| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Hider
Denmark9330 Posts
This is one of the things that I believe blizzard has gotten absolutely right with the cyclone. The lock-on should be on autocast. I agree. Real micro has always been about how you move your units in reaction to how the enemy moves his units. Forcing a lot of button-spams is an inefficient way of increasing the skillcap. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 20 2015 02:50 Big J wrote: Well, this leads up to the second part why I'm against treating spellcasters differently. There is no initial difference between a spell, an attack, a move command or any other command you give the unit. A marine commanded to attack is an as specialized action as a marauder sent to attack as a high templar sent to storm. Each of those commands should be implemented so its usage is as easy as possible. Smartcasting is plainly more fitting to casting storms than not having it. A unit having its own idle-attack behavior is simply more fitting than an idle-noresponse behavior. An attack move command is simply more fitting than the unit actually just going to the clicked place and shooting the ground. A harvest resource command is simply more enjoyable if you don't have to send the unit to harvest, send it back and repeat. A spell is also just a command given to a unit to fullfill a certain of its capabilities. Some of them are different in the way that they use additional local resources - energy, charges - besides the more frequent local resources like cooldown times, but others like the corrosive bile are just alternate attacks that haven't been automated properly. And that doesn't even mean that they haven't been automated properly for intenteded reasons, it could very well be that the game developers haven't found a good way to do so. You see, I'm not treating spellcasters any differently than other units. There is no magical rule that tells me how a spellcaster is a different category of unit and a spell a different category of ability. Even in broodwar, spellcasters could be core army units and their spells core forms of attacking the opponent (e.g. the Science Vessel, high templar). But of course, moreso in SC2 with its smartcasts and different designs (sentry, infestor, high templar). Therefore I don't see the point in stupifying the attack of the high templar, when we don't do it with the zealot. So I'd strongly aruge the other way around: make it so that the high templar becomes as similar to a mover-shooter as possible and try to remove its feedback and storm buttons if some better form of control is available. This is one of the things that I believe blizzard has gotten absolutely right with the cyclone. The lock-on should be on autocast. The only reason not to have it on autocast - given its inexistent costs and low cooldown - is if your opponent tries to abuse it, which is countermicro and should be rewarded. But given a random combat scenario in which you don't targetfire, there is little reason not to just lock onto whatever gets into your range. This is of course a player perspective, which I think is the most important perspective when designing a game. I am not quite getting your point i am afraid. If anything having no smartcast behaves like these other commands. You have 10 marines, you select them all and attack move towards point x/y. Every single marine will do as you say. You select all your high templar and cast storm on point x/y, every single high templar will storm there. It's constant, it behaves like every other command in the game. Smartcast is different though, it basically tells me when i select all my high templar and storm : "hey player! You cannot be that dumb, this makes no sense!". Sure, it is easier, but it is also inconsistent imo. It's almost like i select my whole army and focus fire unit X and the game decides for me that i only need half my army and changes the command so i don't lose dps. Would it be easier? Yes. But it also would be inconsistent if you ask me. | ||
|
Blargh
United States2092 Posts
But I wouldn't say that the ravager is a bad unit because it has the ability to destroy FFs. It's just silly. Regarding the cyclone and auto cast... In general, auto cast mechanics are bad, and make the unit gimmicky (see widow mine). While there is some potential for an opponent to micro against it, you can no longer micro it. It adds little to the micro depth of the player using it. