I know this is a touchy thing on these forums, to talk about balance, but after David Kim's assertion that Hydralisks with speed are the most successful HotS unit, I feel it is worth discussing.
Hydralisks have been notorious since the release of WOL for just not being a unit worth using. If I had to pick an epitome game, I would point all the way back to Idra vs MC game 6 at MLG way back in 2011.
The last fight comes down to almost pure hydralisk (with an upgrade advantage) vs pure stalker, and the stalkers win. This is great because you don't have to deal with any nonsense about splash damage, bad engagements (idra had the concave on MCs army) or anything else other than the fact that Hydras can't kill Stalkers straight up. I guess you could point to the DT in the hydra lines and the corruptors overhead, but you could also point to the infestors and fungals. This is as close to a pure Hydra vs pure Stalker fight that you will ever see at this level of play. As far as I'm concerned, this single fight proves that every argument about Hydras being great vs gateway units and Protoss needing splash to deal with them is a fallacy. Hydras just plain suck, even in their best situations.
While I think this is an important upgrade to the utility of the Hydralisk, it still doesn't address the problem: Hydralisks can't win fights for one glaringly huge reason. They can't take a hit worth a damn!
Sadly, while I think this is the biggest problem for the Hydralisk, I don't think it is the ONLY problem for the hydralisk.
Also important is the tech required to make Hydralisks a viable pick. To save typing out the wall of text, we will just say that a Zerg player must invest 400 minerals, 400 gas, 220 seconds, and a drone before having a functional unit. This does not contribute to the overall success and flexibility of the race, the ONLY thing you gain for all this investment is the Hydralisk.
I had made a blog post to rant about this the other night after having a bad gaming session where Hydras failed me over and over, but the more I think about it, the more I feel it is an important issue that is worth being legitimately discussed. I don't buy David Kims statement. I feel like Widow Mines, Hellbats, and Void Rays have all had much more impact on the way the game is played today than Hydralisks. While the unit is somewhat functional, it is still not a tech I ever want to pursue or feel good about when using. It is a crutch I am force to lean on, and a rickety one at that, and yet Zerg is more reliant on the Hydralisk than ever before, especially in ZvP.
I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, what can we, as players, do about it?
Well I think the problem is as you mention as Zerg you have very few options when you scout an air based composition, and often your only realistic option is that hydra den. I was pretty disapointed to find out that zerg got no new anti-air options in hots. Spores are nice but you really want something that is a little less static. For example the standard response against quick phoenix in ZvP is 1-2 spores in each base, yet the phoneix are able to constatly snipe drones and unless they mess up they will not lose a single phoenix to the spores. infested terrans and fungals were nerfed a while back, and i think something can be done to those abilities for example give IT upgrades back.
ironically the race with the best and most accesible anti air (terran) got an awesome tool against air (wm). wish zerg had gotten something like that instead.
On August 02 2013 01:23 Durmaz21 wrote: Well I think the problem is as you mention as Zerg you have very few options when you scout an air based composition, and often your only realistic option is that hydra den. I was pretty disapointed to find out that zerg got no new anti-air options in hots. Spores are nice but you really want something that is a little less static. For example the standard response against quick phoenix in ZvP is 1-2 spores in each base, yet the phoneix are able to constatly snipe drones and unless they mess up they will not lose a single phoenix to the spores. infested terrans and fungals were nerfed a while back, and i think something can be done to those abilities for example give IT upgrades back.
ironically the race with the best and most accesible anti air (terran) got an awesome tool against air (wm). wish zerg had gotten something like that instead.
And I thought the response to Phoenix was to take a fourth and hold down the 'D' key
On August 02 2013 01:26 aka_star wrote: Marines beat hydra straight up lol
instant fire > missle attack
If I am not mistaken, a marine takes up less space than a hydra so more marines can shoot and also if I am not mistaken marines scales better with uppgrades. Also medivacs are good
On August 02 2013 01:24 K3Nyy wrote: Hydralisks are good. We've watched so many games lately where they're essential in PvZ.
Linking a game where Idra had the smaller army, a terrible concave and supply invested in drones and Corrupters in 2011 doesn't mean that they're bad.
