My thoughts about 12 workers start

On May 11 2015 09:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Kind of agree with this, I like the incremental change to the minerals to 100/60 but the 12 worker thing just booms your economy too exponentially quick, it definitely reduces opening build order options.

At the same time though, I love not having to just mindlessly spam and do virtually nothing barring a cheese from my opponent for the first five minutes of the game, it's just a bit TOO fast.

Wish they would try maybe 10 workers start?

On May 11 2015 09:17 tresquarts wrote:


There are a nice dialogue between community and Blizzard now about economy model, and I think 12 workers start should be in this dialogue. I understand the main idea for this chage, but I feel it's too big. Perhaps 8 or 10 worker would be a better choice, we could try it.

On May 11 2015 10:55 Big J wrote:
I'm not a fan of it either. Maybe it just needs to be figured out, but I believe it is very unnecessary change, not for the better at the moment.

On May 11 2015 14:23 brickrd wrote:
idk i'm 100% in favor of 12 worker start... i can't see a single problem it causes, you don't need early cheeses and aggressions to have "strategic diversity". aggression is relative, so if the game accelerates quickly then aggression will just be defined as happening at a later point. proxies and gas pool builds are not what starcraft needs to be strategically rich

i've played zvzs where my opponent droned up his natural and then got aggressive off of 2base and continually allinned me for 15 minutes before i finally held and it was fucking awesome, almost never would that happen in hots zvz because if you attack with roaches on 2base and you don't overwhelm your opponent immediately you just fall way behind and die several minutes later which is very boring and causes those dreaded games where the casters sit around saying "well, this is pretty much over, there's really no way for him to catch up"

imo the new economy and 12 worker start have eliminated a lot of useless garbage time both at the beginning and end of the game. i'm not saying it's a perfect model, but it accomplished a specific goal which was worth accomplishing. diversity means improving unit interactions so there are different ways to approach a matchup throughout the midgame, it doesn't mean having a bunch of back pocket coinflip bo5 builds be viable

On May 11 2015 09:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Kind of agree with this, I like the incremental change to the minerals to 100/60 but the 12 worker thing just booms your economy too exponentially quick, it definitely reduces opening build order options.

On May 11 2015 22:59 Nyast wrote:


I don't really get that. There are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that the economy works faster now. Is that really the case ?

Well there is obviously the first minute of the half of the game that is "cut", which is shifting all the BOs and timings by that amount of time. There are also minor differences, like for the supply start, the usage of chrono boosts etc.. but overall, those aren't major changes. Your production capabilities, the overall timings, the collection rate of workers, etc.. all of that is pretty much identical. Am I missing something ? If not why are there people who seem to think the new eco allows for much more units at a given timing ?

On May 12 2015 00:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Quick Question: Would a bigger starting bank (say 500m/100g) be more interesting than 6 extra workers at speeding up early game development?

Opening possibilities seems reduced: In SC2 there are a big range of openings. As a zerg, you can open 6 pool (very greedy), 8 pool, 10 pool, 14 pool 16 hatch (safe), 15 hatch 14 pool, or you can go until 3 hatch before pool. This is a wide range of options to determine the moment where you can begin to make an army, in balance with resource collection.

Effects of little diffences are magnified: The armies in LotV are bigger in the same amount of time to build them and this is not so good as it seems in first instance. Imagine a battle between two medium armies (50 cost population aprox) and army 1 wins the battle with a few units (1 stalker, 1 zealot, for example) while erasing army 2. If we duplicate these armies, the result of the battle is a victory from army 1, but there are much more than 2 stlakers and 2 zealots remaining, perhaps enough to make the difference at the end.

On May 11 2015 08:59 tresquarts wrote:
Hi folks!

LLAG, a diamond in HotS here. Just wanna share some thoughts and feelings about the Blizzard's decision about 12 worker start after 30-40 games in beta. I hope community can consider that and, perhaps, some others (with more knowledge) can try to determine it's convenience.

