|
If you include your Twitter ID with your reply, we can include it in a possible shoutout if your comment is interesting! |
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV? Zoning, leap-frogging siege and anti-muta balls.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators? Corruptors, ravagers (early game), blink stalkers, void rays, carriers, vikings.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade? Yes. Otherwise all maps need to be designed so there's no possibility of an early Liberator sitting on the back of the mineral line, harrassing without any real counter.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive? The cost seems very middle of the road and I'm ok with it. As is, it's clearly better for bio compositions than mech (it's a bit too gas expensive). I wouldn't mind seeing it changed depending on which type of army needs it more (125/175 to support bio better, 200/100 to help it become a core mech unit).
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around? Support for bio and core for mech, since mech lacks reliable anti air (mines are too random, thor and viking are just not good enough against mutas).
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab? Yes. Being "reactorable" and defender mode requiring an upgrade is the perfect place to be IMO.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others? It overlaps with Thor and the siege tank. Kinda outclasses both of them simply because it cannot be targeted by many ground-to-ground units these two often have trouble with (marauders, zealots, immortals, tanks, lings, even roaches...).
What do you think about its design in general? A bit boring, but still much better than the tempest I could grow to like it.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be? TBH, I would have scrapped the unit and added a bio or bio-mech kind of unit. As it is, I'd change the Defender mode quite a bit: slightly reduce the range (too many long range units, overlaps with tank), nerf the base damage so it doesn't one shot a hydra and give it a small bonus damage against massive (there's no such unit in the terran arsenal? Would help against ultras). If the result is too underpowered, then I would reduce the cost.
|
1.dps down units with high armor like Ultralisks, early harass.
2.spore, vipers rekts air units / cannons, voidray, phoenix / more liberators!!!
3.yes, early liberators behind mineral lines was a low risk high reward strategy, it was way too quick and way too cost efficient.
4.150/150 is reasonable, maybe minor adjustments.
5.definitely a support unit.
6.no, if banshees and ravens requires a tech lab to build, then so should the liberator.
7.no
8.I personally don't like the design, just too different from anything before.
9.reduce the fire rate of liberators on defenders mode.
|
After losing a few games to liberators when I first got into beta I was all for following the ways of freedom and whisky. I hopped into a new game and built a massive fleet. My army obliterated everything in it's path. Until at last I arrived at the zerg natural.
And five vipers parastic bombed and killed 14 liberators GG.
I fight for the swarm now.
|
On October 03 2015 09:52 TheDougler wrote: After losing a few games to liberators when I first got into beta I was all for following the ways of freedom and whisky. I hopped into a new game and built a massive fleet. My army obliterated everything in it's path. Until at last I arrived at the zerg natural.
And five vipers parastic bombed and killed 14 liberators GG.
I fight for the swarm now. This story sounded extremely painful, but made me laugh as a Zerg. :D
|
On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote:Here's a pretty standard logic from people who say BW was better than SC2: in SC2, high ground grants no advantage if your opponent has vision. Because of this and a huge number of other changes (maybe biggest is just how much easier it is to move your army around), defender's advantage is much weaker in SC2. Without a strong defender's advantage, if your opponent is knocking at your front door, it's a lot harder to stall his army while you harass him elsewhere around the map. As a result, if your opponent stacks all his supply on one big attack and pushes it towards you, the only good response is to gather your own army into one big defense and try to win the fight. Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional [and resolved very fast]. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ).
Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva).
It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close).
|
On October 03 2015 19:12 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote:Here's a pretty standard logic from people who say BW was better than SC2: in SC2, high ground grants no advantage if your opponent has vision. Because of this and a huge number of other changes (maybe biggest is just how much easier it is to move your army around), defender's advantage is much weaker in SC2. Without a strong defender's advantage, if your opponent is knocking at your front door, it's a lot harder to stall his army while you harass him elsewhere around the map. As a result, if your opponent stacks all his supply on one big attack and pushes it towards you, the only good response is to gather your own army into one big defense and try to win the fight. Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ). Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva). SC2 had (past tense just kidding) some good ideas but failed to implement them smartly. It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close). Two things for the record:
1) I meant no offense using the past tense, and that sentence maybe should have read "...people who think BW was better-designed than SC2." In that sense, you could talk about WoL and HotS in the past tense, too.
