|
On September 06 2015 20:03 WidowMineHero wrote:
yes... reactor liberators are insane...
Reactor-hate is hilarious, especially when hated by Zergs, who have larva-based production, lol.
Reactors offer a one-time per game savings of 100/50/0, per non-Barracks Reactor-structure (compared to building an additional structure). It adds 50 gas per_reactor Barracks. This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production, and that all non-Reactor units require an additional 50/25/25 techlab investment per productions structure. It is also designed to help save space because the production footprint is large, and it's relatively important to have it centralized (we don't have warpgates, we don't have creep, don't have AG static defense).
The Reactor with Libs are not an issue on one base, because you can't Reactor Libs on one base.
|
On September 07 2015 01:12 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2015 20:03 WidowMineHero wrote:
yes... reactor liberators are insane... Reactor-hate is hilarious, especially when hated by Zergs, who have larva-based production, lol. Reactors offer a one-time per game savings of 100/50/0, per non-Barracks Reactor-structure (compared to building an additional structure). It adds 50 gas per_reactor Barracks. This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production, and that all non-Reactor units require an additional 50/25/25 techlab investment per productions structure. It is also designed to help save space because the production footprint is large, and it's relatively important to have it centralized (we don't have warpgates, we don't have creep, don't have AG static defense). The Reactor with Libs are not an issue on one base, because you can't Reactor Libs on one base.
You're gold league aren't you?
|
On September 07 2015 01:30 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 01:12 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 06 2015 20:03 WidowMineHero wrote:
yes... reactor liberators are insane... Reactor-hate is hilarious, especially when hated by Zergs, who have larva-based production, lol. Reactors offer a one-time per game savings of 100/50/0, per non-Barracks Reactor-structure (compared to building an additional structure). It adds 50 gas per_reactor Barracks. This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production, and that all non-Reactor units require an additional 50/25/25 techlab investment per productions structure. It is also designed to help save space because the production footprint is large, and it's relatively important to have it centralized (we don't have warpgates, we don't have creep, don't have AG static defense). The Reactor with Libs are not an issue on one base, because you can't Reactor Libs on one base. You're gold league aren't you?
So?
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production
Zerg has their own production style; i don't know on what basis you're saying that terran production is more costly than protoss
|
On September 07 2015 01:30 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 01:12 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 06 2015 20:03 WidowMineHero wrote:
yes... reactor liberators are insane... Reactor-hate is hilarious, especially when hated by Zergs, who have larva-based production, lol. Reactors offer a one-time per game savings of 100/50/0, per non-Barracks Reactor-structure (compared to building an additional structure). It adds 50 gas per_reactor Barracks. This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production, and that all non-Reactor units require an additional 50/25/25 techlab investment per productions structure. It is also designed to help save space because the production footprint is large, and it's relatively important to have it centralized (we don't have warpgates, we don't have creep, don't have AG static defense). The Reactor with Libs are not an issue on one base, because you can't Reactor Libs on one base. You're gold league aren't you?
Lol. The classic "credentials?" go-to for forum discussion. Well played. Plat in WoL (low Diamond), stopped playing in HotS (too addictive) so hovered between Gold and Plat, and in LotV beta I don't really play 1v1 (so I think I'm Gold last time I checked?) ... we mainly focus on our GrandMaster Archon Mode team ; )
On September 07 2015 01:35 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote + This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production Zerg has their own production style; i don't know on what basis you're saying that terran production is more costly than protoss
Right. Asymmetric production schemes. Terran production just costs more ... I mean, that's not a controversial statement is it? SCV build time, can be canceled / harassed, sometimes an extra SCV has to pull, add-ons cost x/x/x I mean ...
|
On September 07 2015 01:48 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 01:30 Ovid wrote:On September 07 2015 01:12 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 06 2015 20:03 WidowMineHero wrote:
yes... reactor liberators are insane... Reactor-hate is hilarious, especially when hated by Zergs, who have larva-based production, lol. Reactors offer a one-time per game savings of 100/50/0, per non-Barracks Reactor-structure (compared to building an additional structure). It adds 50 gas per_reactor Barracks. This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production, and that all non-Reactor units require an additional 50/25/25 techlab investment per productions structure. It is also designed to help save space because the production footprint is large, and it's relatively important to have it centralized (we don't have warpgates, we don't have creep, don't have AG static defense). The Reactor with Libs are not an issue on one base, because you can't Reactor Libs on one base. You're gold league aren't you? Lol. The classic "credentials?" go-to for forum discussion. Well played. Plat in WoL (low Diamond), stopped playing in HotS (too addictive) so hovered between Gold and Plat, and in LotV beta I don't really play 1v1 (so I think I'm Gold last time I checked?) ... we mainly focus on our GrandMaster Archon Mode team ; ) Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 01:35 Cyro wrote: This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production Zerg has their own production style; i don't know on what basis you're saying that terran production is more costly than protoss Right. Asymmetric production schemes. Terran production just costs more ... I mean, that's not a controversial statement is it? SCV build time, can be canceled / harassed, sometimes an extra SCV has to pull, add-ons cost x/x/x I mean ...
