EPTI'm still wondering how ZVT is going to change with swarm hosts, too :o
[HotS] Unit Interactions - Page 3
| Blogs > Plexa |
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
I'm still wondering how ZVT is going to change with swarm hosts, too :o | ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 24 2012 09:35 SigmaoctanusIV wrote: I agree but from watching Hots Streams the only real gameplay changer is Swarmhost and Viper PvP and PvT look the same Protoss sitting around defending tell 200 then going. Only seen a couple cool recall plays on NonY's stream. PvP and PvT are largely the same because nothing significant happened in either matchup. There is an outside chance that some mech or biomech becomes viable now that mines have a better splash damage, but other than that there isn't much. | ||
|
DRTnOOber
New Zealand476 Posts
Has anyone used Tempest in late game PvZ in HotS? | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
I fully agree that HoTS seems to be making the game much better. I also agree with Blizzard. Let's first try to uncover the potential of all new units, and understand how they change the gameplay. After that we'll be able to better understand how to buff/redesign some WoL units that need attention (underused units with great micro potential like raven come to mind). | ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 24 2012 12:50 DRTnOOber wrote: What are you thoughts on the current interaction in WoL between P and Z lategame armies? Is it fun/interesting that the only way to combat brood lords it to get off a good vortex? Or is it just a bit too far that the only way you can repel the Z deathball is with a hero unit than you can build only one of? Has anyone used Tempest in late game PvZ in HotS? Vortex does create some tension, arguably the wrong kind of tension but whatever. That isn't the only way for a protoss to counter late game zerg - multipronged harass and carriers are effective tools given you have the economy for that. Vortex is a spell which can punish zergs for being lazy, which is a good thing, but as the skill of players increases its utility should decrease. | ||
|
alphakennybody
35 Posts
On September 23 2012 16:14 Antimatterz wrote: What I like about abduct is that now toss can no long just roam with a consolidated deathball and have no fear of being contested once they get their colossus out. Abduct forces them to babysit their army just like terran and zerg have to babysit their army to make sure they don't get an absolutely awful engagement. Unfortunately a lot of people will probably compain about how OP abduct is, but imo it's and a very interesting and welcome gameplay mechanic. They have to babysit their army too? Lol corrupters vikings etc. | ||
|
iTzSnypah
United States1738 Posts
Abduct Colossus into Force Fields. | ||
|
Moka
Canada942 Posts
In BW, you could use dropships to make your immobile mech army a lot more mobile. It was useful for doom dropping on top of armies/bases and fast repositioning. Things like these makes the matchup tense and exciting.I think this game explains for itself: + Show Spoiler + In WoL, if you had a Mech vs Mech matchup, there was no reason to make medivacs except for hellion drops(Rarely saw doomdrops in that kind of matchup, only one I recall was Mvp vs TOP doomdrop). Gas is limited and it is preferable to spend gas on mech units and vikings as it provides vision for the tanks. Maybe in HotS,in a Mech vs Mech matchup, bio-battle hellions will make the terran player to have a mixed balance of vikings and medivacs, because gas is limited and he also wants to keep the hellions effective with healing. Suddenly, you have multiple medivacs at your disposition and it could create some interesting play  One of my concerns is that the viking's long range can deter that. But again, it makes point defense drone even more useful! Also, dropships were much faster in BW and it's one of the big reasons that it could work. I wonder what it would be like if a player goes mech + medivacs vs a marine tank player or bio player.I don't really watch any streams, so I would like to know if it's pratical or not. My thoughts. Edit: random stuff,poor grammar, blabla | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On September 24 2012 18:06 Moka wrote: I don't have the HotS beta, but from a theorycrafting point of view, Bio-Battle Hellions could bring back a interesting dynamic that I liked to see in BW Mech TvT. I will try to explain myself: In BW, you could use dropships to make your immobile mech army a lot more mobile. It was useful for doom dropping on top of armies/bases and fast repositioning. Things like these makes the matchup tense and exciting.I think this game explains for itself: + Show Spoiler + In WoL, if you had a Mech vs Mech matchup, there was no reason to make medivacs except for hellion drops(Rarely saw doomdrops in that kind of matchup, only one I recall was Mvp vs TOP doomdrop). Gas is limited and it is preferable to spend gas on mech units and vikings as it provides vision for the