Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (61 users) | |
|
| Deimos0 Poland. May 07 2012 18:32. Posts 276 | Profile Blog # |
| What's with this discussion about scans' 'cost'. Every race has something to sacrifice while using energy on ability other than macro-enhancing one. Zerg spreads tumors instead of injecting hatches and Protoss boosts WGs or upgrades instead of pumping probes. Don't be so one-dimensional about the game. I haven't tried the queens' range change, but I'm curious how it works, I'm glad they removed energy boost though. |
| | protect me from what I want |  |
|
|
| kyllinghest Norway. May 07 2012 18:54. Posts 1091 | Profile # |
| It seems like many people think scouting with scans is a good and reliable tactic. I would love it if someone would write a guide about when, and especially where one should spend the scan. Even when I have scouted a protoss' early pylons its never certain where they have placed their buildings, and smart zergs don't clump their main with important tech. I would be very thankfull if one of you pro-scan scouters could share some knowledge with me on this, and also if there could be a tiny section about wich bildings you stop producing from when you scan. |
| |
|
| Topdoller United Kingdom. May 07 2012 18:59. Posts 1553 | Profile # |
On May 07 2012 16:47 corpuscle wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 16:31 RaiZ wrote:
On May 07 2012 14:14 corpuscle wrote:By the way, a scan costs more than an overlord. 
I'm sick of ppl saying that scan "costs" more than an overlord because it's not. The scan comes from an energy dump, not from minerals. Sure scanning before the first 2 mules ever in the beginning could "cost" you more than overlords but that's about it. It's like i'm spending creep tumor instead of injections, look it costs me larvaes ! Stop saying scan cost you 270 minerals. It's not. It's a bonus. You simply have to spend the energy wisely, much like the other race and their energy dumps.
Haha what? Zerg and Protoss can make workers much faster than Terran. We have MULEs to compensate for that. It's not a bonus, it's our way of staying equal against superior worker counts, which happen in every non-mirror matchup.
Does this apply any more in the modern SC2 metagame at Pro Level?, A lot of Terran's out expand Zerg these days with 3 CCs, around12 mins game time. Early game yes, late game no for certain. Once that 3rd CC kicks in with mules Zerg need 4 bases just for parity.
99% of Pro Terrans will use scans just to clear creep these days rather than build their own dedicated anti cloak unit the Raven ( I haven't seen one of these used to clear creep since game release ) |
|
|
| Big J Austria. May 07 2012 19:14. Posts 4997 | Profile Blog # |
On May 07 2012 18:54 kyllinghest wrote:
It seems like many people think scouting with scans is a good and reliable tactic. I would love it if someone would write a guide about when, and especially where one should spend the scan. Even when I have scouted a protoss' early pylons its never certain where they have placed their buildings, and smart zergs don't clump their main with important tech. I would be very thankfull if one of you pro-scan scouters could share some knowledge with me on this, and also if there could be a tiny section about wich bildings you stop producing from when you scan.
so, I have been fooling around with 1rax into 4 CC into Mech builds lately in TvZ, and I think the reasonable scan timings are once your third OC finishes to see whether there is a warren/nest on the way (they should always split them up, so you should see at least one, if you scan one base, also you should see unusual gas timings) and then I like to do a triple scan at main/natural/third and build turrets blindly. From there on just scan around every ~2mins.
Funny enough, this really works against Master Zergs 
which buildings I stop producing? Macro CCs. You might end up with 1-2less with the excessive scanning I do, but I mean, 8CC, 10CC... I'm not consistent enough with mules anyways, so it doesn't matter.
(funny enough, I'm 3/5 in customs against Master Zergs with this :D )Last edit: 2012-05-07 22:37:47 |
| |
|
| -Archangel- Croatia. May 07 2012 19:49. Posts 3587 | Profile # |
So anyone got any valuable ON HANDS experience with these changes, especially new queen range?
Since I could only play ZvZ or 2v2 on this map my experience is useless. |
|
|
| Flooz United States. May 07 2012 23:29. Posts 37 | Profile # |
| i like the changes. Hopefully some of them will get blizzards attention |
| | "There is nothing cooler than being proud of the things you love" - Day[9] |  |
|
|
| kiklion May 07 2012 23:39. Posts 97 | Profile # |
On May 07 2012 18:59 Topdoller wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 16:47 corpuscle wrote:
On May 07 2012 16:31 RaiZ wrote:
On May 07 2012 14:14 corpuscle wrote:By the way, a scan costs more than an overlord.
