On May 14 2015 14:16 weikor wrote: Youre so wrong, i dont even know where to begin - so ill just sum it up. Starcraft has a LOT of strategy, and while the same strategy - executed by two players - might look the same, the strategy can be in the detail. What time do you get X, when do you expand, move out. Aside from that, we do see a lot of different strategies, its far from the same one every game.
Broodwar faced some of the same issues as starcraft 2. Nostalgia might have you believe it was such a perfect game - but going bio vs protoss was, for the most part - as bad as going mech in Sc2.
If that's what makes a game strategic, then Mario 3 is the greatest strategy game of all time. You've gotta time when to jump over those pipe plants, cannonballs, lava bursts, etc. Execute a jump poorly and you fall off the map. Every game has elements of execution and timing and it's not special. What makes strategy games different from every other game is that you build and control an army, and make resource investments, and that your choices in these areas will be a huge if not deciding factor in the game. I can't believe I need to explain all this. Anyway my complaint is that Starcraft 2 presents a series of false choices in the majority of matchups and the only skill is doing everything faster and more optimally than other players. If I wanted that I'd go play Mario Kart, it does a much better job at that kind of gameplay.
As for Brood War. It's not "nostalgia" because I still play the game.
Do you even play sc2? Do the same things against me every game and I'll beat you every time after the first. There is no optimal way to play each match up.
On May 15 2015 02:11 knOxStarcraft wrote: Do you even play sc2? Do the same things against me every game and I'll beat you every time after the first. There is no optimal way to play each match up.
SC2 is played in a Bo1 format on the ladder, and I am not a GSL contestant. So I don't see how that's relevant.
On May 14 2015 14:16 weikor wrote: Youre so wrong, i dont even know where to begin - so ill just sum it up. Starcraft has a LOT of strategy, and while the same strategy - executed by two players - might look the same, the strategy can be in the detail. What time do you get X, when do you expand, move out. Aside from that, we do see a lot of different strategies, its far from the same one every game.
Broodwar faced some of the same issues as starcraft 2. Nostalgia might have you believe it was such a perfect game - but going bio vs protoss was, for the most part - as bad as going mech in Sc2.
If that's what makes a game strategic, then Mario 3 is the greatest strategy game of all time. You've gotta time when to jump over those pipe plants, cannonballs, lava bursts, etc. Execute a jump poorly and you fall off the map. Every game has elements of execution and timing and it's not special. What makes strategy games different from every other game is that you build and control an army, and make resource investments, and that your choices in these areas will be a huge if not deciding factor in the game. I can't believe I need to explain all this. Anyway my complaint is that Starcraft 2 presents a series of false choices in the majority of matchups and the only skill is doing everything faster and more optimally than other players. If I wanted that I'd go play Mario Kart, it does a much better job at that kind of gameplay.
As for Brood War. It's not "nostalgia" because I still play the game.
Do you even play sc2? Do the same things against me every game and I'll beat you every time after the first. There is no optimal way to play each match up.
The definition of standard play is that you are capable of being able to play vs anything with it. Reaper expand is the most common, if you Reaper FE-> 3 rax in TvP, you should be able to hold any all ins and also not be too behind against greedy players.
In Starcraft 2 you can play the same build every game and still win,, no variance needed.
I don't understand why they do update previews since the updates go through every time without any tweak. Everyone is yelling at them that 50 energy recall is a terrible idea, and we get it.
On May 14 2015 04:39 BaronVonOwn wrote: [quote] That was before David Kim (Satan) cursed the land with widow mines.
Well we wanted a spider mine like ability to protet our flanks better for Mech.But no Sa.. uh David Kim refused to change the Thor and deided to make the Mine able to shoot air and make it also pretty random and take way too much supply. (to be fair they also changed the mine so it doesnt get killed before it deals damage right?) Thats why I really like the Concept of the new Terran Unit so stuff like this does not happen anymore and the thor gets finally a change(sorry don´t know how to make timestamps :
At about 1:38:00 - 1:39:00 6(!) Thors get destroyed by 20-30 Mutas with minimal losses. Something is wrong there.