tanks. Maybe in HotS,in a Mech vs Mech matchup, bio-battle hellions will make the terran player to have a mixed balance of vikings and medivacs, because gas is limited and he also wants to keep the hellions effective with healing. Suddenly, you have multiple medivacs at your disposition and it could create some interesting play One of my concerns is that the viking's long range can deter that. But again, it makes point defense drone even more useful! Also, dropships were much faster in BW and it's one of the big reasons that it could work. I wonder what it would be like if a player goes mech + medivacs vs a marine tank player or bio player.I don't really watch any streams, so I would like to know if it's pratical or not. My thoughts. Edit: random stuff,poor grammar, blabla Intersting points. However I think drops in Mech haven't been so popular because of the relative ease of taking them out. 1) In WOL because Tanks are bad in small numbers, and the lack of Mines means that Stimed Bio can take care of any mech drop. 2) Not to mention that unlike Goliaths, Vikings are immune to Tanks and more mobile, making it easier to take out the drop ship. 3) Also the fact that sensor towers exist is a direct nerf to drops, as it allow the Opponent to easily spot incoming drops. 4)Last the supply that goes into mech drops in WOL is too much. 2 Tanks, 6 Mines, 2 Vultures, and 2 Drop ships in BW was 12 Supply. 2 Tanks, 6 Mines, 2 Hellions, and 3 Dropships(per need), takes 30 Supply. | ||
|
Moka
Canada942 Posts
On September 24 2012 21:10 GinDo wrote: Intersting points. However I think drops in Mech haven't been so popular because of the relative ease of taking them out. 1) In WOL because Tanks are bad in small numbers, and the lack of Mines means that Stimed Bio can take care of any mech drop. 2) Not to mention that unlike Goliaths, Vikings are immune to Tanks and more mobile, making it easier to take out the drop ship. 3) Also the fact that sensor towers exist is a direct nerf to drops, as it allow the Opponent to easily spot incoming drops. 4)Last the supply that goes into mech drops in WOL is too much. 2 Tanks, 6 Mines, 2 Vultures, and 2 Drop ships in BW was 12 Supply. 2 Tanks, 6 Mines, 2 Hellions, and 3 Dropships(per need), takes 30 Supply. I agree with the points that you mentionned. Supply costs is really big and two or three well placed widow mines could wipe out instantly your whole medivac squad, thus your 30 supply drop, or even your whole army if you clumped the medivacs for a doomdrop. It might be too risky to carry expensive mech units like that. | ||
|
10734
340 Posts
| ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
| ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
Sure, they're not massable like Colossus but that is due to AI glitches which limit their effectiveness past 6 reavers. No, it's not. Even I, a mere B level user, can control 10+ reavers. The reason you don't mass reavers in PvP is because of high templars. If there were no high templars, you would see ~15 reavers on both sides in lategame PvP. In PvZ, where Protoss doesn't have to worry about storm, you do see more than six Reavers when the Protoss has enough gas to collect that many. For example: Free vs Jaedong on Athena. | ||
|
Gaius Baltar
United States449 Posts
| ||
|
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 25 2012 00:00 vOdToasT wrote: No, it's not. Even I, a mere B level user, can control 10+ reavers. The reason you don't mass reavers in PvP is because of high templars. If there were no high templars, you would see ~15 reavers on both sides in lategame PvP. In PvZ, where Protoss doesn't have to worry about storm, you do see more than six Reavers when the Protoss has enough gas to collect that many. For example: Free vs Jaedong on Athena. Reavers are just as good as high templar in terms of damage output - 125 scarab, 121 storm - and scarabs are instant with splash while storm is over time. So why don't we see more reavers in PvP? It's not because storm exists, because in general one reaver will do a ton more damage than one templar. It's because Reavers has a far greater tendency to overkill units than with storm. Plus you don't want to be wandering around with 5+ shuttles in PvP. As far as I can remember, a lot of PvPs in the last 3 years of BWs life would still have some base line level of reavers (2~4) just so that they could deal with mass zealot better (reavers own zealots a lot harder than storm, lets face it). After you pass 4 reavers it becomes a better investment to get storm. If storm were so much superior then why do we normally go reaver > templar and not templar first every game? (Yes I realise that DT openers often go templar first, but that is because you've already invested in templar tech and are often cutting corners to try and depend your expansion with DTs) (Yes I also recognise that you need observers to counter DTs, but if templars were so much stronger you would see cannons replace observers in the early game). And yes, in PvZ you will see more than 6 reavers in rare occasions. In sair/reaver you can have more than 6 because you can't really overkill a hive (or lair). And yes, Free did use more than 6 in his match against Jaedong - but that doesn't change the fact that 4 reavers with your army was standard (4 = dead ultra). On September 25 2012 00:48 Gaius Baltar wrote: Phase shield was Grubby's idea? Yes, he proposed it in the pro forum | ||