I agree that they are incredibly essential in PvZ lately, but as a Zerg player, I never feel they're good. Any fight where you would say they "SHOULD" win tends to go 50/50 IMO. Void Rays beat them often enough that it doesn't feel like a solid win to be using hydra tech vs them, but what else do I have? Gateway units, especially Zealots, seem to tear Hydras apart if you give them a chance, and then there is all the AoE on top of that. When Hydras are countered so hard by things like Archons, Templar, and Colossi, why are they so mediocre against the things they're supposed to be good against?
As far as the quality of Idras play in that game, I think you can see his mentality is shot, but that's not the point, the point is WE ARE TOLD HYDRAS ARE SOOOO GOOD VS STALKERS, and clearly, they are not.
On August 02 2013 01:23 Durmaz21 wrote: Well I think the problem is as you mention as Zerg you have very few options when you scout an air based composition, and often your only realistic option is that hydra den. I was pretty disapointed to find out that zerg got no new anti-air options in hots. Spores are nice but you really want something that is a little less static. For example the standard response against quick phoenix in ZvP is 1-2 spores in each base, yet the phoneix are able to constatly snipe drones and unless they mess up they will not lose a single phoenix to the spores. infested terrans and fungals were nerfed a while back, and i think something can be done to those abilities for example give IT upgrades back.
ironically the race with the best and most accesible anti air (terran) got an awesome tool against air (wm). wish zerg had gotten something like that instead.
And I thought the response to Phoenix was to take a fourth and hold down the 'D' key
well im talking about how to counter the phoenix, obviously yeah you usually feel pretty safe droning up and expanding but the point here being that the only reasonable defense against early phoenix are spores
I feel like hydras are still very good. For example in ZvP there is a timing window where once hydras pop out if you go attack with your roach hydra army you should win. But the biggest problem in my opinion is not the fact of the Hydra at all I personally think it is that Zerg does not have enough answers when scouting air based play (specifically Protoss)
On August 02 2013 01:16 Jermstuddog wrote: I know this is a touchy thing on these forums, to talk about balance, but after David Kim's assertion that Hydralisks with speed are the most successful HotS unit, I feel it is worth discussing.
Hydralisks have been notorious since the release of WOL for just not being a unit worth using. If I had to pick an epitome game, I would point all the way back to Idra vs MC game 6 at MLG way back in 2011.
The last fight comes down to almost pure hydralisk (with an upgrade advantage) vs pure stalker, and the stalkers win. This is great because you don't have to deal with any nonsense about splash damage, bad engagements (idra had the concave on MCs army) or anything else other than the fact that Hydras can't kill Stalkers straight up. I guess you could point to the DT in the hydra lines and the corruptors overhead, but you could also point to the infestors and fungals. This is as close to a pure Hydra vs pure Stalker fight that you will ever see at this level of play. As far as I'm concerned, this single fight proves that every argument about Hydras being great vs gateway units and Protoss needing splash to deal with them is a fallacy. Hydras just plain suck, even in their best situations.
While I think this is an important upgrade to the utility of the Hydralisk, it still doesn't address the problem: Hydralisks can't win fights for one glaringly huge reason. They can't take a hit worth a damn!
Sadly, while I think this is the biggest problem for the Hydralisk, I don't think it is the ONLY problem for the hydralisk.
Also important is the tech required to make Hydralisks a viable pick. To save typing out the wall of text, we will just say that a Zerg player must invest 400 minerals, 400 gas, 220 seconds, and a drone before having a functional unit. This does not contribute to the overall success and flexibility of the race, the ONLY thing you gain for all this investment is the Hydralisk.
I had made a blog post to rant about this the other night after having a bad gaming session where Hydras failed me over and over, but the more I think about it, the more I feel it is an important issue that is worth being legitimately discussed. I don't buy David Kims statement. I feel like Widow Mines, Hellbats, and Void Rays have all had much more impact on the way the game is played today than Hydralisks. While the unit is somewhat functional, it is still not a tech I ever want to pursue or feel good about when using. It is a crutch I am force to lean on, and a rickety one at that, and yet Zerg is more reliant on the Hydralisk than ever before, especially in ZvP.
I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, what can we, as players, do about it?
It's funny how your whole argument is based on your single unit composition not being strong enough. Any intelligent zerg knows there's a time and place for massing hydras. Any terran ball consists of 4 units (mmm+widow mine). Any protoss ball consists of at least 4 units (colossus, ht(archon), stalker zealot). And here you are crying about your pure hydra ball melting? Even in zvz you don't make pure hydras for obvious reason....
On August 02 2013 01:24 K3Nyy wrote: Hydralisks are good. We've watched so many games lately where they're essential in PvZ.