There is about 30+ mutas vs 6 thors, with best micro. When 3 000/3 000 with micro kills 1 800/1200 without micro at all, the only problem is your terran bias.
Best Micro = Making a beeline for Units they should not engage then press "hold position" to negate splash. Yeah best Micro ever -_- . Doesn´t change the fact that the Thor sucks at his role.
I mean the best micro you can do in this position, opposed with staking them which would allow these 6 thors to kill the 30+mutas.
Thor don't sucks at all, just Terran like you wants to just make 1 thor and kills every mutas in the world, Just make a fight with the same amont of mineral/gaz : thor vs mutas, you will see if thors don't counters mutas...
Yes it does. A Unit that is supposed to counter Mass light air Units and doesn´t fulfil this role sucks. But its nice that you judge me just by looking at my post. Having 90 supply of Units like the guy above suggested to counter just 20-30 Mutas is just crazy. You cant be asking to catch a 4 movement speed unit with 1.88 speed. Also the Thor is a terrible Unit to mass cause of the High supply. Yes you can sac SCVs but theres also the problem with long build time. A Thor takes 60 secs to build. If I want to have 10-15 like suggested thats like 10-15 minutes wasted just to mass one Unit. In that time the Zerg can Tech switch several times or maybe even overrun me before.You could also ask me to build BCs instead that would be almost the same.
Think about it. And if you are finished with it think about it again. Theres a problem with this Unit and Blizz knows about it. Theres a reason they want to bring a new Anti-Air Unit with splash. And if it turns out to be better at its job they need to change the Thor too.
Just try 10 thors vs 30 mutas, 60 supply vs 60, 3000/2000 vs 3000/3000. With like 5 factory with tech lab, you can make 10 thors in 2 minutes (and it's not some real minute but 2 x43s), not mention you can help them with raven/tourett/vcs repair/vikings/WM and so need less thor. Hilarous you complain about supply effectivity when you have mules...
The point is that Terran doesn't play like zerg when it comes to expensive units. It's easy to say 10 thors vs 30 Mutas but that's a huge investment of time and resources. You have to build factories with tech labs as well as a supporting army and during all that deal with an enemy. This isn't a game where you just MAKE units and that's that.
So okay cool we make 10 Thors and they wipe out 30 or 60 Muta, then what? You build a swarm of lings with your massive bank of minerals and just start flooding them into the Terran army, or base. Or maybe you've been banking for ultra. Whichever suits you, and it's fine, your race is meant to play that way.
It's not that the Thor sucks at its job en más, because sure a lot of units are great in numbers. It's that the Thor has been type cast since WoL to do a job they never really were meant to do. That's why they wanted to get rid of them for warhounds during the beta for hots: give Terran a cheaper more effective mobile anti air like the Goliath was. They are supposed to be a siege breaker, tip of the spear type unit but they only fulfill that role in tvt because they are slow, don't deal with inexpensive units well (they have no ground aoe like the other ground massive units) and their anti air is easily countered and hard to support with the rest of a Terran army.
The problem at the end of the day is they don't know what they want from mech. It's too powerful so it needs to have serious weakness and drawback, but they have also built in units and mechanics that hard counter mech so much as to make it not as reliable and viable as bio. They also keep trying to make it so biomech is the better choice, but much is too slow and wonky for people to really want to use. That's why tanks disappeared when mines appeared. The tank is a much better unit but the speed and effort it takes to properly use them and the amount of hard counters make them a huge hassle and ineffective when compared to the cheap and gimmicky mine. Sure you're rolling a dick whenever you use a mine but it allows you to stay mobile and offensive and it is anti air. Just know that Terran hate mines too, they just use them because there's nothing better or as effective.