|
CHOMPMannER
Canada175 Posts
| ||
|
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On September 24 2012 06:43 m3rciless wrote: do you still just come into sc2 threads to snipe it? 2 years after the game is out and after professional BW has had its last televised finals? Shouldn't you start trying to appreciate sc2 for what it is, or stop coming to this website entirely? I also remember that game, i think it was an MSL semifinal, but it doesn't prevent me from seeing that swarmhosts could add an entirely new, perhaps even more exciting type of games. Lol. Don't you think he tried to appreciate SC2 for what it is? I think he tried and failed, because he likes what BW is more than what SC2 is. Reavers are just as good as high templar in terms of damage output - 125 scarab, 121 storm - and scarabs are instant with splash while storm is over time. So why don't we see more reavers in PvP? It's not because storm exists, because in general one reaver will do a ton more damage than one templar. It's because Reavers has a far greater tendency to overkill units than with storm. Plus you don't want to be wandering around with 5+ shuttles in PvP. As far as I can remember, a lot of PvPs in the last 3 years of BWs life would still have some base line level of reavers (2~4) just so that they could deal with mass zealot better (reavers own zealots a lot harder than storm, lets face it). After you pass 4 reavers it becomes a better investment to get storm. If storm were so much superior then why do we normally go reaver > templar and not templar first every game? (Yes I realise that DT openers often go templar first, but that is because you've already invested in templar tech and are often cutting corners to try and depend your expansion with DTs) (Yes I also recognise that you need observers to counter DTs, but if templars were so much stronger you would see cannons replace observers in the early game). And yes, in PvZ you will see more than 6 reavers in rare occasions. In sair/reaver you can have more than 6 because you can't really overkill a hive (or lair). And yes, Free did use more than 6 in his match against Jaedong - but that doesn't change the fact that 4 reavers with your army was standard (4 = dead ultra). Reavers are slow, and most effective when clumped up. That's why they get owned by storm. Furthermore, storm damages both the shuttle and the reavers at the same time. The reason people go reavers first is because reavers are better vs dragoons and zealots than templars, but get owned by storm. It's not like if reavers lost whatever "glitchy AI" you are referring to, they would be used in higher numbers and for longer periods of time in PvP. Storm on reavers completely shuts them down. It either destroys the reavers, or forces them to move. Since they move so slowly, not only will they still take lots of damage from the storm, but they won't be able to attack for a long time, since it takes so long to move out of the storm for them. And when the storm is finally over, you can just put another storm on the reavers, which will destroy them. A templar only has to release the psi storm, and he has done his job. A reaver has to stand there attacking for the entire battle, but because of storm, it can't do that. Even if you have the most amazing micro in the world, and can manage 4 shuttles with reavers at the same time to storm dodge, the storm will force you to pick the reaver up and drop it off, and during that duration, it does no damage. The storm, on the other hand, is damaging both the shuttle / reaver and the rest of your army. The reason it's damaging the rest of your army as well is that if you position your reavers seperate from your main army, they will just get sniped by dragoons and zealots. You need to have your reavers close to your dragoons, behind the zealots. | ||
|
NeonFox
2373 Posts
It should make it so the mothership will be much harder to neural, before a mothership lagging a bit behind could get neuraled even if the protoss saw the infestor closing in, but now an oracle right next to it should be able to cast phase shield because of the delay between casting neural and the unit being neuraled. Negating fungal on blink stalkers or archons trying to get in a vortex is also pretty big. I didn't see enough games to see it by myself but if the oracle is killed does the shield end or does it keep going? | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
| ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
E: Upon rereading I figure it seems to stem from the fact that you focus on PvZ which leaves the "tank issue" alone. It seems like a lot of Terrans are on a crusade for positional play. | ||
| ||