Note that I am not really a skilled player and I usually play zerg, my knoledge of the game is not complete at all, but I have two arguments for reducing initial number of workers:

i. Opening possibilities seems reduced: In SC2 there are a big range of openings. As a zerg, you can open 6 pool (very greedy), 8 pool, 10 pool, 14 pool 16 hatch (safe), 15 hatch 14 pool, or you can go until 3 hatch before pool. This is a wide range of options to determine the moment where you can begin to make an army, in balance with resource collection.

Now, LotV economy reduces (obviously) the early pools, but the hard economy play delaying pool is not allowed, in order that yopur enemy can make an army in a short time.
Then, in my opinion (and this is only an opinion, I don't have data to support it) the strategic choices at the very beginning are reduced.

ii. Effects of little diffences are magnified: The armies in LotV are bigger in the same amount of time to build them and this is not so good as it seems in first instance. Imagine a battle between two medium armies (50 cost population aprox) and army 1 wins the battle with a few units (1 stalker, 1 zealot, for example) while erasing army 2. If we duplicate these armies, the result of the battle is a victory from army 1, but there are much more than 2 stlakers and 2 zealots remaining, perhaps enough to make the difference at the end.

Then, a little mistake or a little disadvantage in one point of the game can make you lose. For me, a game of Starcraft should be win by the better player, not by the player that makes and error later.

Thanks for reading, I wanna read your thoughts about that.

gl hf

On May 12 2015 03:23 Hider wrote:
I agree that it should be a goal to have a wide variety of openings, but I think your premise here is a bit wrong. Yes, when you change the early game, certain openings won't be viable. However, I think it makes more sense to look at the ratio of viable meaningful viable decision per minutes the player makes in each game. Thus, by pushing the game forward to a point in time where a larger amount of decisions are possible, the ratio could possibly go up. As a terran player, I feel that you are making more meaningful decisions each second here.

This is incorrect, and while LOTV probably is more unforgiving, this is a result of the new spread out economy, not the 12-worker change. First of, LOTV armires are actually smaller on average than in HOTS, thus making your argument irrelevant.

Secondly, the question you should ask is whether a small mistake is punished more severely if you have a large army than a small army. I think losing 1 stalker when you have only 4 stalkers and the enemy has 4 stalkers as well is extremely punishing and could likely result in a dead game (as you lose 25% of the army). However, I am not sure that when you have 50+ army supply that you happen to lose 25% of the army as well. I think this percentage is most likely a lot lower, thus the game becomes more forgiving when you have larger armies.

And thus, I believe your confusing various elements here, and while there certainly are issues with the 12-worker start (I don't believe blizzard has adjusted other parts of the game to take that into account properly) the unforgivingness is not one of those.

On May 12 2015 03:50 tokinho wrote:


Lol said like a diamond player. You feel a 6 pool, 10 pool, pool before hatch, or hatch before pool are options?

Nope, 6p and 10p are two allins, 8 pool into 3:21 gas is allin depending on what they do, and the reality is these are allins that are held by the best players. They are not viable builds which is why you never see them in tournaments. 9 pool is heavy heavy pressure and 14/14 is used vs protoss. So the two major builds which offer transitions are not even listed. This entire post seems to imply you are a cheesy player who doesn't play out games.

The reality is the better player is more likely to win with the economic changes and it will really hurt your playstyle.

LOTV zerg has way more early game choices before lair now. Ravagers open a lot for the early game against greedy openers and make bane pushes before tech vs protoss viable. You can go 2:13 3rd base, 28 roach warren, 36 roach warren, 41 roach bane, or even a fast lair now. You can play much more counter base and zone a lot better because of lurkers.

The true result is the exact opposite of everything that you claim. Protoss and terrans are required to scout more early. There are more options before lair and the game favors players with better map awareness and multitasking. The better player is more likely to win with the economic focus, since its not about a blind allin and is about making more decisions and taking more engagements with smaller armies. Turtling play styles have more ways to be punished now too.

Seriously, nothing in your post is anything at all related to what actually happens starting with a higher worker count early.
The bigger economic change is that the bases mine out faster to be honest, not starting with more workers.

Also, like the openers i think are not as you say, I view it as lings before saturating the natural no gas, lings before saturating the natural with gas, saturating the natural lair less pressure, saturating the natural and gases with lair tech pressure, and expanding/playing out the meta and what to scout for and do with those style with that given opener.