2) I had no intention of initiating a BW vs. SC2 fight here. TL has had far too many of those, and they tend to consume any thread where they're allowed to take hold, so forgive me if I don't engage too much with some of your broader criticisms. Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that BW is better than SC2, just noting a common criticism of SC2 which I have most frequently heard from BW fans. So you might not find me as much of an ally as you're hoping on a lot of your "terrible terrible damage is everything wrong with SC2" or "Dustin Browder doesn't know anything about Starcraft" claims. Personally I like SC2 quite a bit.
|
On October 03 2015 19:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 19:12 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote:Here's a pretty standard logic from people who say BW was better than SC2: in SC2, high ground grants no advantage if your opponent has vision. Because of this and a huge number of other changes (maybe biggest is just how much easier it is to move your army around), defender's advantage is much weaker in SC2. Without a strong defender's advantage, if your opponent is knocking at your front door, it's a lot harder to stall his army while you harass him elsewhere around the map. As a result, if your opponent stacks all his supply on one big attack and pushes it towards you, the only good response is to gather your own army into one big defense and try to win the fight. Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ). Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva). SC2 had (past tense just kidding) some good ideas but failed to implement them smartly. It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close). Two things for the record: 1) I meant no offense using the past tense, and that sentence maybe should have read "...people who think BW was better -designed than SC2." In that sense, you could talk about WoL and HotS in the past tense, too. 2) I had no intention of initiating a BW vs. SC2 fight here. TL has had far too many of those, and they tend to consume any thread where they're allowed to take hold, so forgive me if I don't engage too much with some of your broader criticisms. Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that BW is better than SC2, just noting a common criticism of SC2 which I have most frequently heard from BW fans. So you might not find me as much of an ally as you're hoping on a lot of your "terrible terrible damage is everything wrong with SC2" or "Dustin Browder doesn't know anything about Starcraft" claims. Personally I like SC2 quite a bit. That's all right I wasn't expecting that you would agree or ally with me here, and I know you meant no offense with past tense. There are (good) reasons why these arguments have kept happenning. People knew when SC2 came out that bw was better but many wouldn't talk much about it because a lot of money was injected into a new competitive scene and everything controlled by the company. Day9 is an important example. But I don't want to blame him, his goal was to be an Esport ambassador and he did well. I don't think SC2 is a terrible game, but it is good not to over-hype it or overstate its quality. Further understanding of why / what is better helps people decide what they want to play and any future game designers to make better games.
I'll just add this little paragraph : You know this thing with the past tense, I think there is this tendancy and it is in the advertisement and communication of the greedier companies like blizzard is now, they want us to view the latest release as the next best thing and whatever is previous to be forgotten (they intentionally destroyed the bw pro-scene, left battle.net public servers to die and stop supporting any tourneys long ago). But the previous games are still all there. If WoL or HotS is better than LotV, that's what you should play. But all the eyes are on the thing that's put in front of everyone at the sponsored events. Does it matter? Community is very important. But it should be free from the $ interest of the companies. It's important to say this I think, especially in an era where financial & market systems have made it difficult for quality games to be made by reasonable sized teams (small & medium companies). A lot of the games that came out the last 5-10 years are downgraded reiterations of some franchise, producing games industrially to make money out of it. There is little creativity anymore, and little love in making games. It has become financially focused. It is killing a lot of things in gaming, temporarily.
|
Liberators they need to be part of the core bio ball PvT for the sake of strategic depth and diversity. That's why I prefer liberators from reactors instead of tech lab.
|
added my twitter to post. nice to see so many detailed responses maybe blizz will listen to advice? :D
|
At the end of the the day. The idea of this unit is great. Something for a little answered role between the tank and the viking. However, in its current state, it is in fact, too strong. It's easy to get a vast quantity amount of them while they are extremely efficient. I think a nerf of 10-20% damage in defender mode strictly and the defender mode should be an upgrade via armory/starport tech lab.
|
On October 08 2015 00:07 UR.Solo wrote: At the end of the the day. The idea of this unit is great. Something for a little answered role between the tank and the viking. However, in its current state, it is in fact, too strong. It's easy to get a vast quantity amount of them while they are extremely efficient. I think a nerf of 10-20% damage in defender mode strictly and the defender mode should be an upgrade via armory/starport tech lab.
Already is
|
After watching some more LotV, the Defender mode damage seems completely bonkers. This is much much better than the tank.
|
I don't have time to fill out the entire form but wanted to add my 2 cents on liberator. Full disclosure, I play as zerg so this is coming from that perspective.
My feelings are basically that at the moment, it is over powered. I don't ENTIRELY dislike the unit, although i don't feel like Terran needs more units like the siege tank that just "siege up" and dont require any huge amount of micro.
Problems I have with the unit: 1) In some cases, it can out range spores and queens and still hit drones. 2) It 3 shots queens, 1 shots drones, kills everything else pretty fast 3) It can be reactor'd out (a major problem)... requiring tech lab would be a good nerf IMO 4) It is extremely strong against zerg air when you have 3-4+ liberators
In summary, it can be reactor'd out early, has very strong attacks vs. air and ground units. I'm confident it will be nerfed again. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened already.