And with that I don't need to say anything more, my point has been proven for me.
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
Terran production just costs more
Zerg doesn't use typical production and T/P are fairly similar.
|
On September 07 2015 02:03 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 01:48 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 07 2015 01:30 Ovid wrote:On September 07 2015 01:12 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 06 2015 20:03 WidowMineHero wrote:
yes... reactor liberators are insane... Reactor-hate is hilarious, especially when hated by Zergs, who have larva-based production, lol. Reactors offer a one-time per game savings of 100/50/0, per non-Barracks Reactor-structure (compared to building an additional structure). It adds 50 gas per_reactor Barracks. This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production, and that all non-Reactor units require an additional 50/25/25 techlab investment per productions structure. It is also designed to help save space because the production footprint is large, and it's relatively important to have it centralized (we don't have warpgates, we don't have creep, don't have AG static defense). The Reactor with Libs are not an issue on one base, because you can't Reactor Libs on one base. You're gold league aren't you? Lol. The classic "credentials?" go-to for forum discussion. Well played. Plat in WoL (low Diamond), stopped playing in HotS (too addictive) so hovered between Gold and Plat, and in LotV beta I don't really play 1v1 (so I think I'm Gold last time I checked?) ... we mainly focus on our GrandMaster Archon Mode team ; ) On September 07 2015 01:35 Cyro wrote: This helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production Zerg has their own production style; i don't know on what basis you're saying that terran production is more costly than protoss Right. Asymmetric production schemes. Terran production just costs more ... I mean, that's not a controversial statement is it? SCV build time, can be canceled / harassed, sometimes an extra SCV has to pull, add-ons cost x/x/x I mean ... And with that I don't need to say anything more, my point has been proven for me.
Okay, cool. That's convenient.
On September 07 2015 02:49 Cyro wrote:Zerg doesn't use typical production and T/P are fairly similar.
*shrugs*
|
The liberator replaces the Thor for anti-muta purposes. 2 liberators are roughly equivalent to a Thor both in cost and effectiveness making reactorable liberators a necessity.
On September 07 2015 01:35 Cyro wrote:
i don't know on what basis you're saying that terran production is more costly than protoss
SCV mining time losses alone makes it true. This was one of the reasons mule-less terran was so awful.
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
Terran stuff is quite cheap though, especially on gas. Most toss midgame styles have obscene amounts of money in robo or other techs to head off bio+medivac
|
On September 07 2015 05:18 Cyro wrote:
Terran stuff is quite cheap though, especially on gas. The building prices are kinda low to compensate for that and the big drain of supply depots was not a problem with mule-less terran and each depot giving 16 supply
Man, I really don't want to have this argument, but terran building prices are not relatively low when you take into account addons, number higher tech buildings bring made and scv building time losses. It's not some massive difference but terran infrastructure is not cheap.
|
On September 07 2015 05:18 Cyro wrote:
Terran stuff is quite cheap though, especially on gas. The building prices are kinda low to compensate for that and the big drain of supply depots was not a problem with mule-less terran and each depot giving 16 supply
The Terran production scheme is the most expensive of the three, not saying it is overly or unfairly expensive. Because as you pointed out, this expensive production price is offset by some of the other racial idiosyncrasies.
People are so damned sensitive around here. That's racial tension for ya.
On September 07 2015 05:34 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 05:18 Cyro wrote:
Terran stuff is quite cheap though, especially on gas. The building prices are kinda low to compensate for that and the big drain of supply depots was not a problem with mule-less terran and each depot giving 16 supply Man, I really don't want to have this argument, but terran building prices are not relatively low when you take into account addons, number higher tech buildings bring made and scv building time losses. It's not some massive difference but terran infrastructure is not cheap.
It's just math, so it's not even really worth arguing (I just thought this was a supremely obvious given, but I guess not) but it makes people some people feel bad to give any ground in any argument ever. *shrugs*
I'm wrong all the time, as evidenced by my lengthy post history of being wrong : D But I try to learn along the way.
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
It varies so much with the styles and maps that you can't even make a statement like that i think (T or P spending way more on production/research than the other)
|
On September 07 2015 05:42 Cyro wrote:
It varies so much with the styles and maps that you can't even make a statement like that i think (T or P spending way more on production/research than the other)
Come on, Cyro. I'm not being hyperbolic here. I was responding to what I consider to be irrational Reactor-hate. So I stated, that, "[reactor] helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production". It's just a little funny to me that people will complain about reactors when they have Larva, Warpgates, and Chronoboost. That's all.
|
Liberators are allowing Terrans to turtle in TvZ. They mass siege tanks with them and get both air and ground control. This forces you into a boring game that lasts 15+ minutes, until you get broodlord corruptor viper to break them with parasitic bombs.