I think you have quite a bit of ways to go in terms of scouting and learning how to play vs allinning everyone.

I don't want only to take decisions all the time, I want a big variety in strategic options.

My statement is un LotV you have less different options to choose, because greedy builds are reduced and you cannot go to a big economic game, because yor enemy can gather a big army in a little time.

My experience in beta is armies are bigger in the first part of the game.

the result of the battle (thinking in 2 armies crushing untill one is gone) is not proportional in the same way. A simple example from unit tester: 8 zerling (Team A) vs 10 zerling (Team B) and Team B wins with 6 zerling surviving. Second test: 16 zerling (Team A) vs 20 zerling (Team B) and Team B wins with 14 zerling surviving.

I really don't think eliminating 6 pools or other cheeses is a bad thing. I love the fact that all the cheeses are mostly dead. They were not good for the game at all. They just made it needlessly frustrating.

On May 12 2015 15:38 JJH777 wrote:
I really don't think eliminating 6 pools or other cheeses is a bad thing. I love the fact that all the cheeses are mostly dead. They were not good for the game at all. They just made it needlessly frustrating.

I also love the 12 worker change just cause of all the idiotic apm bashers from HotS. I never spam which results in like 20-30 apm for first 5 minutes which means my overall apm is always super low unless they game goes really long. A lot of the people who lose to me get pissed when they see my 60-70apm. It's funny seeing all the people with 200apm stuck in diamond with me. I always tell them if they actually had that much apm they'd be grandmasters.

On May 12 2015 15:45 Hider wrote:


Irrational nostalgia.

On May 12 2015 08:45 tresquarts wrote:
Fisrt: My experience in beta is armies are bigger in the first part of the game. People can achieve 40 zerlings very early.

On May 12 2015 17:39 jinorazi wrote:some say annoying about cheese yet so many people dont even know how to properly defend against them, bad crisis management. the game isn't about doing things 1, 2, 3 in order, its about adapting to do what needs to be done. blizzard's intentions, instead of teaching new players how to defend, it just removes/minimize it to bend to new players. its like the new era of NR 15 players and blizzard catering to them.

On May 12 2015 20:54 Nyast wrote:


But... why ?

Do we agree that the 12 workers shifts the build timings, but does not increase the amount of resources you get at any point in the build, right ?

Do we agree that the workers collection rate is unchanged ?

So why would you have more resources to make those lings at the equivalent timing ?

The only thing that comes to my mind is the change of pop on every hatch/nexus/CC; this will save you an overlord or two, which in turn allows you to produce a handful more of lings. But that's it. Eco wise, everything should be the same.. ( other than having to expo faster ofc ).

On May 12 2015 21:13 TheDwf wrote:
Haha... Have fun trying to persuade people that time exists (and is the crux) in RTS. If you need some material, pick from Razzia des Blizzsters (first post, this one, this one or the two conversations with FueledUpAndReadyToGo in the thread). You have intuitively understood one of the most critical aspects of the game, now it is your mission to convince others about the existence of “contraction of time” (whatever word you use to describe that, above all don't use mine!). This is of the utmost importance in the LotV development, far ahead of Adepts and Reapers with Grenades and other futilities from the “Balance Updates” (which are all slaves to the temporal architecture of the game).

Good luck!

On May 12 2015 23:00 brickrd wrote:

getting right into the action is good for the game

On May 11 2015 16:26 ShulamD wrote:
I agree that 12 starting workers is a bit too many. First of all it feels really weird with the new supply timings and just seeing that mass of workers at the very first second of the game. Second, I find myself floating minerals very early (at something like 20 supply) in every game and it feels like a third base needs to be put down very early.

I also really dislike the fact that there is no worker micro anymore, I liked the chilled part at the start with just microing my drones to the closest patches

I would go with 9 starting workers, it's the middle ground between 12 and 6 and it would be exactly the point in HotS when you would start making your supply building/unit.