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 20 2015 22:13 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not quite getting your point i am afraid. If anything no smartcast behaves like these other commands. You have 10 marines, you select them all and attack move towards point x/y. Every single marine will do as you say. You select all your high templar and cast storm on point x/y, every single high templar will storm there. It's constant, it behaves like every other command in the game. Smartcast is different though, it basically tells me when i select all my high templar and storm : "hey player! You cannot be that dumb, this makes no sense!". Sure, it is easier, but it is also inconsistent imo. It's almost like i select my whole army and focus fire unit X and the game decides for me that i only need half my army and changes the command so i don't lose dps. Would it be easier? Yes. But it also would be inconsistent if you ask me. The core idea is that units should have a common sense and the commands you give them should combine the obvious tasks. And that I don't differentiate between a spell command or any other command. An example common sense on units is retaliation and aggro radius. Units don't just sit there and take shots since Broodwar, a major advancement that made the game more enjoyable than WC2 (at least I think it was still there in WC2, at least in some forms; haven't played it in a looooong time  ).The standard command isn't "sit here and do nothing" for an idle unit anymore. You need to specifically tell a unit to do nothing now (hold position). Why? Because it was figured out that this behaviour is more efficient than the original, reverse and "more consistent" behaviour of a unit doing nothing unless told to do something. An example of a smart command is the attack command. The attack command is not a simple "attack this target/location" in modern RTS games. It's rather a semi-optimal combination of move and attack commands: - if target == unit: move to unit and attack it - else if target == location: take the shortest way to move as close as possible to that location and take out all units on the way there Why? Why don't we get an error message if we use the attack command on an empty space and why do we have this super-automation tool of attack-move built into it that removes the skill to manually attack targets on your way to the opponent? Because it makes the command clever. The engine tells itself: "He cannot be that dumb. He wants to move there and attack stuff on his way, not try to shoot into the empty space from across the map." This is the way all units and commands should be designed, hence, smartcast for spells that you never want to use 2times at the same location at once. Hence, autocast for the lock-on since you rather waste it to kill a zergling faster, than only use it 25% of the time. As I said, this makes sense for the players. It makes the game more enjoyable to play, which is the biggest reason why we play games in the first place. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
I can totally see that it makes sense to reduce options for the player which aren't intentional in theory (like all your hts storming at the same time on the same area). But at the same time i also think it is still inconsistent with the basic rule: "if i tell my unit to do X, it has to do X". I already gave an example in the posts before why i think smartcasting violates this. It gets even more problematic if there are spells which stack and you actually would want to use all of them at once. With smartcast i have to click fast to do it cause the game decides for me that it simply cannot be my intention. So i don't agree with your general statement that everything should be as easy as possible, it rather should be reasonable (which is why you should look at it from case to case imo). PS: I also don't agree that it makes the game more enjoyable at all. Maybe for the spaming one, absolutely not for the one who now has to deal with 500 storms at once But i guess we won't agree on that  PS2: ravagers still suck, blizzard pls remove | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 20 2015 23:34 The_Red_Viper wrote: Nice post. I can totally see that it makes sense to reduce options for the player which aren't intentional in theory (like all your hts storming at the same time on the same area). But at the same time i also think it is still inconsistent with the basic rule: "if i tell my unit to do X, it has to do X". I already gave an example in the posts before why i think smartcasting violates this. I fully agree that there should be "force" commands that dumb down commands. One thing that has always bugged me out that there was no way to click on locations that are under a unit. For example to give an attack-move command onto the middle of my opponents army. Or a move command for my mutalisks to the location of the Thor, instead of the "follow this unit"-command that gets initiated when you move command on a unit. In a design philosophy in which we want to give the player maximum control while designing clever commands and units, the command should be usable with Alt+Button to dumb the command down to its vanilia function. Or vis-verca. e.g. with Templar you could press Alt+Storm to make all of them storm at one location. Or vis-verca, only Alt+Storm activates smartcast. A philosophical question, whether the clever command should be the standard, or the consistant one