Lol, and you imagine 30 mutas is free ? Zerg plants spire, and 30 mutas appears ? Then you can make millions lings (of zerg have infinite free larvas too, after paying 30 larvas you have again 50larvas for 100zerglings), and then free tech mass ultra (cause mutas are so free, you have again 2000/3000 for 10 ultras after/uprgrade infestpit/hive/ultraden/amorupgrade)...
If it's happened it's you totally outmacroed,and you deserve to lose.
But maybe your point is just : T must never lose, even outmacroed, less army value, less economy, if not it's design issue and T need more heavy cheap hard counter that can kill thousands of Zerg units...
Can you stop derailing good discussions and intelligent posts with your vindictive racial warfare mindset? This is the LotV beta forum, the goal is to build a better game, not to rehash irrelevant rancors. Thanks.
Mutas is exactly what this game need : strenght and weakness, expansive, low range, bad in frontal assault, punish mistake really hard, but fast, microable, can be heavy reward with good position, map awareness. Just asking for a unit that will make them useless, arguing : 30 mutalisks should beat 6 thors out position, cause what ? Zerg shouldn't win ? Is what kills the game.
Just watch the relation between hellbat, and zergling : Hellbat makes the units useless. So what a clever man will do ? Just add the hard counter : Hellbat (zergling dead), + tank : ground dead, oh man you need too much thor vs mutas, give me a hard counter to mutalisk. I can add it to my deathball and no threat anymore.
Thor sure isn't a very good design unit, but vs mutas, it's a very decent soft counter, we don't need hard counter everywhere, or what will happen if they really a mutas hard counter : Tank drop >zerg need mutas to defend it ->T make the anti-mutas. Now the unit protect them each other, and this become an invincible composition, just like deathball.
It's exactly why mech is so awful : mech is really strong on frontal assault but slow, so you could try to exploit it with some speed unit/outposition. But now HOTS give medivac boost/hellbat to lose his weakness of mobility, The siege tank have research before : Oh no, we can be killed before the research completed. Make it free The siege tank force mech to move tank slowly, so you can say : OK tank could be good if he take some position, but i can counter it to prevent him getting the position. Medivac again allow tank to be everywhere on the map, and now on LOTV you can't prevent them to get some position, you force to accept the bad fight.
Banshee could do a lot of dmg, + cloak vs the ground, but die if caught by mutas : allow them to escape. Mech bad vs protoss : make them good with cyclon : mobility/range/highdmg/tanky : weakness ? No thx.
Mutas could counter it as medivac/tank don't shot ground :" give me a unit wich can kill mutas, so then no weakness".
The main goal of mech is : be invincible have no weakness, and only strengh...Silly...
I fully agree with the spirit of your argument. The “completeness mindset” is terrible indeed. Now, Thors should be replaced with a lighter unit anyway, and Terran should reasonably suffer against mutas (whether they go bio or mech). That's why I am against the revamped Valkyrie they want to implement. Mech/air upgrades should be separate again, and mech should retain a certain weakness to air (= exactly the contrary of HotS Vikings/Ravens). Any excessive synergy between the Medivac and mech should be axed too, the Hellbat has no business being a dedicated anti-melee 1a unit, Tanks in Siege Mode should not be pickable, etc. For Banshees, I advocated simple cost reductions instead of the speed upgrade. Mines should also be reworked on a weaker 1 supply variant acting as a support unit (not a core one like in HotS). Cyclones have simply no business being in the game.
With this recall buff even though I am zerg play I might player toss now haha. I really don't care too much just gonna play what I like xD I am so excited to try recalls tonight make proxy nexus and recall there. If they can't see that I will put 400 minerals (so much more worth than 4 zelot run by) for base snipe and recall back to my base. I hate walking xD!!!!!!!!
On May 14 2015 04:58 Tresher wrote: [quote] Well we wanted a spider mine like ability to protet our flanks better for Mech.But no Sa.. uh David Kim refused to change the Thor and deided to make the Mine able to shoot air and make it also pretty random and take way too much supply. (to be fair they also changed the mine so it doesnt get killed before it deals damage right?) Thats why I really like the Concept of the new Terran Unit so stuff like this does not happen anymore and the thor gets finally a change(sorry don´t know how to make timestamps :
There is about 30+ mutas vs 6 thors, with best micro. When 3 000/3 000 with micro kills 1 800/1200 without micro at all, the only problem is your terran bias.