On May 12 2015 23:43 tresquarts wrote:


Why? That's a good question and I think I have an answer, I'll try it:

On the paper, there is no clear difference in economy executing the same build order in HotS or LotV. If you play 15 hatch 14 pool (sorry, i'm a zerg) there is no diffence. The fact is that no one play 15 hatch 14 pool in LotV with the same intention. In LotV you know that youe enemy cannot attack you so early, and then you try to priorize economy and retard the buildings untill something like 17 hatch 16 pool. Then, the timings are the same but you have some more workers and you collect more resources.

The fact is the cost of units and buildings are the same, as well as the times they need, then you have more resources to invest in what you need. If you choose a 5 minutes army because your opponent is expanding too much or whatever, you can make a really big amount of units.

The difference here is about the change in metagame that the 12 workers start promotes. And I know there are another issues in economy changes in LotV, but I think this one matters too.

On May 13 2015 00:12 Big J wrote:
I think the worst situation I have been in yet has been a Zerg vs Random on some 4p map, flew my OL in one direction, sent a scout into the other direction when I put my hatch down. It turned out, the direction of the overlord was the proper one, and when it entered the Terrans base (first important scouting clue), he put down his third command center. That felt really laughable, me playing a game against a possible zerg or protoss opponent, with the random putting down a greedy third CC at the time I found him.

On May 12 2015 23:00 brickrd wrote:

the annoying thing wasnt using skill to defend an attack, it was building workers and setting up for 2 minutes of your life only to immediately die to a BO loss

same reason super super committed early allins have always been annoying, because you had to commit time to setting up your build while doing basically nothing but scouting and macroing only for everything to come down to an obnoxious attack

getting right into the action is good for the game

On May 12 2015 23:49 tresquarts wrote:


From my point of view, in RTS game the key aspects should be strategic. It's only an opinion.

On May 13 2015 00:36 jinorazi wrote:


See, I see it fine to a have BO loss. No normal opening should have a BO loss, it should be because of a greedy/risky build or problem with map. Getting right into action is fine too but the problem rises from its side effect from how it's implemented.

On May 13 2015 03:26 TheDwf wrote:
What you don't understand is that SC2 already bulldozed the early game through various means. And now you want to further bulldoze the early game because... it has already been mutilated, instead of properly reconstructing it. Whatever you do, you will never cut the small part of the routinized sequence known as the opening. The 12 worker change makes zero sense because ultimately, it aims at fighting automation through increasing automation.

On May 13 2015 03:35 brickrd wrote:

really? because i played hots and i'm playing lotv and in every single game it feels like i'm getting to the action and the fun part of the game faster, so i think i know what i'm fucking experiencing, lol. i don't really care if you have some arcane, self-involved theory about how it's actually not accomplishing anything, because my gaming experience is what matters when i'm playing a game. maybe you should let artosis know that he was wrong about the action starting faster too as well as the other countless players and community members who have said the same thing about their own experience

but please, continue telling other people that their own experience of whether they're having fun with a video game is valid or not, we love being condescended to by someone with zero interest in any sort of mutual discussion. what else do i not understand?

On May 13 2015 06:41 Xapti wrote:
8-10 workers and 100 minerals, or even 150 minerals would be better than 12 workers in my opinion. Adding some minerals instead of workers opens up the ability to still perform early aggression and saves the most time, so I'm unsure why they didn't do this.

On May 13 2015 06:41 Xapti wrote:
8-10 workers and 100 minerals would be better than 12 workers in my opinion. Adding some minerals instead of workers opens up the ability to still perform early aggression and saves the most time, so I'm unsure why they didn't do this.

On May 13 2015 06:51 Xapti wrote:
Yes and a good way to do so is to start off with more money. More money means one can start producing unit-producting buildings right away. If a ton of money existed at the start one could build an expansion and a barracks and a supply depot all at the start, while also pumping SCVs and building a refinery. Obviously the thousand or more minerals to do that would be excessive, but something like 100-200 minerals would make good sense.