should be. But the player should always have both options to ensure maximum control. (attack ground for splash attacks is also something to consider with this) It gets even more problematic if there are spells which stack and you actually would want to use all of them at once. With smartcast i have to click fast to do it cause the game decides for me that it simply cannot be my intention. Yup, spelldesign and commanddesign go hand-in-hand. The proposed Alternative command mode would give you that control back. Games these days are still learning, in particular the RTS genre still feels very 90ies-esque in terms of how you command your units. It's annoying to have these spamabilites, though the rapidfire trick makes it rather simple in SC2 once you have learned it. PS2: ravagers still suck, blizzard pls remove Meh, they are overpowered right now and too much of a core unit for something with that spell. They are one of the most interesting additions to LotV if done right in my opinion. But right now they are overused and need to be either strategically limited (=you don't want many of them for some reason) or their ability needs to be redesigned that it doesn't become a spamfest. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1198 Posts
On April 20 2015 05:10 CakeSauc3 wrote: I'd rather have them remove the roach, put hydras at hatch tech, and then allow hydras to morph into either lurkers or ravagers at lair tech (and then make ravager have tankier stats similar to roaches, but preserving hydra dps). It would give Zerg what they most want (anti air at hatch tech) while making the hydra relevant as a unit again, preserving the identity of one of my favorite units from bw (which has been destroyed in sc2)., and then allowing the ravager to be a stronger unit that can fill a specific role (tankier anti-ground with a unique ability) instead of making us ask the question "roach, ravager, or hydra?". For the sake of this theory crafting, make hydras have armor so hellions don't melt them in the early game (which is probably one reason blizz decided to put in a new armored unit at hatch tech). Thanks for nothing, hellions. I've never understood the reason to put hydras at lair tech and include roaches as a new, hydra-that-is-armored-and-can't-attack-air unit, but maybe that's just me. I think that there is enough room for both roach AND hydra on lair tech  Hydras could be scaled down with theirs dps and cost (to 75/25 1 supply for example) and roaches would still provide tank function. Maybe roaches could be redone with less health (100-125 ?) but 1 supply or even more hardcore redesign with 2 armour base but less dps? Ravager and lurker could be moved to lair tech + some upgades for hydras and roaches - that may encourage to stay longer on more basic units and play more "swarmy" style. As for ravager alone maybe if it would work like a mortar while being burrowed? Burrow couple ravagers in front of opponents wall, attack with 'skillshots' which after the hit would leave small 'corrosive puddle' dealing some AoE damage also vs buildings ? Maybe to much overlap with lurker idk | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
| ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
Why should your Stargate/Starport openers be guaranteed to do damage directly or indirectly by forcing a ton of static defense, and even then getting some kills by abusing dead zones, tanking with shield damage etc? What guaranteed harass damage does Zerg get in the early game if you defend? | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On April 21 2015 02:59 sitromit wrote: I love that people take it for granted that Zerg should have shitty anti-air before Lair, and they should be able to do damage by default by just building a banshee or an oracle or two. Why should your Stargate/Starport openers be guaranteed to do damage directly or indirectly by forcing a ton of static defense, and even then getting some kills by abusing dead zones, tanking with shield damage etc? What guaranteed harass damage does Zerg get in the early game if you defend? This may come as a shock but the asymetrical nature of the races in Starcraft mean that not every race has the same advantages and disadvantages | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1198 Posts