Linking a game where Idra had the smaller army, a terrible concave and supply invested in drones and Corrupters in 2011 doesn't mean that they're bad.
I agree that they are incredibly essential in PvZ lately, but as a Zerg player, I never feel they're good. Any fight where you would say they "SHOULD" win tends to go 50/50 IMO. Void Rays beat them often enough that it doesn't feel like a solid win to be using hydra tech vs them, but what else do I have? Gateway units, especially Zealots, seem to tear Hydras apart if you give them a chance, and then there is all the AoE on top of that. When Hydras are countered so hard by things like Archons, Templar, and Colossi, why are they so mediocre against the things they're supposed to be good against?
As far as the quality of Idras play in that game, I think you can see his mentality is shot, but that's not the point, the point is WE ARE TOLD HYDRAS ARE SOOOO GOOD VS STALKERS, and clearly, they are not.
Do you go pure hydra or something? You do realize zerg has units other than hydra, right? Get some lings/roaches to tank (maybe even ultras) = effective army.
Just a question, what league are you? And why link a vod that was 2 years ago when hydras were actually shit and no one used them?
Hydralisks are an easily massable unit that deals high dps to anything on land or ground, and with upgrades it has good speed and range to boot.
That sort of unit can easily be made way too strong, such that players will simply build it en masse. Units have to have drawbacks, and if you buff Hydra health and reduce cost, then it really doesn't have many. It's no different from saying "Stalkers aren't cost efficient and do crap dps for cost, lets buff them"--it's a dumb idea, because those sort of all purpose units need to have importance weaknesses and cost inefficiencies or the matchup will come to revolve around them.
Hydra is a good unit, but has a limited shelf life after which its a waste of supply and gas.
When you add up the time to get to Lair and then the two upgrades unless you go dual Hydralisk Den's ( never seen this in SC2 yet btw ), the window to use it is small. Verses Terran stimmed 2/2 Bio mangles them along with Roaches, and v Protoss Colossus or storm disintegrate them.
At least Muta or Infesters have a roll later in the game which is i guess the reason few Zergs go for them unless its a timing attack.
Still see them in ZvZ pretty regularly i suppose, its a shame when you consider it was such an important unit in BW
Wasn't there a whine thread about the Hydra's HP/cost ration earlier today already? What is it with Zerg, it's not like you are suffering at all to need a buff right now o.O Hydralisks are no core unit, with that much I agree, but they fulfill plenty of roles in your army. They are fine, really.
On August 02 2013 01:24 K3Nyy wrote: Hydralisks are good. We've watched so many games lately where they're essential in PvZ.
Linking a game where Idra had the smaller army, a terrible concave and supply invested in drones and Corrupters in 2011 doesn't mean that they're bad.
I agree that they are incredibly essential in PvZ lately, but as a Zerg player, I never feel they're good. Any fight where you would say they "SHOULD" win tends to go 50/50 IMO. Void Rays beat them often enough that it doesn't feel like a solid win to be using hydra tech vs them, but what else do I have? Gateway units, especially Zealots, seem to tear Hydras apart if you give them a chance, and then there is all the AoE on top of that. When Hydras are countered so hard by things like Archons, Templar, and Colossi, why are they so mediocre against the things they're supposed to be good against?
As far as the quality of Idras play in that game, I think you can see his mentality is shot, but that's not the point, the point is WE ARE TOLD HYDRAS ARE SOOOO GOOD VS STALKERS, and clearly, they are not.
Do you go pure hydra or something? You do realize zerg has units other than hydra, right? Get some lings/roaches to tank (maybe even ultras) = effective army.
Just a question, what league are you? And why link a vod that was 2 years ago when hydras were actually shit and no one used them?
I pick that vod so people like you will point out how bad hydras were back then, and it lets me ask you the question, what has changed that would affect the outcome of that fight?
On August 02 2013 01:38 Topdoller wrote: Hydra is a good unit, but has a limited shelf life after which its a waste of supply and gas.
When you add up the time to get to Lair and then the two upgrades unless you go dual Hydralisk Den's ( never seen this in SC2 yet btw ), the window to use it is small. Verses Terran stimmed 2/2 Bio mangles them along with Roaches, and v Protoss Colossus or storm disintegrate them.
At least Muta or Infesters have a roll later in the game which is i guess the reason few Zergs go for them unless its a timing attack.