On May 13 2015 06:10 TheDwf wrote:
Yeah, let's ignore all the negative feedback on the 12 workers change from many testers themselves (triggering threads like this), let's ignore the impact of the novelty effect after months of boredom, let's ignore that history falters with the initial enthusiasm of the HotS beta, let's bin 17 years of Fast maps on SC1 as for the precise effects on gameplay. Sleeping is such a bliss.

On May 13 2015 04:48 Hider wrote:

It always amused me how almost everyone who played the beta liked the changes to econ and 12 workers while alot of people who had not played the beta wrote long post about how those players were "wrong" in their enjoyment.

The point here is that if the theory is not matched by empirical evidence, then one should consider to stop making angry post on the forum and instead reevaluate the theory.

On May 12 2015 23:49 tresquarts wrote:


From my point of view, in RTS game the key aspects should be strategic. It's only an opinion.

On May 13 2015 08:03 BronzeKnee wrote:


We are talking about Blizzard Entertainment, Dustin Browder and David Kim. This isn't a group of people that likes to take anyone's advice or values community feedback beyond telling us they "value feedback," because they do whatever they want.

They created BFH madness in WOL, realized it was broken and nerfed it, only to then do exactly the same thing with Hellbats in the HOTS. And despite the community response during the Beta they released Hellbat drops broken. That in turn required several patches to fix too.

They had a big combat walker that had a spell that countered it's counter (Strike Cannons versus Immortals back during TSL3) and after fixing that, released the Warhound, another big combat walker that had yet another spell to counter the very same counter (Haywire Missiles versus Immortals). And we know how that worked out.

Some people are incapable of learning from history. And they shouldn't be charged with designing expansions.

On May 13 2015 00:29 TheDwf wrote:

Hahahaha... No comment. But we already know what the “solution” will be: buff Overlord speed again! Or a new Queen patch if things really turn too bad.

On May 12 2015 23:52 Zode wrote:


If you're floating money early game, you just need to adapt and macro better. I personally had a similar problem but I've adjusted to it pretty easily.

About worker micro, it's still there. The workers don't auto stack on the closest patches just because you have 12 of them.

On May 15 2015 22:29 ShulamD wrote:


As Zerg, larva production just doesn't keep up with the mineral income at the beginning of the game which usually makes people get a macro hatch or a super early third. Getting macro hatch this early is kind of stupid because it makes larva management less important.

Worker micro is there still sure, it's now more about luck if you get the closest patches automatically or not.

Getting lasting enjoyment out of something is difficult

On May 13 2015 08:30 Big J wrote:


Funnily I'm right now rewatching the "The Gamedesign of Starcraft 2:Designing an esport" speech and Dustin Browder and blizzard really seemed to have a clue and a good direction with SC2.

The problem is that blizzard broke their design-codes.
Blizzard 2005-2011: we want 12-15units per race at maximum. Otherwise what happens is that there are too many choices, some units become redundant and sometimes it is not possible to read what the opponent is doing.
2013-14 The bullshit era of Protoss vs Terran. Why? Because blizzard introduced the oracle and mothership core and buffed DT rushes to all come at the same time as already existant Protoss attacks.
Amount of units on Protoss: 18. In LotV: 20 (and other races similarily get more more MORE stuff)

Blizzard 2005-2011: We want to have mover-shooters and really differentiate units by stats. We worked for weeks to get the hellion in a place where it could shoot and then have enough time to reposition to try and get another perfect shot. We designed the baneling and the marine to counter each other.
HotS & LotV: more buttons, more spells, more hardcounters. No more unit tweaking as done between 2005 and 2011. From here on out it is all buffs to everything. You get a buff, you get a buff, everyone gets a buff. Buffing is the new trend. Buffing stuff so that you never have to tell the players that their toys are overpowered, just make the opponent happy by buffing "his counters".


You know what the reason for the ravager nerf was:
They aren't different enough from roaches. Well now they are, now they are redundant.
You know what the reason for the zealot buff is? Adepts are better in every single situation and zealots are now redundant.

They knew about these problems in 2005 and tried to avoid them. Now, they are opening the floodgates and the bullshit is allowed to tricker in. On top of being stubborn on questions like economy and damage point.

On May 20 2015 07:56 Hider wrote:


The grass is always greener on the other side. But when you look abit deeper on the surface you realize its not always true.

