|
On May 20 2015 19:22 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
It was and is pretty fine against anything light and was/is a decent buffer for Mech against units such as marauders, not just melee. And even if it was only the melee units, it's a 100/0 unit that already grants mapcontrol through high basespeed, it is not supposed to be the end all of combat technologies.
Terran only build them because they had excessive minerals. If you had gas on the other hand, you would always prefer tanks in TvT. Thus you did end up seeing 30 tanks vs 30 tanks in the later game with no Hellions.
What's the problem with that? You got a strategical reason to do it. If I could I would also always only have 50infestors on 200/200 energy as zerg and no hydras and roaches and banelings. But I don't. I have to work with what I can afford and get away with. But yeah, eventually I will go into more and more infestors. I don't see the problem.
Hellbats on the other hand actually function as a proper buffer unit.
If you could you would also just have Ravens with autoturrets to buffer. Same argument, just that
The map control it provided past the midgame was useless since its harass capabilites weren't very strong and you could get better information by investing into multiple orbitals and having enough scans. The hellion was (and still is) a case of a unit that needs proper upgrades vs non-light units. IMO giving it blue flame never made sense. Instead it needed some type of upgrade to allow it to deal better vs non-light units in the later stages of the game.
No it doesn't. Not every unit needs to be the marine. It's completely fine for units to have strong counters, for as long as the units have a reasonable usages in the game. Units fade out and others fade in, that's the whole point of having a techtree based RTS game. If anything just deals with everything, then why would I even use other units? You just open with the lowtier stuff and keep on going the lowtier stuff and build more of the lowtier stuff and eventually win with the lowtier stuff.
The interesting part is when you transition on until you eventually reach compositions against which the lowtier stuff is suddenly decent again and you are suddenly both forced and incented to use your own lowtier stuff again to counter the counters to the lowtier-counters. (e.g. when you can go back into zerglings to combat Thors and the general immobility of highertier mech and then the Terran can go back to hellion/hellbats to counter zerglings)
Or they provide certain roles that you want to have filled for strategcial reasons, like mobility that higher tier compositions can't fill that well.
But with the mishmash of boosting, flying siege tanks and hellbats, combat mutalisks, teleporting Protoss and Captial Ships, Siegewalking units, lightning speed Tempests... it isn't quite rocket science to figure out that mobility-focused units are somewhat redundant later on, since everything higher tier is supermobile too or can be made supermobile relatively cheaply.
But since we are derailing the thread, I think we should take it to PMs. 
|
It's completely fine for units to have strong counters, for as long as the units have a reasonable usages in the game.
Look I am not suggesting to make the Hellion cost efficiency vs armored units (that's clearly the role of the Tank), but rather I believe that its sound RTS fundamentals that micro should be rewarded in as many scenarios as possible in order to increase cost efficiency. But all you can do past the early game vs ranged units is to amove.
Units fade out and others fade in, that's the whole point of having a techtree based RTS game.
Not necceasrily. The point of a well designed tech tree is to create a fluent dynamic where various units soft counter each other. But a unit shouldn't be inferior to another unit in almost all cases. And unfortunately that was what happened to the Hellion past the early game.
You are simply reducing the strategic depht of the game if you add in dominating units that are always superior in almost all situations. Instead, I believe that players should be forced to make a lot of "tough" decisions (where each decision has disadvantages and advantages) as frequently as possible.
The interesting part is when you transition on until you eventually reach compositions against which the lowtier stuff is suddenly decent again and you are suddenly both forced and incented to use your own lowtier stuff again to counter the counters to the lowtier-counters. (e.g. when you can go back into zerglings to combat Thors and the general immobility of highertier mech and then the Terran can go back to hellion/hellbats to counter zerglings)
Zergling are kinda in the same boat as Hellions. Only becoming useful in the late game when you have excessive minerals. I don't enjoy that type of balance. I much prefer that all units have a "real" strenght (and disadvantages) that are unique compared to other units.
it isn't quite rocket science to figure out that mobility-focused units are somewhat redundant later on, since everything higher tier is supermobile too or can be made supermobile relatively cheaply.
We are talking about WOL here. The reason the Hellion becomes irrelevant isn't due to enemy level of mobility but because - past the early game - there are no real ways to improve its efficiency through micro. Playing vs a larger groups of Stalkers or hydras? You amove. You can't do any fancy move-in-and out as the high damage point disrewards this type of play.
I don't see which types of specific interactions you are thinking so highly of here?
What's the problem with that? You got a strategical reason to do it.
Aren't you just adding the term "strategical" to legalize your argument here? I don't see how it promotes any type of strategy if you always follow such a simple plan: "Build Hellions when you have excessive minerals and replace them with tanks when you have enough gas". There are no tough decisions here, and instead the optimal strategy becomes a math-problem.
Rather I believe strategic depth is created when the determining factors to which units you build depends on a variety of facors and constantly can change throughout the game. It shouldn't be easy to determine the right or wrong answer, and I guess that's why a game like chess has so lot of depht to it.
|
On May 20 2015 19:17 eXeTimelog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 18:52 frostalgia wrote:On May 20 2015 18:17 Huxii wrote:
I don't really know if i'm a fan of the worker change or not. Initially i wasn't for sure but after playing the beta for a while i think i changed my mind.