Still see them in ZvZ pretty regularly i suppose, its a shame when you consider it was such an important unit in BW
This is a wings of liberty mindset. In HotS swarmhosts and vipers are very strong follow ups that make going hydra very feasible in zvp
On August 02 2013 01:24 K3Nyy wrote: Hydralisks are good. We've watched so many games lately where they're essential in PvZ.
Linking a game where Idra had the smaller army, a terrible concave and supply invested in drones and Corrupters in 2011 doesn't mean that they're bad.
I agree that they are incredibly essential in PvZ lately, but as a Zerg player, I never feel they're good. Any fight where you would say they "SHOULD" win tends to go 50/50 IMO. Void Rays beat them often enough that it doesn't feel like a solid win to be using hydra tech vs them, but what else do I have? Gateway units, especially Zealots, seem to tear Hydras apart if you give them a chance, and then there is all the AoE on top of that. When Hydras are countered so hard by things like Archons, Templar, and Colossi, why are they so mediocre against the things they're supposed to be good against?
As far as the quality of Idras play in that game, I think you can see his mentality is shot, but that's not the point, the point is WE ARE TOLD HYDRAS ARE SOOOO GOOD VS STALKERS, and clearly, they are not.
Do you go pure hydra or something? You do realize zerg has units other than hydra, right? Get some lings/roaches to tank (maybe even ultras) = effective army.
Just a question, what league are you? And why link a vod that was 2 years ago when hydras were actually shit and no one used them?
I pick that vod so people like you will point out how bad hydras were back then, and it lets me ask you the question, what has changed that would affect the outcome of that fight?
Probably not much, you still need some units to tank for the hydras (lings or roaches both would've worked fine in that situation). When you use a unit in a bad way, you should lose.
On August 02 2013 01:19 AzBozz wrote: i think the hydra is strong enough in tvz allready ...
Lolwut? Tanks, marines, hellions, hellbat etc. pp. all fuck hydralisk hard. If anything it's decent vs p if you can dodge storms/avoid or kill colossi.
It's broken by design, everything that is good vs hydra fucks it way too hard, and everything hydra is good against gets fucked by it too hard, the only plays where the shitty star 2 hydra actually works is zvz... It's just blizzards desire to create units that then lead to way too hard counters.
I know this is a touchy thing on these forums, to talk about balance, but after David Kim's assertion that Hydralisks with speed are the most successful HotS unit, I feel it is worth discussing.
Hydralisks have been notorious since the release of WOL for just not being a unit worth using. If I had to pick an epitome game, I would point all the way back to Idra vs MC game 6 at MLG way back in 2011.
The last fight comes down to almost pure hydralisk (with an upgrade advantage) vs pure stalker, and the stalkers win. This is great because you don't have to deal with any nonsense about splash damage, bad engagements (idra had the concave on MCs army) or anything else other than the fact that Hydras can't kill Stalkers straight up. I guess you could point to the DT in the hydra lines and the corruptors overhead, but you could also point to the infestors and fungals. This is as close to a pure Hydra vs pure Stalker fight that you will ever see at this level of play. As far as I'm concerned, this single fight proves that every argument about Hydras being great vs gateway units and Protoss needing splash to deal with them is a fallacy. Hydras just plain suck, even in their best situations.
While I think this is an important upgrade to the utility of the Hydralisk, it still doesn't address the problem: Hydralisks can't win fights for one glaringly huge reason. They can't take a hit worth a damn!
Sadly, while I think this is the biggest problem for the Hydralisk, I don't think it is the ONLY problem for the hydralisk.
Also important is the tech required to make Hydralisks a viable pick. To save typing out the wall of text, we will just say that a Zerg player must invest 400 minerals, 400 gas, 220 seconds, and a drone before having a functional unit. This does not contribute to the overall success and flexibility of the race, the ONLY thing you gain for all this investment is the Hydralisk.
I had made a blog post to rant about this the other night after having a bad gaming session where Hydras failed me over and over, but the more I think about it, the more I feel it is an important issue that is worth being legitimately discussed. I don't buy David Kims statement. I feel like Widow Mines, Hellbats, and Void Rays have all had much more impact on the way the game is played today than Hydralisks. While the unit is somewhat functional, it is still not a tech I ever want to pursue or feel good about when using. It is a crutch I am force to lean on, and a rickety one at that, and yet Zerg is more reliant on the Hydralisk than ever before, especially in ZvP.