I'm sick of ppl saying that scan "costs" more than an overlord because it's not. The scan comes from an energy dump, not from minerals. Sure scanning before the first 2 mules ever in the beginning could "cost" you more than overlords but that's about it. It's like i'm spending creep tumor instead of injections, look it costs me larvaes ! Stop saying scan cost you 270 minerals. It's not. It's a bonus. You simply have to spend the energy wisely, much like the other race and their energy dumps.
Haha what? Zerg and Protoss can make workers much faster than Terran. We have MULEs to compensate for that. It's not a bonus, it's our way of staying equal against superior worker counts, which happen in every non-mirror matchup.
Does this apply any more in the modern SC2 metagame at Pro Level?, A lot of Terran's out expand Zerg these days with 3 CCs, around12 mins game time. Early game yes, late game no for certain. Once that 3rd CC kicks in with mules Zerg need 4 bases just for parity. 99% of Pro Terrans will use scans just to clear creep these days rather than build their own dedicated anti cloak unit the Raven ( I haven't seen one of these used to clear creep since game release )
The worker count has a lot to do with expansion timings. Typical example, zerg 15 hatches, terran reactor hellion expands. The zerg can saturate his main/natural faster than terran due to inject vs no inject/chrono. Here, Mules allow terran to keep similar mineral income. If you can keep the game on two bases for longer, you limit the advantage of inject on workers because they have a marginal return due to being the third miner. SCV production can catch up, and then mules become strictly extra income as they don't stop the scv from mining. So yes zerg/toss can saturate faster (and during this time you need mules to stay even), but once saturated mules just get you extra income.
Furthermore, with terran scouting, how many events are there for terran to react to? Example, you are going marine/tank/medivac. What can the zerg be going? Ling/bling/muta? You still go marine/tank/medivac. What if they went ling infestor? You still go marine/tank/medivac. At some point in the early game you may want to scout for a ling/bling all in, so you scan the natural and see it's saturation. At other points you may scan a base right before you drop on it to avoid losing the medivac to anti-air, then you scout the base with your marines as they run through the base.
Point being, protoss, terran, and zerg all use scouting differently. |
|
|
| mutantmagnet United States. May 08 2012 17:21. Posts 549 | Profile # |
On May 07 2012 10:12 Zealot Lord wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 06 2012 16:14 iAmJeffReY wrote:
This kind of thread is why I feel everyone should have a sc2 profile linked to their name. Like after posts, it would say bronze/silver/gold/plat/diamond/masters/gmasters. It really helps when talking about balance and other issues when you know you're not talking to an extremely low level player that is a I watch every tournament theorycraft pro...that bases everything off one series in one tournament to show why something is so imbalanced.
Though I personally also like this idea as it gets rid of low level balance whiner trolls, at the same time, I don't think its fair to posters who have higher knowledge than actual playing skill, because people will no doubt dismiss their opinion instantly (even if its a good one) if they see that their linked profile is not of a high league. The best thing imo is to incorporate some sort of post rating system that I've seen other forum boards use before. Allow users to be able to rate posts (e.g.1-5 stars), and show their average score under their name. Its not a perfect system by any means, but at least you'll be able to filter out which posters are just here to waste peoples time rather quickly (actually I think some sites just ban posters who have an absurdly low rating with enough rates). Because right now I agree with you that there are way too many posts which are completely nonconstructive/absurd, would make threads a lot more enjoyable to read if they are full of proper legit honest discussions.
After reading yesterday 70% of my fellow countrymen think Iran already has nuclear weapons I think a rating system won't work as well as you think.
What should be done is everyone has a personal stat tracker just like up vote down vote tool in online radios. If you find someone disagreeable you down vote them and in future threads their posts are truncated more and more until their hidden for each time youo down vote them. If people befriend you then your down votes will influence what they can see on the forum (but they need to opt in) |
|
|
| naastyOne May 08 2012 19:12. Posts 441 | Profile # |
On May 08 2012 17:21 mutantmagnet wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 10:12 Zealot Lord wrote:
On May 06 2012 16:14 iAmJeffReY wrote:
This kind of thread is why I feel everyone should have a sc2 profile linked to their name. Like after posts, it would say bronze/silver/gold/plat/diamond/masters/gmasters. It really helps when talking about balance and other issues when you know you're not talking to an extremely low level player that is a I watch every tournament theorycraft pro...that bases everything off one series in one tournament to show why something is so imbalanced.