Best Micro = Making a beeline for Units they should not engage then press "hold position" to negate splash. Yeah best Micro ever -_- . Doesn´t change the fact that the Thor sucks at his role.
I mean the best micro you can do in this position, opposed with staking them which would allow these 6 thors to kill the 30+mutas.
Thor don't sucks at all, just Terran like you wants to just make 1 thor and kills every mutas in the world, Just make a fight with the same amont of mineral/gaz : thor vs mutas, you will see if thors don't counters mutas...
Yes it does. A Unit that is supposed to counter Mass light air Units and doesn´t fulfil this role sucks. But its nice that you judge me just by looking at my post. Having 90 supply of Units like the guy above suggested to counter just 20-30 Mutas is just crazy. You cant be asking to catch a 4 movement speed unit with 1.88 speed. Also the Thor is a terrible Unit to mass cause of the High supply. Yes you can sac SCVs but theres also the problem with long build time. A Thor takes 60 secs to build. If I want to have 10-15 like suggested thats like 10-15 minutes wasted just to mass one Unit. In that time the Zerg can Tech switch several times or maybe even overrun me before.You could also ask me to build BCs instead that would be almost the same.
Think about it. And if you are finished with it think about it again. Theres a problem with this Unit and Blizz knows about it. Theres a reason they want to bring a new Anti-Air Unit with splash. And if it turns out to be better at its job they need to change the Thor too.
Just try 10 thors vs 30 mutas, 60 supply vs 60, 3000/2000 vs 3000/3000. With like 5 factory with tech lab, you can make 10 thors in 2 minutes (and it's not some real minute but 2 x43s), not mention you can help them with raven/tourett/vcs repair/vikings/WM and so need less thor. Hilarous you complain about supply effectivity when you have mules...
The point is that Terran doesn't play like zerg when it comes to expensive units. It's easy to say 10 thors vs 30 Mutas but that's a huge investment of time and resources. You have to build factories with tech labs as well as a supporting army and during all that deal with an enemy. This isn't a game where you just MAKE units and that's that.
So okay cool we make 10 Thors and they wipe out 30 or 60 Muta, then what? You build a swarm of lings with your massive bank of minerals and just start flooding them into the Terran army, or base. Or maybe you've been banking for ultra. Whichever suits you, and it's fine, your race is meant to play that way.
It's not that the Thor sucks at its job en más, because sure a lot of units are great in numbers. It's that the Thor has been type cast since WoL to do a job they never really were meant to do. That's why they wanted to get rid of them for warhounds during the beta for hots: give Terran a cheaper more effective mobile anti air like the Goliath was. They are supposed to be a siege breaker, tip of the spear type unit but they only fulfill that role in tvt because they are slow, don't deal with inexpensive units well (they have no ground aoe like the other ground massive units) and their anti air is easily countered and hard to support with the rest of a Terran army.
The problem at the end of the day is they don't know what they want from mech. It's too powerful so it needs to have serious weakness and drawback, but they have also built in units and mechanics that hard counter mech so much as to make it not as reliable and viable as bio. They also keep trying to make it so biomech is the better choice, but much is too slow and wonky for people to really want to use. That's why tanks disappeared when mines appeared. The tank is a much better unit but the speed and effort it takes to properly use them and the amount of hard counters make them a huge hassle and ineffective when compared to the cheap and gimmicky mine. Sure you're rolling a dick whenever you use a mine but it allows you to stay mobile and offensive and it is anti air. Just know that Terran hate mines too, they just use them because there's nothing better or as effective.
