StarCraft2 Q&A 17

why remove the thor? that is just stupid.

in terms of terran concept and game model.

THOR> all other terran unit.

dont ax this badass unit! just change its function. remove the artilery assault and make it a normal attacking mech. still should be a top tier unit and most powerful unit of terran with exception of the bc using yamato and plasma torpedo. ^^

 

yeah they can.
our own mod 10-neon along with several others went to Blizzcon and said so. he said that the supply depots were to slow down small units and put them in ineffective lines, while completely blocking bigger units.

 

yup..totally agree man....u explained it way better than me...lol

man...i suck -_-

 

Wow...So it looks like the Firebat is here to stay. Of course who knows in the long run. That was one of the better Q&As if you ask me.

 

yea this was pretty neat, lots of info. I sort of like the electric type attack of the cobra, but i like the electric type attack of a statis orb more, becuause electric is protoss, what with the psi storms.

 

Balance>lore/realism/cool factor

If the game isn't balanced theres little reason to play it past campaign mode.
If Blizzard sees colossus being able to walk over supply depots as imbalanced they just have to alter the depot model a bit. Put a tower or some tangling barbs on top of it. If you feel such a thing is a must. Hell, maybe a colossus pilot isn't too keen about stepping over any enemy building. Especially when you consider that the depot can drop into the ground making a destabilizing rumble. Or if it isn't imbalanced then fine. But for the sake of realism?

Is it realistic that Zerg units have to learn how to burrow again at the start of every battle?
Is it realistic that units are upgraded without having to stop back home for upgrades to be added?
Is it realistic that a crab without wings of any sort can fly?
Is it realistic that a growing cocoon can float in mid-air?
Is it realistic that an advanced human civilization doesn't make infrared goggles standard issue?
Is it realistic that a tech building allows production of new units in a base on the other side of the map?
Is it realistic that a nuke that has been canceled mid air just disappears without consequence?

We don't think about all of that with such harsh judgment when we play SC1 do we? No, because it's an immersive game due to it's well designed/balanced 3 races. We play the game for what it is. What if we had been able to nit-pick it when it was in early development.


I wonder if the cobras regular attack will slow units or if its a spell. The regular attack slowing troops seems like cobras coupled with just about any other unit would devastate any other ground force. Will the effect work against defensive structures as well?


I love how the Thor is built on the field and not in a building. That's a really nice touch to adding unique units/mechanics. If Blizzard decides replace/redo the Thor; that's the one aspect that must remain IMO.

 

First off i said lore and balance are nearly the same thing because this game isnt designed to be real.

As for the balance vs. lore argument lore is greater than balance while you are right no one will play the game past the campaign without balance no one would play the game at all without lore. Lore is the units and buildings that make startcraft what it is. Once you realize that you realize lore = units = the game.  All balance does is make the game worth playing for a long period of time.

Also before you go to far remember blizzard is making this game to make money so they are going to try and appeal to the largest auddiance possible and guess what that isnt the balance obsessed gamers. Those people will make the game great eventually but the people who are going to make blizzard money are the people buying the game because it looks awsome. So cool factor > lore/units > balance.

 

Beautiful points owerup:

I'm kind of bothered by the fact that Blizzard would truly consider that, a brand new unit with such a different play mechanic just being wiped out? It just goes to show how pressured Blizzard must feel about making this game. Firebat back in, Thor maybe out?
It is sad to see a good/popular unit go, but creating a new game is important too, I think maybe even more so.



---------
Lore is important to me, and many others, but I'm sure you've played a game with a great story, and poor gameplay, right? You feel frustrated because you want to find out what happens next, thought you don't really like what you have to do to get there. The reverse is that it is so fun to play, but you could care less why/what happens.

The reverse scenario tends to sell more games, and makes the game worth playing after you complete the story. Wouldn't you agree?

Having both, story and gameplay is a Family/Couple/GPA/Marriage breaker.

 

So Anansi_Tragoudia you would enjoy playing a game where all its units are flying blocks or geoometric there were no 3 races just 3 teams 1 makes a small number of strong blocks 1 makes a medium number of medium strength blocks and the last one makes alot of weak blocks? Becuase that is pretty much what starcraft would be if you removed the lore. So again Lore>Gameplay. Also most people dont buy a game because it is suppose to have good gameplay most people initially buy a game because either it is a sequel of a good game or it looks like it has alot of cool ideas.

Also it should again be noted game play isnt balance gameplay is how smooth the game plays. So overallm (cool factor/lore)>game play>balance.

 

Don't forget, I'm a big lore fan, (was a little less than soso as a gamer lol). But with the block example, think back to early games like Mario and Asteroids, fun is fun, thats all. I think lore makes a game more often than it actually breaks a game : )

Final Fantasy is great example of what you are describing, the game play is almost irrelevant to the story. Sequels, story, ect. (almost in the sense that it changes a lot)

Samurai Warriors & Dynasty Warriors are good examples of the reverse, a thin candy shell of story over a lump of chocolaty game play (sorry, I'm really hungry).

I think the genre of game makes the biggest difference, and of course the players taste.
Fighting games, I loved Dark Stalkers more than Marvel vs Capcom since there was such an interesting story. RPG's show a different trend.