In the beginning i thought it was sad that thnigs like 6 pool or proxy gates would no longer work, but as it shows that's not really the case. Instead of proxying 2 gates, you just fucking proxy 3 and a cybercore.
Early agression will be just as viable as ever, it will just look different. I beg to differ. The defending player should still have more than enough workers to hold off the first few units, especially if they're able to scout the proxy. Cheesing with slow-lings.. good luck with that. As for a Metabolic Boost timing with a round of lings after the first inject, remember even that (and other early rushes) now hit a defending player with a much more developed economy/tech path than they would've had previously. You forget that the attacking player also benefits from the stronger economy with his cheese or pressure. For example a Terran won't do a 2 proxy rax rush in Legacy, but instead will opt for 3 barracks, or even 4. This means that the defending Zerg player, even when he scouted it, will need to rely on the few extra workers he has way more then he used too, as there will be more marines barreling down on his bases, while he still has the same amount of Larvae, and thus units, available to defend. This will be the case with all cheeses, they also got buffed just as much as defenders got buffed.
Try it.. You'll hit with one more marine or zealot per wave, but the defender advantage for Cheese now exceeds the attacker advantage. This is because the build itself hits at the same time, while the economy is already further ahead. The tech doesn't get built any faster than it did before.
|
Cheesy plays will always exist. Moving them from the 6minite mark to the 16minute mark does not change anything
|
Overall I would say that I like the 12 worker start and having the early game develop much faster. I never was a fan of dice roll BO wins and such so it's a double win. less cheese, less boring. But I do think it's a small buff to Terran.
Terran can pay for an orbital much earlier now (which is already the best macro mechanic). Before, zerg and protoss could get a small worker lead before mules came into the equation and inflated their economy. Now I don't think it's a very big factor but when you consider terran also need less gas early on this could actually have more effect than what people think. Broken, probably not, an early game edge, I think so.
|
One thing I dislike that comes as a consequence of 12-worker start is the change to the TvZ opening. I loved Hellion openings in HOTS, so fun and microintensive while new reapers and siege tank drops are pretty lame in the early game.
|
On May 22 2015 21:53 Hider wrote:
One thing I dislike that comes as a consequence of 12-worker start is the change to the TvZ opening. I loved Hellion openings in HOTS, so fun and microintensive while new reapers and siege tank drops are pretty lame in the early game.
How did the 12 worker start change that? I still see plenty Hellions being used as an opener.
|
I think he means the same type of damage, not the same type of opener.
|
On May 22 2015 21:53 Hider wrote:
One thing I dislike that comes as a consequence of 12-worker start is the change to the TvZ opening. I loved Hellion openings in HOTS, so fun and microintensive while new reapers and siege tank drops are pretty lame in the early game.
I really love the 12 worker start actually. When I play TvZ though I have trouble opening. Hellions seem to come out too late. I've tried 3 rax and that doesn't seem to work either. Might try messing with the new reapers more. or maybe a banshee opener.
|
On May 22 2015 23:02 eXeTimelog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 21:53 Hider wrote:
One thing I dislike that comes as a consequence of 12-worker start is the change to the TvZ opening. I loved Hellion openings in HOTS, so fun and microintensive while new reapers and siege tank drops are pretty lame in the early game. How did the 12 worker start change that? I still see plenty Hellions being used as an opener.
Yes as Okto point out, they come out relatively later compared to zerg tech/army count/queen size. I didn't try it that much, but I heard other people say a similar thing and I don't see a lot of Hellion openings whenever I watch LOTV tvz games on streams.
|
On May 23 2015 04:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2015 23:02 eXeTimelog wrote:On May 22 2015 21:53 Hider wrote:
One thing I dislike that comes as a consequence of 12-worker start is the change to the TvZ opening. I loved Hellion openings in HOTS, so fun and microintensive while new reapers and siege tank drops are pretty lame in the early game. How did the 12 worker start change that? I still see plenty Hellions being used as an opener. Yes as Okto point out, they come out relatively later compared to zerg tech/army count/queen size. I didn't try it that much, but I heard other people say a similar thing and I don't see a lot of Hellion openings whenever I watch LOTV tvz games on streams.
Opening hellions is really hard but if you want to be aggressive you can get both banshee and armory faster, like most things they're steroid version of hots openers, but yeah opening with 2 reapers into hellions doesn't really works
|
Opening hellions can still work--but benchmarks of success has to be changed since the context of their timing has changed. This will be true for all older builds.
|
I really hate the 12 worker start. It makes me not want to even play tbh.
|
On May 23 2015 07:31 hitpoint wrote:
I really hate the 12 worker start. It makes me not want to even play tbh.
Same here. Played a few LotV games and it was way too hectic for me, couldn't stand it at all. Still on the fence about the mineral patch changes, but I really, really hope the game doesn't ship with any more than an 8 worker start.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
