| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
TurboMaN
Germany925 Posts
On April 01 2015 19:43 Ramiz1989 wrote: The Marauder change is among the best changes they did. And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:01 TurboMaN wrote: And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes. Counter to immortals was and will always be the marine for terran  .You build immortals to kill marauders, not the other way around. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:01 TurboMaN wrote: And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes. Maybe the new terran unit thats not even in the beta yet? | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
TsogiMaster
191 Posts
On April 01 2015 19:56 SpecKROELLchen wrote: Okay seems like you are not much into the game. Go for some unittestmap and let some chargelots fight vs marauder. Or let some not chargedlots tank vs marauder. They wont die. And that was always the concept of pvt in hots and it was fine. Maruader good vs stalker buildings etc. but bad vs light units. And please think about 2 attacks and 1 attack and amor. You will get it fast i guess. I was saying that marauders vs zealots(without charge) where you can kite them endlessly. But yeah they are weak vs chargelots. And I didnt think about the armors. Good point. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9431 Posts
On April 01 2015 19:56 KeksX wrote: I think the general concept of getting different units for different opponent units is great, though it's true that it might be hardcountering too much at this point. But given that the meta has not yet to be established I think it's hard to really judge that. In general, though, I like the sound of TvZ not being about Terran having Bio all game long. I actually think several different units should be viable in several different situations. But each unit should allow for different type of playstyles. This is kind of what (from an overall perspectively) I like the idea that you could go 4M or you could opt for Siege tank + bio. Neither style should hardcounter another style, both are microintensive and rewards micro and the enemy has to react differently to both of them. This is why I very much dislike Blizzards philosophy of there only being one answer in certain situations. That doesn't reward more strategic diversity. In fact, it's the opposite as the optimal decision is almost always obvious. Yes but it is a difficult situation, how exactly do you make Ultras more microable? If you give them movement speed buff they would be disgusting on creep in my opinion and you also have to make them not blockable by Zerglings which will create Protoss-like death balls. The movement speed would mostly be a an off-creep buff. If anything I am in favor of nerfing their core stats slightly to make the movement speed buff even more signifciant. In my opinion, it's not good design if kiting is all you do vs Ultralisks. When you play (as a ranged mobile unit) against a meele unit w/ slow movement speed + very strong core stats --> You are gonna kite all day, and that's what I would like to change. Moreover, when the Ultralisks are faster (and smaller model size) it also becomes more practical to pull Ultralisks back if they are low on HP (which adds for more micro opportunities). | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:01 TurboMaN wrote: And what's the counter to Ultras and Immortals then? I feel Terran will have a hard time in LotV with these changes. Yeah, you would actually need to make something else instead of pure bio. Marauders never were clear counter to Immortals though, when Protoss ball of death comes you certainly won't be focusing Immortals when there are Colossi, Stalkers, HTs, Archons and Zealots in the mix. This is beta, things will change every few weeks(if we follow the HotS beta procedure) and we still have to see new Terran unit that isn't released yet. If you just look at the current stats a lot of crap is broken but I am not worried at all. | ||
|
SpecKROELLchen
Germany151 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:04 TsogiMaster wrote: I was saying that marauders vs zealots(without charge) where you can kite them endlessly. But yeah they are weak vs chargelots. And I didnt think about the armors. Good point. Ok, you put a nice end to the discussion, so lets move on to the next points ;D | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder. Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling. Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it. Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst. If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:04 Hider wrote: I actually think several different units should be viable in several different situations. But each unit should allow for different type of playstyles. This is kind of what (from an overall perspectively) I like the idea that you could go 4M or you could opt for Siege tank + bio. Neither style should hardcounter another style, both are microintensive and rewards micro and the enemy has to react differently to both of them. I think you definitely have to have hardcounters at some point, though, otherwise you lose strategic depth. I mean we have these "cross counters" where you get marines to fight zerglings, banelings to fight marines, tanks to fight banelings, medivacs to assist and mutalisks to counter medivacs etc. Those units are viable in many situations, but due to their "hardcountering" nature they arejust really good in certain scenarios and create great dynamic between different unit compositions. For example, if Ultras are now hardcountering the Terran standard bio force and force Terran to get different units, if the hardcounter to those units is something different by zerg(pulling an example out of my ass: Cyclones, answer from Zerg is Zerglings) this could create games with lots and lots of tech switches and reacting/scouting constantly. I hope you get what I mean. Hardcounters are definitely something that can be awesome, if done right. Though only having hardcounters isn't right either. I think Brood War had a perfect mix, actually. Some units were just outright bad against certain other units, but often times they were just "less effective", but still viable. | ||
|
SpecKROELLchen
Germany151 Posts