On April 21 2015 02:34 Tenks wrote: What more anti-air do Zerg need really? They have queens and evo-less spores. Putting hydra at lair and making them cheaper/weaker would just make Stargate and Starport openers pretty much worthless. Well, it is more about increasing options and possibilites for zerg players early game. Hydras could be more mobile, nimble and fragile unit but dealing more dps and allow for easier anit air defense, roaches would remain strong, tanky but slightly less mobile (till speed upg) and slow dps allowing for pressuring fortified positions and easier dealing with groud attacks but without AA. What You say is valid concern. I am not also a fun of evo-less spores. On the other hand, queens are not that strong AA vs phenixes or banshees, hydras are light units and get bonus dmg from both these units and already there are cases when Protoss players goes for a lot of phoenixes and tries to pick hydras when they are divided (as they spawn etc). Also early weaker/cheaper hydras wouldn't have neither speed nor range and would deal less dps so it might be not that bad with air openers against zerg Additionally, I know that they are different games, but in BW Protosses open a lot with stargate vs zerg where hydras are on lair tech and corsairs cannot even pick up hydras and try to fight them. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 21 2015 02:17 egrimm wrote: I think that there is enough room for both roach AND hydra on lair tech Hydras could be scaled down with theirs dps and cost (to 75/25 1 supply for example) and roaches would still provide tank function. Maybe roaches could be redone with less health (100-125 ?) but 1 supply or even more hardcore redesign with 2 armour base but less dps? Ravager and lurker could be moved to lair tech + some upgades for hydras and roaches - that may encourage to stay longer on more basic units and play more "swarmy" style. As for ravager alone maybe if it would work like a mortar while being burrowed? Burrow couple ravagers in front of opponents wall, attack with 'skillshots' which after the hit would leave small 'corrosive puddle' dealing some AoE damage also vs buildings ? Maybe to much overlap with lurker idk The 1-supply thing for 75/25 hydras has been posted many times... But Hydralisks are already almost useless due to how relatively easily you can hardcoutner them with Mech, Storms and Adepts, so when nerfing them, they are going to be pretty bad. Also, 80HP per supply on a very strong DPS unit is broken. If you'd want to have it balanced, the DPS should be decreased a lot. Consider a recreation of the BW hydralisk, that would have a marine-like base damage with small bonus damage to armored. That would imply cutting base DPS at least in half to fit the BW hydra model. Bio would trash hydras even more easily, new Adepts would destroy them even easier, and it would aslo became far weaker against light air (Phoenixes, Oracles, Mutas, Banshees) in case of not giving it different AA attack, something that would become problematic to balance considering the AA strength of LotV Zerg. What's more, if you reduce Hydralisk DPS, it would become simply less efficient as ground to ground fighter than the actual roach. THat's why they moved them to Lair over the alpha developement and were tuned up heavily on DPS. Because Roaches had twice the health and decent DPS at the same cost than a 1-supply, balanced Hydralisk, so they were far more cost/efficient. Mass supply of Hydralisks would be also in a hard position to balance considering how efficient remaxing mechanisms are in SC2. This is not BW anymore, and the Hydralisk cannot be in a BW position without much balancing problems for many reasons, even if the concept is quite appealing. That would imply a big rework of the Zerg race. I think that at 100/50 and 2 supply the Hydralisk is quite viable as a unit, in the same line as Stalkers and Marauders in terms of cost and supply, and always gets protected by cheaper units like Zerglings or tanking Roaches. IMAO the really big problem with Hydralisks is that they have been always expensive to tech to because of their upgrade cost, and have been always poorly balanced, being a bit too fragile based around DPS (you can see they buffed their DPS a year ago instead of their tankiness). Now that Protoss have recieved good Hydralisk counter units (Adept and Disrutpor), we can buff Hydralisks without that much concern on ZvP side. +10 HP and 1 armor would be really strong buff in exchange for the reverted DPS buff. Also, the Lair requirement could be reworked a bit if we readjust the time their Antiair capabilities hit the field. Maybe, Hydralisks could be Hatch tech but without having antiair, needing an upgrade to attack air available directly at hatch tech but having 6 range by default. This way Zerg early game would be richer and Hydralisks far more viable to attack with LingHydra or Roach Hydra since their DPS is quite significant, and we could move and rework Ravagers a bit. It also would make sense to leave mutations for Lair tech. Or maybe we need to allow Queens to keep building from a mutating Hatchery, and make Hydralisk upgrades cheaper like Roach ones and maybe shorter. Replace range upgrade for an HP buff for example, maybe at Hive tech. I've always felt that Lair gets delayed too much (balance around Spore evidences that), and Hydras hit the field quite late and with an urgent need to upgrade. | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On April 21 2015 03:01 Tenks wrote: This may come as a shock but the asymetrical nature of the races in Starcraft mean that not every race has the same advantages and disadvantages This may come as a shock but just because the game is asymmetrical, doesn't mean that Zerg needs to have no anti-air before Lair. Other races have had various weaknesses generously compensated for over time, why should one of Zerg's biggest weaknesses not get a long overdue buff? | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1198 Posts