Though I personally also like this idea as it gets rid of low level balance whiner trolls, at the same time, I don't think its fair to posters who have higher knowledge than actual playing skill, because people will no doubt dismiss their opinion instantly (even if its a good one) if they see that their linked profile is not of a high league. The best thing imo is to incorporate some sort of post rating system that I've seen other forum boards use before. Allow users to be able to rate posts (e.g.1-5 stars), and show their average score under their name. Its not a perfect system by any means, but at least you'll be able to filter out which posters are just here to waste peoples time rather quickly (actually I think some sites just ban posters who have an absurdly low rating with enough rates). Because right now I agree with you that there are way too many posts which are completely nonconstructive/absurd, would make threads a lot more enjoyable to read if they are full of proper legit honest discussions.
After reading yesterday 70% of my fellow countrymen think Iran already has nuclear weapons I think a rating system won't work as well as you think. What should be done is everyone has a personal stat tracker just like up vote down vote tool in online radios. If you find someone disagreeable you down vote them and in future threads their posts are truncated more and more until their hidden for each time youo down vote them. If people befriend you then your down votes will influence what they can see on the forum (but they need to opt in)
But again, you imply that a person need some sort of external help/reminder to figure out the content of the post, which is
Largely BS and arguably foolish elitism. |
|
|
| Alexstrasas May 08 2012 20:46. Posts 300 | Profile # |
On May 06 2012 16:14 iAmJeffReY wrote:
This kind of thread is why I feel everyone should have a sc2 profile linked to their name. Like after posts, it would say bronze/silver/gold/plat/diamond/masters/gmasters. It really helps when talking about balance and other issues when you know you're not talking to an extremely low level player that is a I watch every tournament theorycraft pro...that bases everything off one series in one tournament to show why something is so imbalanced.
While i do agree that some bronze guys sometimes say the darndest things, here is why i dont agree with this:
a) A person can have common sense, yet not have the will/time to put in into the game.
b) I know people that reached masters doing X gates all-ins
c) There is another thing 999999 times more important then random people giving out their opinion on the internet.
What is more important than random people giving out their balance opinion on the internet you might ask?
In what league are the people that are actualy DOING the balance changes?
I think that if this balance team was to be tested, we would get some interesting results.
Just some food for thought.Last edit: 2012-05-08 20:48:08 |
|
|
| mutantmagnet United States. May 08 2012 21:24. Posts 549 | Profile # |
On May 08 2012 19:12 naastyOne wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 17:21 mutantmagnet wrote:
On May 07 2012 10:12 Zealot Lord wrote:
On May 06 2012 16:14 iAmJeffReY wrote:
This kind of thread is why I feel everyone should have a sc2 profile linked to their name. Like after posts, it would say bronze/silver/gold/plat/diamond/masters/gmasters. It really helps when talking about balance and other issues when you know you're not talking to an extremely low level player that is a I watch every tournament theorycraft pro...that bases everything off one series in one tournament to show why something is so imbalanced.
Though I personally also like this idea as it gets rid of low level balance whiner trolls, at the same time, I don't think its fair to posters who have higher knowledge than actual playing skill, because people will no doubt dismiss their opinion instantly (even if its a good one) if they see that their linked profile is not of a high league. The best thing imo is to incorporate some sort of post rating system that I've seen other forum boards use before. Allow users to be able to rate posts (e.g.1-5 stars), and show their average score under their name. Its not a perfect system by any means, but at least you'll be able to filter out which posters are just here to waste peoples time rather quickly (actually I think some sites just ban posters who have an absurdly low rating with enough rates). Because right now I agree with you that there are way too many posts which are completely nonconstructive/absurd, would make threads a lot more enjoyable to read if they are full of proper legit honest discussions.
After reading yesterday 70% of my fellow countrymen think Iran already has nuclear weapons I think a rating system won't work as well as you think. What should be done is everyone has a personal stat tracker just like up vote down vote tool in online radios. If you find someone disagreeable you down vote them and in future threads their posts are truncated more and more until their hidden for each time youo down vote them. If people befriend you then your down votes will influence what they can see on the forum (but they need to opt in)
But again, you imply that a person need some sort of external help/reminder to figure out the content of the post, which is Largely BS and arguably foolish elitism.
There is nothing elitist about this approach. Comments from posters you have found to offer less then compelling material get truncated more and more over time by you adding more down votes.One of the problems with message boards is that sometimes people say useless things you don't need to even waste your time skimming.