Lol, and you imagine 30 mutas is free ? Zerg plants spire, and 30 mutas appears ? Then you can make millions lings (of zerg have infinite free larvas too, after paying 30 larvas you have again 50larvas for 100zerglings), and then free tech mass ultra (cause mutas are so free, you have again 2000/3000 for 10 ultras after/uprgrade infestpit/hive/ultraden/amorupgrade)...
If it's happened it's you totally outmacroed,and you deserve to lose.
But maybe your point is just : T must never lose, even outmacroed, less army value, less economy, if not it's design issue and T need more heavy cheap hard counter that can kill thousands of Zerg units...
Can you stop derailing good discussions and intelligent posts with your vindictive racial warfare mindset? This is the LotV beta forum, the goal is to build a better game, not to rehash irrelevant rancors. Thanks.
Mutas is exactly what this game need : strenght and weakness, expansive, low range, bad in frontal assault, punish mistake really hard, but fast, microable, can be heavy reward with good position, map awareness. Just asking for a unit that will make them useless, arguing : 30 mutalisks should beat 6 thors out position, cause what ? Zerg shouldn't win ? Is what kills the game.
Just watch the relation between hellbat, and zergling : Hellbat makes the units useless. So what a clever man will do ? Just add the hard counter : Hellbat (zergling dead), + tank : ground dead, oh man you need too much thor vs mutas, give me a hard counter to mutalisk. I can add it to my deathball and no threat anymore.
Thor sure isn't a very good design unit, but vs mutas, it's a very decent soft counter, we don't need hard counter everywhere, or what will happen if they really a mutas hard counter : Tank drop >zerg need mutas to defend it ->T make the anti-mutas. Now the unit protect them each other, and this become an invincible composition, just like deathball.
It's exactly why mech is so awful : mech is really strong on frontal assault but slow, so you could try to exploit it with some speed unit/outposition. But now HOTS give medivac boost/hellbat to lose his weakness of mobility, The siege tank have research before : Oh no, we can be killed before the research completed. Make it free The siege tank force mech to move tank slowly, so you can say : OK tank could be good if he take some position, but i can counter it to prevent him getting the position. Medivac again allow tank to be everywhere on the map, and now on LOTV you can't prevent them to get some position, you force to accept the bad fight.
Banshee could do a lot of dmg, + cloak vs the ground, but die if caught by mutas : allow them to escape. Mech bad vs protoss : make them good with cyclon : mobility/range/highdmg/tanky : weakness ? No thx.
Mutas could counter it as medivac/tank don't shot ground :" give me a unit wich can kill mutas, so then no weakness".
The main goal of mech is : be invincible have no weakness, and only strengh...Silly...
which is fine. Nowhere in my post did I say thors should be invincible, or advocating that Terran needs to win every game. It was an explanation of why 10 thors vs 30 muta doesn't speak to the effectiveness of the units involved. Thors are insanely expensive have only one role in the match up, and have a myriad of weakness. I don't want it to be the best unit in the game, just maybe be more useful. Or get rid of it and give something else. Hell the Cyclone in my opinion is already too much and the wrong way to go with the anti air mech business, but Terran does need a viable mobile anti air unit that can deal with mass air. Especially with lotv focusing on harass and expanding and having to deal with defending multiple bases at a time with super immobile units.
At the end of the day all we're saying is that the Thor sucks for what it is. Give us a better unit or make the Thor work for something other than Vs Mass muta anti air.
On May 15 2015 05:19 TheDwf wrote: I fully agree with the spirit of your argument. The “completeness mindset” is terrible indeed. Now, Thors should be replaced with a lighter unit anyway, and Terran should reasonably suffer against mutas (whether they go bio or mech). That's why I am against the revamped Valkyrie they want to implement. Mech/air upgrades should be separate again, and mech should retain a certain weakness to air (= exactly the contrary of HotS Vikings/Ravens). Any excessive synergy between the Medivac and mech should be axed too, the Hellbat has no business being a dedicated anti-melee 1a unit, Tanks in Siege Mode should not be pickable, etc. For Banshees, I advocated simple cost reductions instead of the speed upgrade. Mines should also be reworked on a weaker 1 supply variant acting as a support unit (not a core one like in HotS). Cyclones have simply no business being in the game.