On April 21 2015 03:06 JCoto wrote: The 1-supply thing for 75/25 hydras has been posted many times... But Hydralisks are already almost useless due to how relatively easily you can hardcoutner them with Mech, Storms and Adepts, so when nerfing them, they are going to be pretty bad. Well they're bad against units that deal strong AoE because they easily clump (siege tanks, storm, colo) and/or units that deal +light dmg (Hellion, and actually no unit from gateway? Well archon has bonus vs bio so...). But that units comes rather late to a game are are small in numbers, so if you move hydra to earlier part of the game you prolong its lifespan as it is longer useful. Hydras trade very well with gateway units and fairly against bio which is considerable achievement Also you want to have some roaches to tank and some hydras to deal dmg not only one type of unit.Additionally, later on, as your opponent amasses sizeble army of siege tanks/colo you morph leftover hydras into lurkers instead of sacing whole army for muta remax or whatever as it is right now with roaches. Also, 80HP per supply on a very strong DPS unit is broken. If you'd want to have it balanced, the DPS should be decreased a lot. Consider a recreation of the BW hydralisk, that would have a marine-like base damage with small bonus damage to armored. That would imply cutting base DPS at least in half to fit the BW hydra model. Bio would trash hydras even more easily, new Adepts would destroy them even easier, and it would aslo became far weaker against light air (Phoenixes, Oracles, Mutas, Banshees) in case of not giving it different AA attack, something that would become problematic to balance considering the AA strength of LotV Zerg. The decrease in dps probably should be significant however that does not necessarily mean that hydras would become trash because they're gonna be in bigger numbers! 100/50 2 supply -> 75/25 1 supply would allow for more units on the field. I also suggested to change roach into 1 supply unit to recreate that 'swarm of expendable units' feeling of zerg. What that also would allow is stronger max out of zerg ground which coupled with proper economy model (like DH) would allow for more uneconomical trades from Z's. What's more, if you reduce Hydralisk DPS, it would become simply less efficient as ground to ground fighter than the actual roach. That's way roach also should be redisgned to follow 1 supply tank, slow dps design as mentioned earlier Mass supply of Hydralisks would be also in a hard position to balance considering how efficient remaxing mechanisms are in SC2. This is not BW anymore, and the Hydralisk cannot be in a BW position without much balancing problems for many reasons, even if the concept is quite appealing. That would imply a big rework of the Zerg race. Hydras already are strongly countered by AoE units, don't think that it is gonna change. Siege tanks/colo/strom still gonna be massive against them. On the other hand we all know that zerg's are having a hard time against both mech & strong Protoss deathballs after the SH redisgn, especially when going for roach/hydra compostition. So even if change of hydralisk would mean they are stronger in mid/late game then it is only good for balance of late game. Actually I am not sure what's your stance on the matter because in earlier part of the post You said that hydras wil be bad after such change and later You say that they may become OP | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On April 21 2015 04:00 egrimm wrote: Well they're bad against units that deal strong AoE because they easily clump (siege tanks, storm, colo) and/or units that deal +light dmg (Hellion, and actually no unit from gateway? Well archon has bonus vs bio so...). But that units comes rather late to a game are are small in numbers, so if you move hydra to earlier part of the game you prolong its lifespan as it is longer useful. Hydras trade very well with gateway units and fairly against bio which is considerable achievement Also you want to have some roaches to tank and some hydras to deal dmg not only one type of unit.Additionally, later on, as your opponent amasses sizeble army of siege tanks/colo you morph leftover hydras into lurkers instead of sacing whole army for muta remax or whatever as it is right now with roaches. The decrease in dps probably should be significant however that does not necessarily mean that hydras would become trash because they're gonna be in bigger numbers! 