I know I'm not the only one who feels this way, what can we, as players, do about it?
Hydras weren't designed to fight unprotected. Turns out, stalkers cost more, have more than twice the survivability of Hydras with double their effective HP, more armor, and much greater micro potential DESPITE half the dps. What did you think would happen? No one has gone pure Hydra since the beta because it outright blows and dies to anything. A vod from years ago (showcasing none other than IdrA) is probably the SINGLE most irrelevant piece of evidence you could find.
More importantly though, why does anyone care how Hydralisks make you feel? Why you don't make them? Your assertions have no base, and amount to no grounds whatsoever to make such a thread exclaiming Hydralisks suck. It's generally a touchy thing to start threads informing TL of grandiose epiphanies when it's full of opinions with virtually no facts backing it up.
I swear OP should be warned for making such a post. Your thread title is "Why the Hydralisk Still Sucks" - yet you post a video from back in 2011. Completely misleading and irrelevant information to back up your statement.
To answer you question, nothing would have changed but if you would go purely mass hydra you deserve to lose
The hydralisk is probably too weak for a tier 2 gas unit, I agree. Do we need a Hydra buff? Maybe. Hydra being too weak doesnt mean that it needs a buff.
everyone here is saying they get countered by marines, siege tanks, hellions/hellbats marines and hellions/hellbats are the counter to hydras and siege tanks are good vs them cause hydras have low hp and tank has big range
I feel like OP is a subtle troll. Doesn't even post his league/server and doesn't post any replays of himself or pros, uses vods from 2011 looooooooool
I love how people keep saying, "well of course you can't just mass one unit and expect to win." Even through the video is just pure Hydra vs pure Stalker.
Hydras have become useful, but in general Zerg has pretty cost ineffective units and they seem too weak in equal army size engagements. The Zerg has to essentially be ahead to win.
On August 02 2013 01:24 K3Nyy wrote: Hydralisks are good. We've watched so many games lately where they're essential in PvZ.
Linking a game where Idra had the smaller army, a terrible concave and supply invested in drones and Corrupters in 2011 doesn't mean that they're bad.
I agree that they are incredibly essential in PvZ lately, but as a Zerg player, I never feel they're good. Any fight where you would say they "SHOULD" win tends to go 50/50 IMO. Void Rays beat them often enough that it doesn't feel like a solid win to be using hydra tech vs them, but what else do I have? Gateway units, especially Zealots, seem to tear Hydras apart if you give them a chance, and then there is all the AoE on top of that. When Hydras are countered so hard by things like Archons, Templar, and Colossi, why are they so mediocre against the things they're supposed to be good against?
As far as the quality of Idras play in that game, I think you can see his mentality is shot, but that's not the point, the point is WE ARE TOLD HYDRAS ARE SOOOO GOOD VS STALKERS, and clearly, they are not.
Do you go pure hydra or something? You do realize zerg has units other than hydra, right? Get some lings/roaches to tank (maybe even ultras) = effective army.
Just a question, what league are you? And why link a vod that was 2 years ago when hydras were actually shit and no one used them?
I pick that vod so people like you will point out how bad hydras were back then, and it lets me ask you the question, what has changed that would affect the outcome of that fight?
Probably not much, you still need some units to tank for the hydras (lings or roaches both would've worked fine in that situation). When you use a unit in a bad way, you should lose.
Then you're just getting further and further away from the isolated situation. Z adds roaches, P adds sentries, Z adds infestors, P adds templar.
You can criticize their play all day, but the situation never changes, Idra took a hydra army up against a stalked Amy and lost because hydras aren't all that good vs stalkers.
On August 02 2013 01:38 Topdoller wrote: Hydra is a good unit, but has a limited shelf life after which its a waste of supply and gas.
When you add up the time to get to Lair and then the two upgrades unless you go dual Hydralisk Den's ( never seen this in SC2 yet btw ), the window to use it is small. Verses Terran stimmed 2/2 Bio mangles them along with Roaches, and v Protoss Colossus or storm disintegrate them.
At least Muta or Infesters have a roll later in the game which is i guess the reason few Zergs go for them unless its a timing attack.
Still see them in ZvZ pretty regularly i suppose, its a shame when you consider it was such an important unit in BW
This is a wings of liberty mindset. In HotS swarmhosts and vipers are very strong follow ups that make going hydra very feasible in zvp
Yeah i agree pull the pull / snipe combo v colossus, but the meta is shifting to Templar tech by the Pros or the dreaded Void ray push if they successfully make it to it.