This wouldn't be like putting someone on your ignore list where anything they say is immediately hidden. They have to get down voted a lot to become hidden.
Also if someone trusts your opinion it is up to them to maually set up their filter settings to be influenced by your own. It is their perogative to rely on you like that. |
|
|
| naastyOne May 08 2012 22:17. Posts 441 | Profile # |
On May 08 2012 21:24 mutantmagnet wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 19:12 naastyOne wrote:
On May 08 2012 17:21 mutantmagnet wrote:
On May 07 2012 10:12 Zealot Lord wrote:
On May 06 2012 16:14 iAmJeffReY wrote:
This kind of thread is why I feel everyone should have a sc2 profile linked to their name. Like after posts, it would say bronze/silver/gold/plat/diamond/masters/gmasters. It really helps when talking about balance and other issues when you know you're not talking to an extremely low level player that is a I watch every tournament theorycraft pro...that bases everything off one series in one tournament to show why something is so imbalanced.
Though I personally also like this idea as it gets rid of low level balance whiner trolls, at the same time, I don't think its fair to posters who have higher knowledge than actual playing skill, because people will no doubt dismiss their opinion instantly (even if its a good one) if they see that their linked profile is not of a high league. The best thing imo is to incorporate some sort of post rating system that I've seen other forum boards use before. Allow users to be able to rate posts (e.g.1-5 stars), and show their average score under their name. Its not a perfect system by any means, but at least you'll be able to filter out which posters are just here to waste peoples time rather quickly (actually I think some sites just ban posters who have an absurdly low rating with enough rates). Because right now I agree with you that there are way too many posts which are completely nonconstructive/absurd, would make threads a lot more enjoyable to read if they are full of proper legit honest discussions.
After reading yesterday 70% of my fellow countrymen think Iran already has nuclear weapons I think a rating system won't work as well as you think. What should be done is everyone has a personal stat tracker just like up vote down vote tool in online radios. If you find someone disagreeable you down vote them and in future threads their posts are truncated more and more until their hidden for each time youo down vote them. If people befriend you then your down votes will influence what they can see on the forum (but they need to opt in)
But again, you imply that a person need some sort of external help/reminder to figure out the content of the post, which is Largely BS and arguably foolish elitism.
There is nothing elitist about this approach. Comments from posters you have found to offer less then compelling material get truncated more and more over time by you adding more down votes.One of the problems with message boards is that sometimes people say useless things you don't need to even waste your time skimming. This wouldn't be like putting someone on your ignore list where anything they say is immediately hidden. They have to get down voted a lot to become hidden. Also if someone trusts your opinion it is up to them to maually set up their filter settings to be influenced by your own. It is their perogative to rely on you like that.
Well, here you go, instead of reading through the argument and compelling, just dismiss it.
Lol.
The "community vote" on the post in >95% cases go by popularity&personal feeling.
This generally has very, very few things with with how much worth the post is. Just look at it.
For example, Any post viewing TvP as fine, will generally be negatively rated by people who thinks otherwise, and the post didn`t convince them. Examples can go on infinitely,
It all comes to the point, where the "rating system" that is really needed to make the "community vote" efficient, is self-defeating, because a person would waste more time figuring out the vote about the post than actually reading the post and figuring out yourself. Kinda simple.
On May 08 2012 21:24 mutantmagnet wrote:
One of the problems with message boards is that sometimes people say useless things you don't need to even waste your time skimming.
Yes, because sometimes you have to read something you think stupid and can not frame the post/person in any way to get a feeling that "at least you did something", like showed your "own opinion" without actually needing to put any argument behind is, well called,.. |
|
|
| nkr Sweden. May 08 2012 22:22. Posts 2778 | Profile Blog # |
On May 07 2012 18:59 Topdoller wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 16:47 corpuscle wrote:
On May 07 2012 16:31 RaiZ wrote:
On May 07 2012 14:14 corpuscle wrote:By the way, a scan costs more than an overlord.
I'm sick of ppl saying that scan "costs" more than an overlord because it's not. The scan comes from an energy dump, not from minerals. Sure scanning before the first 2 mules ever in the beginning could "cost" you more than overlords but that's about it. It's like i'm spending creep tumor instead of injections, look it costs me larvaes ! Stop saying scan cost you 270 minerals. It's not. It's a bonus. You simply have to spend the energy wisely, much like the other race and their energy dumps.
Haha what? Zerg and Protoss can make workers much faster than Terran. We have MULEs to compensate for that. It's not a bonus, it's our way of staying equal against superior worker counts, which happen in every non-mirror matchup.