Er... but couldn't the cyclone be the lighter unit you're referring to?
On May 14 2015 14:16 weikor wrote: Youre so wrong, i dont even know where to begin - so ill just sum it up. Starcraft has a LOT of strategy, and while the same strategy - executed by two players - might look the same, the strategy can be in the detail. What time do you get X, when do you expand, move out. Aside from that, we do see a lot of different strategies, its far from the same one every game.
Broodwar faced some of the same issues as starcraft 2. Nostalgia might have you believe it was such a perfect game - but going bio vs protoss was, for the most part - as bad as going mech in Sc2.
If that's what makes a game strategic, then Mario 3 is the greatest strategy game of all time. You've gotta time when to jump over those pipe plants, cannonballs, lava bursts, etc. Execute a jump poorly and you fall off the map. Every game has elements of execution and timing and it's not special. What makes strategy games different from every other game is that you build and control an army, and make resource investments, and that your choices in these areas will be a huge if not deciding factor in the game. I can't believe I need to explain all this. Anyway my complaint is that Starcraft 2 presents a series of false choices in the majority of matchups and the only skill is doing everything faster and more optimally than other players. If I wanted that I'd go play Mario Kart, it does a much better job at that kind of gameplay.
As for Brood War. It's not "nostalgia" because I still play the game.
I agree with everyone else, you're totally wrong here. SC2 has huuuge amounts of strategy to it in terms of how you open, what your composition looks like etc. It may seem like just bio vs robo bay but in reality there are heaps of little decisions in those comps. When do you add in vikings and ghosts, is more marauder-heavy better, how many medivacs is too many in this game, how many widow mines should I have, if any at all. On the protoss side, there are decisions about when to tech to HTs, whether you want to go HTs or collosi first, how many stalkers are needed to deal with vikings etc. There are strategic decisions about when to attack, where to put units, how much production to add, when to take additional bases.
I mean seriously, are you going to argue that these decisions are any less strategic than the completely binary decision of whether to make factory units or barracks units? It's just a silly argument. Not to mention that at anything beneath pro level of play, you can win with just about anything, just like in BW.
On May 14 2015 14:16 weikor wrote: Youre so wrong, i dont even know where to begin - so ill just sum it up. Starcraft has a LOT of strategy, and while the same strategy - executed by two players - might look the same, the strategy can be in the detail. What time do you get X, when do you expand, move out. Aside from that, we do see a lot of different strategies, its far from the same one every game.
Broodwar faced some of the same issues as starcraft 2. Nostalgia might have you believe it was such a perfect game - but going bio vs protoss was, for the most part - as bad as going mech in Sc2.
If that's what makes a game strategic, then Mario 3 is the greatest strategy game of all time. You've gotta time when to jump over those pipe plants, cannonballs, lava bursts, etc. Execute a jump poorly and you fall off the map. Every game has elements of execution and timing and it's not special. What makes strategy games different from every other game is that you build and control an army, and make resource investments, and that your choices in these areas will be a huge if not deciding factor in the game. I can't believe I need to explain all this. Anyway my complaint is that Starcraft 2 presents a series of false choices in the majority of matchups and the only skill is doing everything faster and more optimally than other players. If I wanted that I'd go play Mario Kart, it does a much better job at that kind of gameplay.
As for Brood War. It's not "nostalgia" because I still play the game.
I agree with everyone else, you're totally wrong here. SC2 has huuuge amounts of strategy to it in terms of how you open, what your composition looks like etc. It may seem like just bio vs robo bay but in reality there are heaps of little decisions in those comps. When do you add in vikings and ghosts, is more marauder-heavy better, how many medivacs is too many in this game, how many widow mines should I have, if any at all. On the protoss side, there are decisions about when to tech to HTs, whether you want to go HTs or collosi first, how many stalkers are needed to deal with vikings etc. There are strategic decisions about when to attack, where to put units, how much production to add, when to take additional bases.