To be honest i hate PvZ with a passion and rarely watch it, as i mentioned they are useful in the odd timing attack, i think the 300 gas just to make them viable makes pros avoid them
Of course hydras can't win fights on their own, that's how the unit was designed. A unit with such high dps AND durability would be completely imbalanced, especially for zerg which is balanced around its basic units being less cost-efficient than the other races. You need to stream in reinforcing roach/lings to keep a barrier between them and your opponent's units.
Part of the buff for hydralisks comes not from the hydras themselves but from the new hots units. Swarm hosts put free units in front of hydras to tank for them and vipers nullify the heavy aoe units that can kill them (collosi, tanks, etc.). Hydras also generally perform well against the other race's new units (they beat the new void rays much better than corruptors, they snipe mines out of range, etc.). Basically, the whole game changed in ways that made them more useful.
On August 02 2013 01:51 UberNuB wrote: I love how people keep saying, "well of course you can't just mass one unit and expect to win." Even through the video is just pure Hydra vs pure Stalker.
Hydras have become useful, but in general Zerg has pretty cost ineffective units and they seem too weak in equal army size engagements. The Zerg has to essentially be ahead to win.
If you're maxed fighting an army of equal army size you should have already transitioned out of Hydras.
On August 02 2013 01:51 UberNuB wrote: I love how people keep saying, "well of course you can't just mass one unit and expect to win." Even through the video is just pure Hydra vs pure Stalker.
Just because Hydras suck if you just build them without much support, that doesn't make them useless or underpowered.
Hydras have become useful, but in general Zerg has pretty cost ineffective units and they seem too weak in equal army size engagements. The Zerg has to essentially be ahead to win.
This is the entire design of the Zerg race going all the way back to brood war. With a few exceptions (Lurkers in BW, Swarm Hosts in SC2), Zerg units are cost ineffective, but easily massed in large numbers. Zerg has the easiest time taking new expansions and saturating them, and their production mechanic is the best at mass producing units. The tradeoff is that those units aren't the most cost effective (except for Roaches, who are fairly cost effective, but very inefficient for their supply).
I think you can look to ZvZ to see that Hydras aren't really underpowered, just that Protoss and Terran has good counters to Hydras. If you buff Hydra so that they're in equal battle vs splash unit armies, it would mean that unit compositions w/o that splash would never be viable against zerg and it would make ZvZ all about Hydras, which is a no micro boring macro fest.
Almost every zerg unit sucks when you compare it to the terran/protoss equivalent. For example - would you rather have speedlings, or chargelots? I would choose chargelots every time, because they're tough enough to survive alpha strikes from armies. Zerglings, you lose like 10% of their numbers just trying to engage before they even make their first attack.
I like hydralisks and I've been trying use them a lot. They're a staple of ZvZ, no question, since the spore buff zvz degraded into roach wars and trying to skip to infestors is really risky, hydralisks are a more natural, less expensive transition. In zvp they're also pretty okay, but using roach/hydra too late in the game hinges on using vipers and/or swarm hosts with them, they still fill a role.
They are really shit in zvt though, but that's only because of pure biomine dominance. If a terran player decides to treat a zerg player with a mech game, Hydras have a decent purpose - They soak hits from tanks better than roaches, They take care of hellbat/hellion better than roaches because of the range, they defend banshee/raven shit.. But no one goes mech and if they do, they're losing again to swarm host/viper not really hydralisk.
Personally.. I think they need either an HP increase or a cost reduction. I'm not sure I'd go with the HP increase. Being a glass cannon is sort of their niche, and it wouldn't hurt as bad if they didn't cost 100/50. If you compare hydralisk to a marine, You'll see a hydralisk is a little worse than 2 marines (equal supply) BEFORE stim. Of course, they end up with 1 extra range, but worse defenses/dps. You'd have to be very careful though, because unlike most units that get adjustments, Hydralisk is easily mass produce. The right kind of minor change can snowball when you're able to pump out 20 of them at a sweet timing. If I HAD to pick, I would probably go with changing the cost to 75/50. Their gas cost is justified I think but generally high minerals cost translates to good hitpoints if you look at other units in the game and we know hydras lack hp.