We are just 1 step away of seeing cancer mech again.
|
On September 07 2015 05:58 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 05:42 Cyro wrote:
It varies so much with the styles and maps that you can't even make a statement like that i think (T or P spending way more on production/research than the other) Come on, Cyro. I'm not being hyperbolic here. I was responding to what I consider to be irrational Reactor-hate. So I stated, that, "[reactor] helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production". It's just a little funny to me that people will complain about reactors when they have Larva, Warpgates, and Chronoboost. That's all.
People are complaining about reactors in the context of liberators as per the point of the thread.
A liberator normally has 43 second build time, with reactor you could say each one builds every 21 seconds that is the same build time as a marauder and the power difference between the two is huge.
The timing of this unit is too fast they've identified that much at least. The main issue though in my mind is the overlap with other units, a siege tank is the ultimate positional ground unit or at least it should be, but they're just much less effective than a liberator.
Liberator also is just ugly, that's an opinion but I just think it's too large/clunky and just doesn't look Terran to me. Sorry to the artist that put his time into it but it could just be 1000x better.
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
Didn't realize you was referring to anything in particular aside from absolute statement about terran having the most money spend on production in midgame.
Of course i have no problem with reactors existing - it would just be ridiculous if you could Reactor siege tanks, for example.
|
On September 07 2015 06:32 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 05:58 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 07 2015 05:42 Cyro wrote:
It varies so much with the styles and maps that you can't even make a statement like that i think (T or P spending way more on production/research than the other) Come on, Cyro. I'm not being hyperbolic here. I was responding to what I consider to be irrational Reactor-hate. So I stated, that, "[reactor] helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production". It's just a little funny to me that people will complain about reactors when they have Larva, Warpgates, and Chronoboost. That's all. People are complaining about reactors in the context of liberators as per the point of the thread. A liberator normally has 43 second build time, with reactor you could say each one builds every 21 seconds that is the same build time as a marauder and the power difference between the two is huge. The timing of this unit is too fast they've identified that much at least. The main issue though in my mind is the overlap with other units, a siege tank is the ultimate positional ground unit or at least it should be, but they're just much less effective than a liberator. Liberator also is just ugly, that's an opinion but I just think it's too large/clunky and just doesn't look Terran to me. Sorry to the artist that put his time into it but it could just be 1000x better.
Didn't realize I was worthy of further response from the esteemed Ovid. *bows*
And for your example: I get what you're trying to say, except that I have zero of two ordered-Liberators until 43 seconds have elapsed.
|
On September 07 2015 06:32 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 05:58 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 07 2015 05:42 Cyro wrote:
It varies so much with the styles and maps that you can't even make a statement like that i think (T or P spending way more on production/research than the other) Come on, Cyro. I'm not being hyperbolic here. I was responding to what I consider to be irrational Reactor-hate. So I stated, that, "[reactor] helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production". It's just a little funny to me that people will complain about reactors when they have Larva, Warpgates, and Chronoboost. That's all. People are complaining about reactors in the context of liberators as per the point of the thread. A liberator normally has 43 second build time, with reactor you could say each one builds every 21 seconds that is the same build time as a marauder and the power difference between the two is huge.
You can't chop a reactorable unit's construction time in half. A reactor is like having a second production building not a super chronoboost. The result may be the same but the production timing is important in the game.
The cost and tech requirements of the Liberator are also much higher than that of a marauder.
|
On September 07 2015 06:55 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2015 06:32 Ovid wrote:On September 07 2015 05:58 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 07 2015 05:42 Cyro wrote:
It varies so much with the styles and maps that you can't even make a statement like that i think (T or P spending way more on production/research than the other) Come on, Cyro. I'm not being hyperbolic here. I was responding to what I consider to be irrational Reactor-hate. So I stated, that, "[reactor] helps offset the fact that Terran production is more expensive than Zerg or Protoss production". It's just a little funny to me that people will complain about reactors when they have Larva, Warpgates, and Chronoboost. That's all. People are complaining about reactors in the context of liberators as per the point of the thread. A liberator normally has 43 second build time, with reactor you could say each one builds every 21 seconds that is the same build time as a marauder and the power difference between the two is huge. You can't chop a reactorable unit's construction time in half. A reactor is like having a second production building not a super chronoboost. The result may be the same but the production timing is important in the game. The cost and tech requirements of the Liberator are also much higher than that of a marauder.
Oh for sure don't get me wrong, I said "you could say" but still the effect is very similar I used that example because it over exaggerates the problem to highlight my point.
I pretty much despise all the features of this unit, if someone said here's an idea guys I make something that has 15 range and does 75 damage a shot every 1 second would you say that sounds balanced or would you laugh and say that's broken as shit.
+ Show Spoiler +Yes I understand you have to be inside the circle but those are still its stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