I mean seriously, are you going to argue that these decisions are any less strategic than the completely binary decision of whether to make factory units or barracks units? It's just a silly argument. Not to mention that at anything beneath pro level of play, you can win with just about anything, just like in BW.
Diferent type of compositions have different strenghts and weaknesess, thus they add to the dept of strategy that exists in the game, not in the action of chosing but in the fact that the units are different between themselves.
The factory vs barrack of terran is simply given by a design characteristic of the race, zergs only need 1 building plus some upgradesto open tech choices so they are capable of creating any combination in their compositions, protoss are tied by the act of teching, so they choose 1 tech path and complement with lower tech units creating an army of power units and buffer units, terran are tied by their production and upgrades, in a way combination of the 2 above, so they are given this duality in compositions.
The binary between bio and mech exist as a racial characteristic trait, not as an arbitrary choice.
Also to the choices =/= strategy argument, indeed is true that you don't need explicit choices to have strategy however having more choices do add more strategy to the one that already exists. This is because each choice has strategic dept on its own.
To make an example using the bio and mech argument, the existing of both bio and mech adds more strategic dept to the game, not for the sole choice that exist between them, but because at their core they are fundamentaly different and thus both have a unique dept of strategy on their own.
On May 15 2015 05:19 TheDwf wrote: I fully agree with the spirit of your argument. The “completeness mindset” is terrible indeed. Now, Thors should be replaced with a lighter unit anyway, and Terran should reasonably suffer against mutas (whether they go bio or mech). That's why I am against the revamped Valkyrie they want to implement. Mech/air upgrades should be separate again, and mech should retain a certain weakness to air (= exactly the contrary of HotS Vikings/Ravens). Any excessive synergy between the Medivac and mech should be axed too, the Hellbat has no business being a dedicated anti-melee 1a unit, Tanks in Siege Mode should not be pickable, etc. For Banshees, I advocated simple cost reductions instead of the speed upgrade. Mines should also be reworked on a weaker 1 supply variant acting as a support unit (not a core one like in HotS). Cyclones have simply no business being in the game.
Er... but couldn't the cyclone be the lighter unit you're referring to?
Theoretically it could, yes. But reworking the Thor towards the Goliath would be much simpler, rather than add a Warhound 2.0 that Terran still does not need.
On May 15 2015 14:13 StalkerFang wrote: I agree with everyone else, you're totally wrong here. SC2 has huuuge amounts of strategy to it in terms of how you open, what your composition looks like etc. It may seem like just bio vs robo bay but in reality there are heaps of little decisions in those comps. When do you add in vikings and ghosts, is more marauder-heavy better, how many medivacs is too many in this game, how many widow mines should I have, if any at all.
Some of those are examples of how I think Starcraft should work. For example adding vikings if colossus or ghosts if HT. The problem is that once you have a healthy viking+ghost count and the production set up there's no reason to build any other units because there's nothing protoss can do to counter that comp. So the strategic choices you are describing amount to plotting the optimal path to reaching your race's respective deathball.
That's not how I think Starcraft should work, I think every unit or comp ought to have a counter unit or comp. A unit comp with no weaknesses just sounds broken to me. It's pretty fundamental to video games that every boss or unit has a weakness that can be exploited and I think SC2 is failing in this basic measure.
On May 15 2015 05:19 TheDwf wrote: I fully agree with the spirit of your argument. The “completeness mindset” is terrible indeed. Now, Thors should be replaced with a lighter unit anyway, and Terran should reasonably suffer against mutas (whether they go bio or mech). That's why I am against the revamped Valkyrie they want to implement. Mech/air upgrades should be separate again, and mech should retain a certain weakness to air (= exactly the contrary of HotS Vikings/Ravens). Any excessive synergy between the Medivac and mech should be axed too, the Hellbat has no business being a dedicated anti-melee 1a unit, Tanks in Siege Mode should not be pickable, etc. For Banshees, I advocated simple cost reductions instead of the speed upgrade. Mines should also be reworked on a weaker 1 supply variant acting as a support unit (not a core one like in HotS). Cyclones have simply no business being in the game.