100/50 2 supply -> 75/25 1 supply would allow for more units on the field. I also suggested to change roach into 1 supply unit to recreate that 'swarm of expendable units' feeling of zerg. What that also would allow is stronger max out of zerg ground which coupled with proper economy model (like DH) would allow for more uneconomical trades from Z's. That's way roach also should be redisgned to follow 1 supply tank, slow dps design as mentioned earlier Hydras already are strongly countered by AoE units, don't think that it is gonna change. Siege tanks/colo/strom still gonna be massive against them. On the other hand we all know that zerg's are having a hard time against both mech & strong Protoss deathballs after the SH redisgn, especially when going for roach/hydra compostition. So even if change of hydralisk would mean they are stronger in mid/late game then it is only good for balance of late game. Actually I am not sure what's your stance on the matter because in earlier part of the post You said that hydras wil be bad after such change and later You say that they may become OP So you want to have, no matter what, 1 supply units that are extremely inneficient at 75/25 cost.....while forcing the redesign of a whole race. Gl playing against mech or forcefield with even less efficient units, gl optimizing cpu usage. Why would you want to have +50 1-supply of shitty Roaches or Hydras that cannot form a concave to shoot (making them useless) and get even more countered by AoE? It makes no sense to redesing the whole game for that. BTW, 1-supply innefficient units would be a waste of larva. They would be far less larva efficient. Gl trying to be aggro on 2base if Zerg units are even less efficient than now. Zerg doesn't need 1-supply units, they already have 0.5 supply units that are very strong (Cracklings and Banelinsg) and can deal decently with the only other army that can mass 1-supply units (Terran marines). What it needs is to have more efficient mining on lower worker counts (Aka DH/BW econ) , decreasing worker supply and decreased supply cost for mid-lategame units like Lurkers, Ravagers and SH. BTW, I talked about a theoreticall 1-supply hydra and how you balance them. You can read. With BW Hydra type of damage, they would suck. With SC2 Hydra type of damage, they would be extremely OP, leading to a very noticeable nerf. Nerfed, we would have a 1-supply Hydralisk that is less efficient than our 2 supply roach we have right now. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1198 Posts
On April 21 2015 04:39 JCoto wrote: So you want to have, no matter what, 1 supply units that are extremely inneficient at 75/25 cost.....while forcing the redesign of a whole race. Gl playing against mech or forcefield with even less efficient units, gl optimizing cpu usage. I am not saying that hydras need to be extremely cost inneficient neither do roaches. Hydras have to be weaker than their 100/50 2 supply high dps version in terms of dps to become less binary & glass cannon type unit. Hydras are rarely seen vs mech because there are to fragile for they cost which such change might help with. Also I don't want zerg's to play only tier1 units vs compostion that is highly efficient but immobile like mech. If game goes to later stages and your roaches and hydras trade too cost inefficiently you can morph them into ravagers/lurkers or do whatever you want with probably much higher income form bases you acquired when having mobile but cost ineffective army. I don't really understand the cpu argument. Aren't people playing 4v4 on ladder without bigger issues? Why would you want to have +50 1-supply of shitty Roaches or Hydras that cannot form a concave to shoot (making them useless) and get even more countered by AoE? I fail do understand how 2x amount of units with same hp can be more countered by AoE? 15 hydras will take more space than 10 and probably your opponent would have to use for example 2 storms instead of 1 to cover whole group. BTW, 1-supply innefficient units would be a waste of larva. They would be far less larva efficient. Zerlings are highly larva inefficient but still are really valuable tool. Roaches on the other hand are really larve efficient but highly supply inefficient which means that zerg player have to build a lot of overlords and cannot have lot of roaches AND other units because of fast impending supply cap. It is discussion of what is more valuable, larvae or money? Answer is it depends. Also with 3 hatch build and queens I feel like zergs have rather planty larvae to work with but I may be wrong of course What it needs is to have more efficient mining on lower worker counts (Aka DH/BW econ) , decreasing worker supply and decreased supply cost for mid-lategame units like Lurkers, Ravagers and SH. I agree, actualy lower worker counts is what all races need and dimishing economy is also what I support. However I don't think that it is in contradiction with 1 supply basic zerg units like roach and hydra. With BW Hydra type of damage, they would suck. With SC2 Hydra type of damage, they would be extremely