Does this apply any more in the modern SC2 metagame at Pro Level?, A lot of Terran's out expand Zerg these days with 3 CCs, around12 mins game time. Early game yes, late game no for certain. Once that 3rd CC kicks in with mules Zerg need 4 bases just for parity. 99% of Pro Terrans will use scans just to clear creep these days rather than build their own dedicated anti cloak unit the Raven ( I haven't seen one of these used to clear creep since game release )
I saw MaruPrime do it. Once.
|
| | Worst player to never win a Code S Championship | Mascot of mYinsanity |  |
|
|
| Saiton Sweden. May 09 2012 02:25. Posts 453 | Profile Blog # |
On May 08 2012 22:22 nkr wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 18:59 Topdoller wrote:
On May 07 2012 16:47 corpuscle wrote:
On May 07 2012 16:31 RaiZ wrote:
On May 07 2012 14:14 corpuscle wrote:By the way, a scan costs more than an overlord.
I'm sick of ppl saying that scan "costs" more than an overlord because it's not. The scan comes from an energy dump, not from minerals. Sure scanning before the first 2 mules ever in the beginning could "cost" you more than overlords but that's about it. It's like i'm spending creep tumor instead of injections, look it costs me larvaes ! Stop saying scan cost you 270 minerals. It's not. It's a bonus. You simply have to spend the energy wisely, much like the other race and their energy dumps.
Haha what? Zerg and Protoss can make workers much faster than Terran. We have MULEs to compensate for that. It's not a bonus, it's our way of staying equal against superior worker counts, which happen in every non-mirror matchup.
Does this apply any more in the modern SC2 metagame at Pro Level?, A lot of Terran's out expand Zerg these days with 3 CCs, around12 mins game time. Early game yes, late game no for certain. Once that 3rd CC kicks in with mules Zerg need 4 bases just for parity. 99% of Pro Terrans will use scans just to clear creep these days rather than build their own dedicated anti cloak unit the Raven ( I haven't seen one of these used to clear creep since game release )
I saw MaruPrime do it. Once.
DeMuslim has started doing it with ravens & 1-2 banshees to clear creep and force fungals/infested terrans while also having an eye out on the map. I think it's an up & coming trend in TvZ.
|
| | Platinum Terran streaming 1v1 at http://www.twitch.tv/propsaiton |
|
|
| mutantmagnet United States. May 09 2012 07:37. Posts 549 | Profile # |
On May 08 2012 22:17 naastyOne wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 21:24 mutantmagnet wrote:
On May 08 2012 19:12 naastyOne wrote:
On May 08 2012 17:21 mutantmagnet wrote:
On May 07 2012 10:12 Zealot Lord wrote:
On May 06 2012 16:14 iAmJeffReY wrote:
This kind of thread is why I feel everyone should have a sc2 profile linked to their name. Like after posts, it would say bronze/silver/gold/plat/diamond/masters/gmasters. It really helps when talking about balance and other issues when you know you're not talking to an extremely low level player that is a I watch every tournament theorycraft pro...that bases everything off one series in one tournament to show why something is so imbalanced.
Though I personally also like this idea as it gets rid of low level balance whiner trolls, at the same time, I don't think its fair to posters who have higher knowledge than actual playing skill, because people will no doubt dismiss their opinion instantly (even if its a good one) if they see that their linked profile is not of a high league. The best thing imo is to incorporate some sort of post rating system that I've seen other forum boards use before. Allow users to be able to rate posts (e.g.1-5 stars), and show their average score under their name. Its not a perfect system by any means, but at least you'll be able to filter out which posters are just here to waste peoples time rather quickly (actually I think some sites just ban posters who have an absurdly low rating with enough rates). Because right now I agree with you that there are way too many posts which are completely nonconstructive/absurd, would make threads a lot more enjoyable to read if they are full of proper legit honest discussions.
After reading yesterday 70% of my fellow countrymen think Iran already has nuclear weapons I think a rating system won't work as well as you think. What should be done is everyone has a personal stat tracker just like up vote down vote tool in online radios. If you find someone disagreeable you down vote them and in future threads their posts are truncated more and more until their hidden for each time youo down vote them. If people befriend you then your down votes will influence what they can see on the forum (but they need to opt in)
But again, you imply that a person need some sort of external help/reminder to figure out the content of the post, which is Largely BS and arguably foolish elitism.