Er... but couldn't the cyclone be the lighter unit you're referring to?
Theoretically it could, yes. But reworking the Thor towards the Goliath would be much simpler, rather than add a Warhound 2.0 that Terran still does not need.
I think the Thor does work, but it just requires support of smaller units. Marine/Thor is quite effective against mutas because the Thors provide kind of an anchor for the marines to move around (because they move and attack slow but they have such powerful splash). So if the idea was that the Cyclones replace the Marines that way to make it pure mech that would still make design sense.
But I guess that would be where the Cyclone was more like the Goliath.
Zealots are already incredibly strong and difficult to deal with, from a warp prism a couple of seconds and you can spawn an army with 1000+ hit points that hits very hard and can charge for guaranteed damage but toss is definitely suffering in the Beta. Although to be honest, its about time i think. It needs to be tweaked and buffed, but after being steamrolled a billion times by undeserved protoss wins - unscouted DT, blink, seven gate, immortal sentry, etc any of the dozens of ways toss gets free wins its about time they got a taste of their own medicine.
Broodlord range is a nice idea, but the major problem with broodlords is not the range or the damage. It is that they are so incredibly slow. If you see broodlords you have two options, both of which can work very well. Immediately go around the army and go for a base trade. Broodlords hit hard and build up broodlings to block pathing, but they can never catch up to medivacs, speed roaches, blink stalkers, warp prisms, etc anything. Distract with counter attacks while building up vikings, tempests, void rays, etc and its quite easy to deal with broodlords and unless the zerg devotes to pure air, the broodlords become flying paper weights once any of the counters come into play
I think a better idea would be to address the mobility problems of brood lords, a late game speed buff or a new kind of functionality. Maybe something like recall with the ability to tunnel itself anywhere on creep but with a quite long cooldown, something like the tunnelling swarm hosts in the heart of the swarm campaign to allow for instant repositions. Protoss has the ability to recall to a nexus at any time, how about something with a similar functionality to let broodlords be aggressive, kill a base, then burrow themselves back to creep safely to maybe keep them around instead of just automatically losing them when you need to abandon a position since they are so slow they always trail behind and are easy pickings. I dunno how that would look or work for a flying unit, but I think broodlords will be more fun and more useful all around if they have SOME way to get around besides moving at the speed of a snail on valium.
Also with the recent swarm host nerf and the supply dump of swarm hosts that are totally useless for defense, maybe think about instituting some brood lord changes in Heart of the Swarm as well. Zerg needs some kind of late game, getting stuck on lair tech is too easy and protoss and mech just demolish zerg lair tech armies at high supply.
Just my thoughts. Very excited to see how LotV develops.
On May 15 2015 05:19 TheDwf wrote: I fully agree with the spirit of your argument. The “completeness mindset” is terrible indeed. Now, Thors should be replaced with a lighter unit anyway, and Terran should reasonably suffer against mutas (whether they go bio or mech). That's why I am against the revamped Valkyrie they want to implement. Mech/air upgrades should be separate again, and mech should retain a certain weakness to air (= exactly the contrary of HotS Vikings/Ravens). Any excessive synergy between the Medivac and mech should be axed too, the Hellbat has no business being a dedicated anti-melee 1a unit, Tanks in Siege Mode should not be pickable, etc. For Banshees, I advocated simple cost reductions instead of the speed upgrade. Mines should also be reworked on a weaker 1 supply variant acting as a support unit (not a core one like in HotS). Cyclones have simply no business being in the game.
Commenters keep calling it a revamped Valkyrie, but this is a bad comparison. Is it just because it's a Terran unit? Splash, AA, high attack rate, maneuverable... sounds much more like a Corsair than a Valkyrie. Corsair + mini Tempest, once it's transformed into its immobile form.