All of these things combined make it very strong against most things a zerg can do early game if it isn't scouted immediately.
|
On October 10 2015 05:11 Salteador Neo wrote: After watching some more LotV, the Defender mode damage seems completely bonkers. This is much much better than the tank. What you have to keep in mind is that it's much harder to get that damage to happen. If you have 10 tanks in a fight, you can count on having 10 times the damage output of one tank. If you have 10 liberators, you probably just spread out the circles to have 10 times the chance that your enemy will be in one of them.
|
1. Right now it seems to be mostly used for zoning tank lines. It does have uses against air units like mutas, but mostly it just dominates ground based comps. Especially when you get enough of the.
2. As a zerg player I can only speak for zerg, but Corruptors seem to be the way to kill them. However, corruptors are not a very good unit to sink supply into. Especially since liberators have a great anti-ground attack where as corruptors are useless pre Greater spire. So having to make corruptors is a bad thing.
3. Yes it should be an upgrade.
4. I don't know about the cost. Right now they are too good all around. They are very good at shutting down muta comps, but also very good at dealing with ground based comps. It seems weird to have a unit that can shut down air but then turn around and also shut down ground.
5. Right now it very much core. It is way better than vikings and way better than thors. It steps on those units a bit in the mid game. Only in the late game (against zerg) are vikings needed for things like BL or Vipers. Before then Liberators are the better choice.
6. In there current form they are too strong for a reactor.
7. No, right now it steps on the thor and the viking. It also steps on the siege tank a bit too. It can chase mutas meaning that the muta mobility vs the range of the thor is no longer an issue. It can be reactored so if you can keep ground based armies off of them they are much better than tanks at dealing with ground. Right now it doesn't do anything interesting are that was really needed.
8. I think it is not that well designed. it seems to be more about giving terran a second unit rather than add something new to the game. Hots introduced factory units and legacy did the same. I would rather see a new bio unit than simply promoting more mech. It's attack radius is way too large.
9. It's ground based attack is way too strong,, I would make it more about space control. It has no AA attack but can attack multiple ground based units at once when it sets up. It deals low damage but can be good at dealing with lategame harassment or just zoning out part of the map. Right now it is not very interesting and way too strong. In addition, it steps on 3 already existing units.
|
does viking/liberators work good in any match up? it should in theory without no real weaknesses
|
On October 14 2015 01:11 Garmer wrote: does viking/liberators work good in any match up? it should in theory without no real weaknesses
First im Mid/High Master atm
Its hard to get so far but its not that bad in TvP In TvZ Viper will rekt u if the Zerg is not bad In TvT if he goes Mass marines will shred u too
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV? It compliments terran bio by providing zoning power that requires the enemy to have anti air. It works wonderfully versus protoss ground and ultralisks.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators? Depends on the composition of their army. Vikings, Ravangers, Vipers, Corruptors, Pheonix and Tempest.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade? No. Just like the siege tank it should just come with this ability. However I think they should require a tech lab and have a research that allows it to be built with out a tech lab.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive? It's fine. This cost is definitely not unfair for what this unit does for terran.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around? It's an artillery unit just like a siege tank and colossus are.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab? It should be an upgrade from the tech lab that allows it to produce out of a reactor. I think terran should be able to spam these guys out throughout the game because they will need to be replaced. However having two early liberators in the beginning of the game is over powered.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others? With the buff of the ultralisk and the nerf of the marauder I think legacy created it's own gaping hole that the liberator fixed.
What do you think about its design in general? Amazing. That being said I think it should not be able be an early game mineral harassment. It feels very abusive and cheesy.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
nerf the range of the circle, allow it to siege-mode with out research, and have it require a tech lab but can be researched to be built from the reactor.
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV? i think it shoudl be more like the valkyrie. nothing but taking over what other units coulda done What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators? corruptor still sux so fuck this siht, vikings and stalkers i guess Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade? i think it should be removed from the game because it fucks with banshee's role Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive? aight Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around? support Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab? no Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others? overlaps with banshee, viking. make it more like the valkyrie What do you think about its design in general? meh rly. weird fuse of 2 existing units If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be? make it more like the valk
|
The Liberator should be a support unit that helps zone out the opponents army. I like the changes that they've added, to put the range increase upgrade at the fusion core. This makes it not as overwhelming in the early game harass, and you'd really have to rush to fusion core in order to do that, which is a heavy gas investment.
|
|
|
|