With regards to Marine vs Banelings, Dustin Browder has actually previously admitted that the Marine splitting wasn't intentional design. They definitely had originally designed the Baneling as a counter to Marines.

Hellion is basically the only instance of a unit where its obvious they spend time working on the interaction (no idea how that took weeks ago. I would estimate just getting one interaction right vs Speedlings as 30-40 minutes of work of one man. The hard part is to get interactions right vs multiple units which is where Blizzard failed with this unit).

But then you add on top alot of other lame stuff which was added into the game in this period:
- Fungal instant stun 8 second.
- Forcefields.
- Colossus
- Hardened Shield
- Emp gigantic radius
- PDD
- Snipe
- Roach 2 supply

That's a pretty big list, and the biggest flaw they had prior to the development of LOTV was the ignorance of counterplay. Yes they are adding too many abilites right now, but at least they seems to be focussed on making sure you can micro against it, which is unlike what they did in both WOL and LOTV.

And I disagree that they got the hellion wrong with many other units. Hellions are some of the most fun units across the board in the game.

Whether or not the actual splitting was intended or not, what they did right was that they created numbers very close to each other which is the basis why it eventually turned up.

but lots of stuff you are mentioning took one or two years to be figured out to the point that we could say, yes, this is not so fun to play against when your opponent is any good.

On May 20 2015 13:26 Loccstana wrote:
12 worker start is a bad idea because it makes any super early cheese impractical. This means no more 2 gates, 2 rack, 6 pool type rushes

On May 20 2015 13:26 Loccstana wrote:
12 worker start is a bad idea because it makes any super early cheese impractical. This means no more 2 gates, 2 rack, 6 pool type rushes

This may be more fun to play, but it's not an improvement for the spectator or the competitor.

12 worker start really reduces the complexity of Protoss builds.

On May 20 2015 09:06 Hider wrote:


Hellion falls off the board after early midgame so incredibly hard. I don't see what interactions you are thinking off here.



When you add in 40 units in a game, it's not unlikely that you get one interaction right in the game. I don't see that as being on the right track or anyhting like that given how many other significant flaws there were in WOL.


Yeh sure, I don't think its fair to be overly critical of WOL given how little we knew back then. But my point was more that I don't agree that they were ever on any track. For LOTV I see it more as a sideway steps. They added in a lot of pointless/dumb abiliites, but also rewarded counterplay for a lot of other abilities which is good.

Of course buffing everything else in the mid- and lategame has hurt it and the compensation to the hellion was to make it transformable into a hellbat, not so much anything to the hellion itself.
Still we often see hellions in the lategame wrecking mineral lines when the Terran chooses to go for that techpath.

In WoL at least they tried. Since they found out that just "solving" everything through buffs will guarantee them overwhelming positive replies from the third of the community that receives the buff they have stopped caring about any decent design-guidelines they once at least proclaimed they had.

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.

On May 20 2015 18:37 Hider wrote:


What do you mean buffing everything else? In WOL post early midgame, the Hellion never was useful for anything else than melee light units and workers. This hasn't changed at all. The Hellbat served to give terran mech a bit more opportunity to make timing attacks in the midgame.

The issue with the damage point in this case is that while it creates interactions in the early game, it removes potential interactions later in the game as the unit often will die before being able to attack. That's kinda why I never feel this Hellion solution should have taken more than 30-40 minutes to create as the design (while fundamentally sound) still has a lot left to be desired.

On May 20 2015 18:52 frostalgia wrote:

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.

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.

that already grants mapcontrol

On May 20 2015 19:22 Hider wrote:


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.

Hellbats on the other hand actually function as a proper buffer unit.

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.

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.

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)

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.

What's the problem with that? You got a strategical reason to do it.

On May 20 2015 19:17 eXeTimelog wrote:

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.

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.

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.

On May 22 2015 23:02 eXeTimelog wrote:

How did the 12 worker start change that? I still see plenty Hellions being used as an opener.

On May 23 2015 07:31 hitpoint wrote:
I really hate the 12 worker start. It makes me not want to even play tbh.