you preferred the old one, but I reply to you your own post: noone ever played the old MS besides the Blizzard internal staff. How can you say it's better, or more Protoss? You don't know how it works whithin the game either, and neither can you define the new one as less Protoss than the old one.

It's really amusing how you criticize me and just afterwards do exactly the same. Are only good the posts that agree with you? lol

 

It is easy to say whether or not a unit is more or less protssish (protoss like) without actualy playing the game because it has nothing to do with ingame statistics and more to do with the theme of the unit. Right now the theme of the Mothership is a massive (and yet relatively weak) unit that has only anti ground abilities and you can as many of it as you want. First any unit called a "Mothership" should be big and powerful and be able to do alot of things while having a couple of weaknesses. Second the Prostoss are (as a race) all about a small number of really poweful units.

A unit that is suppose to be one of the greatest creations of the Protoss should take this logic to an extreme and when you do that you come up with a really powerful unit that you can only have 1-2 of. That is what the Mothership frtom the first gameplay trailor was. The Mothership shown at blizzcon at blizzcon could be massed and had enormous gaping weakness that alot of units could exploit. (That being it had no ATA abilities) A unit like that is more remescent of the Zerg Guardian rather than any protoss unit. Making the Mothership more like a zerg unit instead of a great creation of the Protoss.

As for actual in game mechanics your right we know very little about this unit should play. But in game mehcanics is not a reason to follow the theme of a unit. I wouldd much rather have a new unit whose theme meshed well with in game mechanics over a unit whose themed has been butchered by in game mechanics.

Also as alot of people have said Blizzard has alot of time to work on this game and they are some of the btter balancers out there if anyone can balance the Mothership as a super unit they can. And im sure i speak for alot of people when i say i really hope they do.

 

Ok, so I'll use once again the Arbiter as a comparison: Arbiter is a very much Protossich unit. If we take an arbiter, make it take more control, and give it a bigger HP/shield, it's became more of what you say to be protoss than what he was. Yet, he was indeed a Protoss unit. So he is more of it now.

So take this new arbiter, change it's name and looks to a much better, called Mothership. It shouldn't make it a less protoss unit to change it's name and looks to a better one. So there you have the new Mothership, which isn't the first example that was shown to us. And unless you say Arbiter wasn't very much a protoss unit, you cannot call the new version of Mothership a less protoss.

If your problem is that it was shown as one thing and then changed to another: well, it was in fact warned that nothing we would see on the first demo was final. But don't get me wrong: you're free to have your taste and preferences. Just don't criticize me for having mine, like Sagathox just did. And remember also that all our opinions matter the same.