But i think, why? marauder was to me, always fine (just too good vs ultralisks) but this should be almost solved with the amor. mb nerf a little bit more against massive (ok that would make collossi better) or something like that. But as some here said. lets not get too angry. Its the first day of the beta :D :D :D | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: Maybe they just want to test the marauderchange out for one week or so. its their right and i see no problem there. But i think, why? marauder was to me, always fine (just too good vs ultralisks) but this should be almost solved with the amor. mb nerf a little bit more against massive (ok that would make collossi better) or something like that. But as some here said. lets not get too angry. Its the first day of the beta :D :D :D Maybe they want to get away from Bio being a/the only late game composition for Terran and this change is part of that? The numbers will of course not be right from the beginning. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3481 Posts
It is the same reason I see why they introduced Hercs, a way to force Zerg out of Ling/Bane/Muta. | ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9431 Posts
I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio The truth is that you already answered your own question. I think you definitely have to have hardcounters at some point, though, otherwise you lose strategic depth. But my point is that if you have a game of hardcounters then it becomes a game of obvious decisions. You build Colossus --> I build Vikings... How is that skill? How is that strategic depht? If on the other hand, you have a variety of units to choose between, but they rewarded different playstyles and the enemy had to react differently to those playstyles, you would have a much more interesting game (strategically speaking). For example, if Ultras are now hardcountering the Terran standard bio force and force Terran to get different units, if the hardcounter to those units is something different by zerg(pulling an example out of my !@#$%^&*: Cyclones, answer from Zerg is Zerglings) this could create games with lots and lots of tech switches and reacting/scouting constantly. Well, so there is a difference between soft-counter and hard-counter. Not having a hardcounter doesn't imply that certain units shouldn't be better against other units. Rather it implies that you can stay at a certain composition for a period of time - even if the enemy builds the soft counter. Like against High Templars, you can stay at bio and delay ghost tech and instead have more map control in the midgame. This way you rely more on splitting micro than spamming-ability micro during engagements as well. It's definitely important that we don't have one composition being good vs everything, but it's also equally important that there only exsists one (viable) answer to each scenario. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23576 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:30 Hider wrote: The truth is that you already answered your own question. But my point is that if you have a game of hardcounters then it becomes a game of obvious decisions. You build Colossus --> I build Vikings... How is that skill? How is that strategic depht? If on the other hand, you have a variety of units to choose between, but they rewarded different playstyles and the enemy had to react differently to those playstyles, you would have a much more interesting game (strategically speaking). How would you implement something like that? I mean in the end it's an RTS and you can only do so many things with units before you reach mechanical limit. It sounds utopic and implementing "hardcounters"(should be "harder counters") like in BW seems much more practical. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9431 Posts
How would you implement something like that? I mean in the end it's an RTS and you can only do so many things with units before you reach mechanical limit. Okay, this requires a small essay and I imagine changes that would change a lot of stuff around (but that's also kinda what is needed in LOTV imo). I be back with it in a moment. | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
On April 01 2015 20:07 Destructicon wrote: I don't understand the marauder change at all, it completely kills bio, which is a fun and interesting style right now, very skill intensive to play and counter. + Show Spoiler + With this change bio doesn't have any counter to ultralisks. Now the problem with most terran tech trees, you can't really tech switch between them because of the armor upgrades and infrastructure. Hence bio needs to have a self contained reliable counter to ultralisks. Hence the marauder. Now when you nerf their anti-armor option you just kill bio playstyle outright. For people saying you need to introduce cyclones into the mix to counter ultralisks, there is one huge problem with that, its not possible to micro both cyclones and bio optimally to kill ultralisks, you won't have the APM to do both, or even if its possible only Maru will be able to do it, leaving everyone else struggling. Now say it is actually possible to micro both bio and cyclones optimally to split and kite, well you run into a new problem. It takes so long for the combined firepower of cyclones and marauders to kill ultralisks that you can't actually take a straight on fight, which means every time ultralisks come attacking a base you have to probably sack it, since there is no way you can save it. Lastly, imagine what happens when the zerg also mixes in infestors. So yeah, this is far from the best change blizzard has ever done, its up there as one of the worst. If ultralisks are meant to be the tanks then nerf their damage, like they should do nearly no damage with how much they can tank now. Or if they want to keep their damage like this, then revert the marauder change, ultras can keep the extra armor as long as the marauder change is reverted. 4M was always bad for SC2. Its one compo for everything, harass, early game, mid game, late game. No strategic diversity. Just micro micro micro. I get it, micro-fans like it, but it isn't what strategy game should be about. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV Winter Champion…
OSC
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo Complete
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