OP, leading to a very noticeable nerf. Nerfed, we would have a 1-supply Hydralisk that is less efficient than our 2 supply roach we have right now. I believe that there is middle ground between yours 2 versions, but It could only be verified if someone would implement such change and test it thoroughly. HotS Roach has 145 hp, deals 8 dps and costs 75/25/2 HotS Hydra has 80 hp, deals 16 dps and costs 100/50/2 new Hydra could have 80 hp, deal 11-12 dps and cost 75/25/1 new Roach could have 120 hp (but 2 armour base), deal 8 75/25/1 I am not saying that changing Hydra & Roach to 1 supply versions would work but I am rather optimistic with such change and willingly see tried out by blizzard | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
friendship
32 Posts
So how about give zerg a harass option that can come out at say, 5.30-7.00min and clear out a mineral line if not properly and promptly responded to? And one that leads nicely if any damage is done into an expedited tech play? Oh that's not for zerg you say? So we'll stick with the ravager Edit: just realized where we could go instead: 6X roaches becomes one of these, capable of climbing walls: https://www.google.pl/search?q=starship troopers giant beetle&safe=off&tbm=isch&imgil=iRq0HEiwJ-5TWM%3A%3BHrwAYrLCqwAGHM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.movieburger.com.au%252Ffeatures%252Ftop-10-sci-fi-movie-villains-10109%252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=iRq0HEiwJ-5TWM%3A%2CHrwAYrLCqwAGHM%2C_&usg=__SYrjI0_-mv0clvjI7iUOF7GrNeA=&biw=1252&bih=540 | ||
|
StalkerFang
Australia68 Posts
On April 21 2015 16:40 Grumbels wrote: No smartcast for storm would be odd given that the spell doesn't stack, so there is no single scenario where you would want this to happen. Yeah I don't really see why people are arguing about smartcast when this is true. There are times when you want to focus on attacking one unit. You never want to cast two storms at the same time in the same place. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
ravager vs roach is alright at the moment, the roach is more cost effective in straight up combat but the ravager adds a decent ability and slight supply effectiveness. Plus the benefit of growing your army through upgrading instead of egg usage which is great. Thus a roach mix with ravagers mixed in as the army get's larger is good. However the hydra is just pushed out now pretty much, if it wasn't already. The hydra was a less effective roach to begin with when it came to ground fights, even against units that countered armored with the exception of the immortal. So it had a marginal role to begin with but had a use for AA and mixing in when your army became large as the larger range of the hydra mixed better with some roaches then even more roaches. Now the ravager completely replaces the hydra for the few exceptions when you need AA that muta/corruptor/spores can't handle. I think this sort of thing is very hard to solve, when you keep most zerg units generic. Ie with no bonus against an armor type it is virtually impossible to create units that won't push eachother out. Roaches, ravagers and hydra's all sit in the ranged fairly fast ground unit role which just overlap. It's what happened with immortals and stalkers too, immortals had slightly better combat stats but stalkers were faster to produce and more manouvrable leading to stalkers almost pushing out immortals. And there it was easy to make immortals good enough to make but limited by production, with zerg production the problem is harder to solve. Either way you'll end up with a case where hydra's or roaches won't be seeing much play in a matchup, it's simply more effective to get one than both if they are so similar. Ravagers need to have a much more unique spin more focussed on their ability, for example just keeping the roach stats (hp and range) but add the ability only, perhaps buffed a bit. Hydra's would still have a niche for larger range unit and with the lurker upgrade available could have some use perhaps. Overall though the ravager seems to address the problem of forcefield mostly which seems clunky. Burrow movement, lurkers, flying disposable units etc all seem to adress forcefield already. I don't see how ravager is needed in addition to this. At this point I feel they are just better off replacing the forcefield alltogether because it wouldn't suprise me if forcefield became near extinct with sentries just becoming a 1 or 2 of in the army for guardian shield and scouting. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games tarik_tv13725 B2W.Neo2506 FrodaN1274 Beastyqt726 sgares623 crisheroes612 gobbtv568 Lowko448 Mew2King367 Fuzer  321Hui .217 Liquid`VortiX148 RotterdaM142 Trikslyr96 KnowMe64 |
|
BSL: ProLeague
Dewalt vs XuanXuan
Cross vs Xin
CSO Cup
Acropolis
Acropolis
Sparkling Tuna Cup
SOOP
ByuN vs Rogue
SC Evo Complete
WardiTV Invitational
PassionCraft
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