I prefer a good story most of the time, But I believe people like us are in the minority when it comes to competitive games; In tournaments I don't think people are too interested in the story, (I'm sure some are). Many people are looking for a competitive game for new tournaments, that is why I think Blizzard is so worried about balance; the game will need to function well in order for it to persist in that fashion.

Lore will keep it memorable, and preserve its legacy and prestige.

 

@Anansi_Tragoudia I think i see where your coming from now but my point was directed more at the people who say balance is greater than everything because it flat out isnt true at most its just one of 3 equal factors that make up whether or not a game is good. My personal view wheights the cool factors/lore more heavily because they are what the majority of the poeple who buy the game are looking for. They are not the 1% people who are trying to become famous for playing a video game. They are the other group who buys the game because it looks cool and fun. (fun does not always mean balanced)

This isnt actually the first i have debated this topic so here is a quote from NateSMZ which i think sums up my ideas (and of course his) on this topic very nicely.

 

The slow unit ability given to the cobra is much more useful for the Terran than it was for Protoss on the hated stasis orb.  The Terran consisting of mostly ranged units, have awesome firepower but are mostly very fragile once engaged at close range.  Being able to slow enemy units to take even better advantage of Terran's firepower not only is just useful period, but also make much better sense overall while also providing a solution for the cobra situation for now.

Thor needs to either take on some big changes or be scrapped completely, that's a good decision on the dev team's part.  The thor has never been a good Terran unit to begin with, something needed to be done.

Lore vs Balance(gameplay), hmmm.  As always, I'm for gameplay over lore.  As important as lore is, it will always come second to gameplay, even if part of the lore is conceived earlier than gameplay mechanics.  Lore is often altered to fit specific gameplay designs, to provide the "explanation," but gameplay is rarely altered to fit lore.

Take the cobra for example, do you think someone at Blizzard came up with the idea that electric attacks might be cooler than rail guns lore wise, and they just thought afterwards that maybe it could also slow units?  I think not.  It is most likely that they just threw in the lore to go along with the balance change.  It didn't have to be an electric attack, it could be something else, but it would've still been something that is ultimately chosen as gravy on top of the slow unit mechanic.

The Super Mario games being some of my favorite games of all time, is all about gameplay and little lore.  No one plays Mario for the story, because it sucks.  And a lot of the "lore"(if you even want to call it that) behind gameplay mechanics don't even make much sense, they are "just because."

Why does Mario change into a stone statue, and why does that make him invulnerable?  It just does.  Why does wiggling a raccoon tail make you fly?  It just does.  Just about everything in Mario is absurd on closer inspection, but they're all there to provide you with awesome gameplay.

Sure, it could've all been blocks, but making them cartoony characters on screen improves the overall package.  That is more about art and visual design than it is about lore, it's a move to make a particular game more presentable.  Tetris is the same, pong is another.  What lore?  It is just simple geometric shapes on screen that you manipulate for fun.  The hundreds of Tetris clones/sequels/upgrades out there offer little if any lore, most don't even change the fundamental gameplay revolving around rotating and positioning blocks.  But the ones that came out later are still a more enjoyable experiences because of the improved interface and visuals, some even offer slight twists to the same gameplay to spice things up.

Gameplay is king and always will be, that's why they are GAMES.  Good lore can add to the value and fun of a game, but gameplay will ultimately be the most important thing when it comes to game design.  As far as games go, you can have great games that is all gameplay and crap for lore, but it's very hard to go all lore and crappy gameplay.  Mods based on other games are the perfect example of this.

With all that said, I personally don't see a huge problem with letting the colossus step over smaller buildings.  Although I personally think it's unlikely, if it does prove to be an imbalance, they can always to back and tweak the unit stats later anyway.  Adjust resource cost or other stats, no big deal. However, if they decided to make the colossus unable to step over any buildings, that's completely fine too.

 

LordKerwyn & NateSMZ
I like they way you wrote about the purchase and longevity. I definitely agree there. Wow 'em then hook 'em : )
---
I think the colossus is a interesting idea, with many simple solutions. It is funny to think that it could just walk up the cliff next to Supply Depot lol. I'm sure resolving it will be no problem.

Thor, I'm worried. For those who say it would be fine to scrap, wouldn't you want to see new units so that new game play tactics could be created?

Same: 2 kinds of siege units with very different properties/stats
Different: Powerful mech that does??? (any ideas?)

 

I think the Thor was born from the realization that Siege Tanks are awsome. Awsome to the point that they were almost onedimensional. Against Terran it was no question IF but WHEN he would build Siege Tanks, at least most of the time.
Thors would be to the Siege Tanks what Siege Engines are to Mortar Teams (WC3 Human faction Siege options).
Actuall implentation of course is a different issue - being optional is short of being useless, in SC Nukes are optional.

 

Could you explain that more: Siege Engines & Mortar Teams.

I didn't play WC3, (didn't like it too much) so I am completely at a loss.

(How I loved WC2 until SC1 danced on it's grave hehe, no offense to anyone who liked WC3)

 

No ! I don't want Blizzard to cut, to delete the Thor. I love this unit so much !