On August 02 2013 01:50 Thienan567 wrote: I feel like OP is a subtle troll. Doesn't even post his league/server and doesn't post any replays of himself or pros, uses vods from 2011 looooooooool
I agree, OP also never mentions Vipers, or better Z players for that matter, like Soulkey. Very bad argument, very poor post, feels like bronze league whine: "I wanna make all hydras in every match-up, every game and blizz won't let me waaaaaaaaah, I want BW hydras"...
Almost every zerg unit sucks when you compare it to the terran/protoss equivalent.
This is by design, and was true in BW as well. Zerg has the best macro mechanics, they can take and saturate bases more quickly than other races, and they have the easiest time massing units. In exchange, their units are much less cost efficient than Terran units, and much less supply efficient than Protoss units. You can't just do a 1:1 comparison of Zerg units to T/P units and conclude they're UP without considering the context of the entire matchup.
Hydras are not meant to be tanky.... They are there to Deal the Damage fast and destroy the front lines while ultra / roaches tank the damage..... If you are complaining because of the protoss Colo destroying your hydra count or storms get used to it LOL They are meant to be the counter to deal with it.... and if you have an inferior count against gateway units ofcourse you are going to get destroyed..... Roaches though have good armor and High hp and obviously with hydras behind them its a scary army with good surrounds.... Honestly though that strategy should be taking in account the map that you are playing on... if the map is Spread open and you can have room to micro (star station) than the Hydra / roach combo is very good... If you are playing on a map like bel shir vestige with tiny chokes and you funnel yourself in the choke you are going to get destroyed hardcore..... I do think zerg needs something but this is not the answer....
On August 02 2013 01:24 K3Nyy wrote: Hydralisks are good. We've watched so many games lately where they're essential in PvZ.
Linking a game where Idra had the smaller army, a terrible concave and supply invested in drones and Corrupters in 2011 doesn't mean that they're bad.
I agree that they are incredibly essential in PvZ lately, but as a Zerg player, I never feel they're good. Any fight where you would say they "SHOULD" win tends to go 50/50 IMO. Void Rays beat them often enough that it doesn't feel like a solid win to be using hydra tech vs them, but what else do I have? Gateway units, especially Zealots, seem to tear Hydras apart if you give them a chance, and then there is all the AoE on top of that. When Hydras are countered so hard by things like Archons, Templar, and Colossi, why are they so mediocre against the things they're supposed to be good against?
As far as the quality of Idras play in that game, I think you can see his mentality is shot, but that's not the point, the point is WE ARE TOLD HYDRAS ARE SOOOO GOOD VS STALKERS, and clearly, they are not.
Do you go pure hydra or something? You do realize zerg has units other than hydra, right? Get some lings/roaches to tank (maybe even ultras) = effective army.
Just a question, what league are you? And why link a vod that was 2 years ago when hydras were actually shit and no one used them?
I pick that vod so people like you will point out how bad hydras were back then, and it lets me ask you the question, what has changed that would affect the outcome of that fight?
Probably not much, you still need some units to tank for the hydras (lings or roaches both would've worked fine in that situation). When you use a unit in a bad way, you should lose.
Then you're just getting further and further away from the isolated situation. Z adds roaches, P adds sentries, Z adds infestors, P adds templar.
You can criticize their play all day, but the situation never changes, Idra took a hydra army up against a stalked Amy and lost because hydras aren't all that good vs stalkers.
Um yes, that's kinda the point. You can't just take a situation that's made up or shows off bad play and complain about the results. You ALWAYS have to look at army compositions and the handling thereof when considering balance - that's the whole concept of Starcraft (and RTS genre in general). Hydras are not supposed to beat any other units one on one, they are designed as a very high dps support unit that's to be used in conjunction with more tanky units. The definition of a glass cannon. Seriously Hydras are fine right now, they have at least a niche to fill in every matchup.
Almost every zerg unit sucks when you compare it to the terran/protoss equivalent.
This is by design, and was true in BW as well. Zerg has the best macro mechanics, they can take and saturate bases more quickly than other races, and they have the easiest time massing units. In exchange, their units are much less cost efficient than Terran units, and much less supply efficient than Protoss units. You can't just do a 1:1 comparison of Zerg units to T/P units and conclude they're UP without considering the context of the entire matchup.
Well one thing to note is in BW zerg units were also cheaper and less supply (hydra were 75/25 and 1 supply iirc). So when the unit costs 100/50 and 2 supply, yeah it can be compared to other units.
EPT