There is nothing elitist about this approach. Comments from posters you have found to offer less then compelling material get truncated more and more over time by you adding more down votes.One of the problems with message boards is that sometimes people say useless things you don't need to even waste your time skimming. This wouldn't be like putting someone on your ignore list where anything they say is immediately hidden. They have to get down voted a lot to become hidden. Also if someone trusts your opinion it is up to them to maually set up their filter settings to be influenced by your own. It is their perogative to rely on you like that.
Well, here you go, instead of reading through the argument and compelling, just dismiss it. Lol. The "community vote" on the post in >95% cases go by popularity&personal feeling. This generally has very, very few things with with how much worth the post is. Just look at it. For example, Any post viewing TvP as fine, will generally be negatively rated by people who thinks otherwise, and the post didn`t convince them. Examples can go on infinitely, It all comes to the point, where the "rating system" that is really needed to make the "community vote" efficient, is self-defeating, because a person would waste more time figuring out the vote about the post than actually reading the post and figuring out yourself. Kinda simple.
Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 21:24 mutantmagnet wrote:
One of the problems with message boards is that sometimes people say useless things you don't need to even waste your time skimming.
Yes, because sometimes you have to read something you think stupid and can not frame the post/person in any way to get a feeling that "at least you did something", like showed your "own opinion" without actually needing to put any argument behind is, well called,..
You act as if what I proposed is a public rating when I suggested a personal one.
|
|
|
| Auriouk Norway. May 09 2012 09:56. Posts 4 | Profile # |
reapers vs zerg is now nullified and completely useless, now u cant even kite queens with reapers, which only did a small thing for terran and was not imbalanced by any means. So hellions can't kite queens either, this change is fine, but leaving no room for reaper play is bad.
|
| | If I were you........... nevermind, thank god im not you. |
|
|
| BoxingKangaroo Japan. May 09 2012 10:08. Posts 803 | Profile Blog # |
On May 09 2012 09:56 Auriouk wrote:
reapers vs zerg is now nullified and completely useless, now u cant even kite queens with reapers, which only did a small thing for terran and was not imbalanced by any means. So hellions can't kite queens either, this change is fine, but leaving no room for reaper play is bad.
I probably see reapers 1 out of 100 games. Yeah removing the option is bad, but are Terrans actually sad about this? I think the reason it's not seen is because it's simply not an optimal opening, and Z's find it easy to defend, even with current queen range. At what level are reaper openings still common? |
|
|
| CarelessPride United States. May 09 2012 10:18. Posts 142 | Profile # |
| imo balance should go like David Kim (idea) -> blizzard (presents the idea) -> 10 Progamers per race by either public vote or tournament results represents their race on balance tests/ decides if the changes go through or not. these representatives can be changed every 3 months (season). Right now it feels like an incompetent family where the parents have no clue how to raise their kids and rewards/ punishes based on who cries more or who hasn't been crying enough. |
|
|
| oxxo May 09 2012 10:20. Posts 939 | Profile # |
| The crap is up with Bliz and their range buff fetish? For whatever reason Blizzard seems to think range buffs = minor fix. Range buffs are game changingly powerful. |
|
|
| GinDo May 09 2012 10:45. Posts 2926 | Profile Blog # |
On May 09 2012 10:08 BoxingKangaroo wrote:
Show nested quote +On May 09 2012 09:56 Auriouk wrote:
reapers vs zerg is now nullified and completely useless, now u cant even kite queens with reapers, which only did a small thing for terran and was not imbalanced by any means. So hellions can't kite queens either, this change is fine, but leaving no room for reaper play is bad.
I probably see reapers 1 out of 100 games. Yeah removing the option is bad, but are Terrans actually sad about this? I think the reason it's not seen is because it's simply not an optimal opening, and Z's find it easy to defend, even with current queen range. At what level are reaper openings still common?
Reapers still have a strong effect in TvZ. A reaper build instantly takes map control from the Zerg and forces an earlier production of lings in comparison to the Reactor Hellion. Not only that, but you also get a faster CC and a faster Tech Lab upgrade. The build also lends it's self to being very safe against Roaches and allows for an early scout.
The down side of Reaper openings is that the Reapers is very fragile, and you simply cannot lose the Reaper lest you risk a ling all in. Also Reaper openings usually equal late Siege Mode, but a very strong Bio force. As a result, if you have bad micro your pretty much screwed. |
| | ⱩŦ ƑⱠẬ$Ħ / ƩǤ ɈƩẬƉØƝǤ [ɌȻ] |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
