[HotS] The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - Page 6

On September 07 2012 03:02 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Mech just looks like MMM now, sans medivacs.

On September 06 2012 14:45 avilo wrote:


I did a lot, a lot of unit tests when the custom map was out with immortals vs warhounds specifically to test cost effectiveness of immortals against mech (and yes the stats were exactly the same along with everything else).

The immortals cost for cost were destroying warhounds quite easily with a lot leftover, regardless of the missile getting through shields because the immortal's damage output vs mech is so high. Combine this with collosus/other units, and then it gets trickier. Just as well as the Terran adding in ghosts it gets very tricky.

In a vacuum type of test I tested 200/200 immortal vs 200/200 warhound and the immortals came out way ahead with an incredible cost efficiency ratio.

I did the same test and added in only 2-4 ghosts with full energy for EMPs and suddenly the warhounds came out of the fight with huge cost efficiency and almost the exact reverse result of leftover units.

Now we add in other units to these compositions...along with an actual 1v1 game being played out...waaaaay too early to claim immortals are bad against mech. As far as I can tell they are just as good against mech as they are in WoL.

Of course that doesn't mean the warhound doesn't need a lot of work done in either design / balance. And I believe it's intended for the haywire missile to be able to get through immortal's shields because the immortal is such a hard counter to mech that blizzard decided they wanted a unit that would be able to help fight against the immortal from Terran mech that did not require having to get ghost EMP which requires a barracks + ghost academy + upgrade research + the ghost themselves.

On September 07 2012 02:31 NicolBolas wrote:


... what?

I'm trying to think like Blizzard, but I just can't make the logic work.

OK, it's 2007. I look at Siege Tanks and I hate this unit. But, rather than taking it out of the game, I'm instead going to give the Protoss a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose Siege Tanks. And to hose them so hard that nobody will ever even consider building STs in TvP again.

Alright, fine. It's 2012, and our plan is a success: no Terran player ever goes Mech in TvP. But now, for some reason, we want Terran players to go Mech against Protoss. OK, so, rather than removing the unit we put in for the sole purpose of hosing Mech, we'll just give Terran a unit who's primary designed purpose is to hose the unit we made to hose Mech.

And thus... what have we accomplished? Terrans can use Siege Tanks, but only if they're accompanied by MaraudersWarhounds?

I just don't understand this. If Blizzard doesn't like Siege Tanks so much that they'll design a unit who's whole purpose is to kill them, why not just remove them?

On September 06 2012 18:05 Plexa wrote:
I agree that worker management is a vital part of the game, but what this indicator brings to the table is a quick fact about the number of workers at each base. What you do with this fact is up to you. Are you trying to hit a precise 40 probe 6gate timing attack? How many workers should you be maynarding to you natural at any given time? This information allows you to make those decisions in a more accurate way. Does it lower the skill ceiling? A bit, but in the case the payoff is more accurate builds and better execution of whatever it is you are planning to do ay every level.

On September 06 2012 18:05 Plexa wrote:
Boxing workers can be inaccurate because more often that not you pick up workers mining gas - which is kinda annoying (and position dependent). Moreover, boxing three bases quickly can lead to a variation of up to 10 workers (in my experience anyway).

On September 07 2012 04:27 Bobo_XIII wrote:


These facts you talk about that the indicator gives you are the same things you get when you actively and manually keep track of your worker allocation, only that information is automatically processed and essentially announced to you in HotS. It's a big deal, because macro is being made even more less demanding than it already is (let's not kid ourselves, macro in SC2 is already pretty easy). This is a critical skill that honestly even a lot of GM players fuck up pretty often (on NA at least), and now that field is being leveled.

I can understand the desire to see or perform more fluid and perfect play, but much of the magic of SC2 is the difficulty in executing things correctly. It's the mastery of the sum of all these taxing actions in conjunction with appropriate decision making that makes SC2 so attractive. Sacrificing standards and work required for good play in the name of convenience is going down the 'path of the casual,' if you ask me.



There are methods to the madness in boxing workers to get counts. Honestly, it just sounds like you haven't got it down, because it's a fairly straight-forward task and there isn't any reason why you should be counting extra workers or being thrown off by geyser workers.

On September 07 2012 04:00 BreakfastBurrito wrote:
Meh, splash damage in SC2 is a lot harder to balance than in BW because there is a lot more clumping. Pretty sure D browder & co spent months and months balancing the baneling, because its just so difficult to get it into that sweet spot of not too much, not too little. So as far as game design, I think that swarm host > lurker, even though the lurker was way cooler

On September 07 2012 05:01 how2TL wrote:

There's so many ways to improve the depth of the game that arguing about whether or not you get a worker count on town hall is a hell of a waste of time.

Units whose effectiveness are amplified by positioning and micro, 6m1g maps, units that work better in small packs opposed to deathballs, etc. Seriously there are so many worse ways that Blizzard has fucked up SC2 that arguing about being able to count your workers is a fucking joke and you should feel bad for continuing the discussion.

On September 07 2012 05:11 RaZorwire wrote:


I've never understood that type of reasoning at all. The fact that there are big problems is no reason to ignore the small problems.

And if you don't like discussing worker count displays, you could always just leave the discussion...

On September 07 2012 05:15 Garmer wrote:
it's good that immortal don't counter mech, or we will go back again to boring bio-ball...

On September 06 2012 23:24 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Agree with all except the widow mine, I would put that in the good section. It is easily the most fun unit, has massive utility, and with creativity they can do anything. Like putting them behind mineral patches on the high ground: they leap to the workers to harass from above. or defending YOUR mineral line from things like muta harass.