|
On September 10 2015 02:24 Tenks wrote:
"A player runs half their army into their hard counter ... and you won't believe what happens next!"
-Buzzfeed SC2 team
Hahaha. Well played.
|
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing.
|
On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing.
nope
|
On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope
Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different.
|
On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different.
Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that.
If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy.
I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once.
|
I count 10 liberators, that's 1500 gas. So that would be 5 Thors vs 12 stacked Phoenix.
https://gfycat.com/GratefulObedientBat
The terran is being attacked into, the Thors have longer range which would make up for the fact that slightly less stacked phoenixes would take more shots, and Thors have been built by pro terrans against mass phoenix builds at points in HotS.
The Thors would have popped the phoenixes in much the same manner. Liberators and Thors share the same function against light air. The Thor is being intentionally deemphasized by the liberator in design. I'm not sure why you're trying to use this to call it imba.
|
On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both?
Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash.
Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does.
The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range.
|
The idea around liberator is meh. Giving to terran an anti-mutas is already huge, as Medivac are so strong that they force mutas for Zerg as the only way to defend drops.
But liberator are also a siege unit, aswell a very early harass unit vs a race with a late AA.
The only real counter as Zerg is ravager which 3 shots them : but the unsiege time is fast enough to allow Terran to dodge some shots, so it creates a stupid hit or dodge interaction that has nothing to do in a RTS.
|
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether.
|
On September 10 2015 08:47 EonuS wrote:
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether.
I'm not terribly opposed to the Fusion Core requirement either, as long as it's not Fusion Core and tech lab. But this would slow the Liberator rush by about 50 seconds (best case). More likely around 60 seconds. That seems like a fairly severe nerf, especially when the play can be dealt with currently, it can just be overly difficult if you're caught off guard.
And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals.
On September 10 2015 04:15 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different. Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that. If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy. I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once.
Gotcha. Misunderstood. I also dislike the air stacking. I guess it's meant to simulate the vertical plane, but it's just bad.
On September 10 2015 04:30 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both? Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash. Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does. The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range.
Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators.
Zerg doesn't have the same type of early harass units for a pretty fairly obvious reason: larva. Imagine producing an early banshee, or Adepts, or void rays with larva? Lulz. It's a legitimate complaint that Zerg's early harass isn't really as strong, but the tradeoff is that Zerg has the strongest economic openers. Then Mutas are probably one of the best harass / map control / tech switch game winners in the game.
Blizzard agrees that the Liberator comes too early, and they're nerfing it. If it's too powerful, they will nerf the damage. It's a single-target DPS unit with a relatively small effective attack area (AG mode). For the cost, I don't think it's too powerful, from a DPS perspective.
|
1489 Posts
It would help if zerg wasn't ONLY nerfed in lotv and received buffs like other races. It's impossible to scout/defend everything meanwhile not having strategies to threaten opponent. Mainly TvZ where it's like old ZvP days again where you have to know all toss builds and how to scout them. (At least in ZvP it is possible to scout every game unlike in TvZ where terran can deny scouting if he wishes)
Liberator is also dumb because there is only one unit that can go toe to toe with it and it's fucing useless against everything else.
Muta ling bling is totally obsolete too if you mix liberators with your bio. Forces you to try lurker based strats etc but liberators just own your hydras etc.
This is just promotes "3-4base" imba infestor broodlord army deathball style.
Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators.
It's almost like having to open mutas against phoenixes.
If you opt to make spores against liberator you will lose against other builds like tank drop harass or bio timings.
Thing about DPS is that it beats every unit u have on ground and is strong against muta when it's not alone.
|
On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals.
You need to realize that with the current macro mechanic changes, terran has received a huge boost to their economy thanks to mules AND supply drops, which means they will be at least even on economy with zerg for a while. Going lair very early just so you can deal with liberators is a huge commitment of resources that could have been drones at the 3rd base and even if you do go, you are most likely not gonna achieve anything because liberators will hit your mineral line and prevent you from mining, while terran safely takes his 3rd. Even ravagers with range upgrade come too late and by the time you throw those shots off, you're most likely gonna lose much more resources than him (mining time + lost ravagers). What's worse is that on some positions (orbital shipyard bottom spawn as zerg) they can LOCK DOWN your production because liberators can shoot down on larvae/eggs and when you can't make any units, the game is just over because you will die from terran's next push.
|
On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 08:47 EonuS wrote:
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether. I'm not terribly opposed to the Fusion Core requirement either, as long as it's not Fusion Core and tech lab. But this would slow the Liberator rush by about 50 seconds (best case). More likely around 60 seconds. That seems like a fairly severe nerf, especially when the play can be dealt with currently, it can just be overly difficult if you're caught off guard. And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals. Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 04:15 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different. Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that. If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy. I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once. Gotcha. Misunderstood. I also dislike the air stacking. I guess it's meant to simulate the vertical plane, but it's just bad. Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 04:30 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both? Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash. Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does. The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range. Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators. Zerg doesn't have the same type of early harass units for a pretty fairly obvious reason: larva. Imagine producing an early banshee, or Adepts, or void rays with larva? Lulz. It's a legitimate complaint that Zerg's early harass isn't really as strong, but the tradeoff is that Zerg has the strongest economic openers. Then Mutas are probably one of the best harass / map control / tech switch game winners in the game. Blizzard agrees that the Liberator comes too early, and they're nerfing it. If it's too powerful, they will nerf the damage. It's a single-target DPS unit with a relatively small effective attack area (AG mode). For the cost, I don't think it's too powerful, from a DPS perspective.
Man this has to be the most bias post yet.
Ofcourse Zerg should be able to counter liberators on hatch tech, there is no way zerg can tech up in time to deal with it in time without sacrificing a lot of eco.
Also you saying earlier that the timing window is already so small to do damage with them, yeah because it's totally fair they can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining and zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away.
Anyway I thinkchanging the timing of the ground attack mode will help a ton.
But I still think this unit will be too good, like it does everything a banshee, thor and siege tank does, but better.
I really haven't seen a single banshee yet since this unit got introduced and thors are really rare aswell now.
I just don't see how it's fair that a unit can have so many roles at once without being broken, last time we saw this with the infestor and we all know how that ended.
|
On September 10 2015 04:28 TheWinks wrote:I count 10 liberators, that's 1500 gas. So that would be 5 Thors vs 12 stacked Phoenix. https://gfycat.com/GratefulObedientBatThe terran is being attacked into, the Thors have longer range which would make up for the fact that slightly less stacked phoenixes would take more shots, and Thors have been built by pro terrans against mass phoenix builds at points in HotS. The Thors would have popped the phoenixes in much the same manner. Liberators and Thors share the same function against light air. The Thor is being intentionally deemphasized by the liberator in design. I'm not sure why you're trying to use this to call it imba.
Because you don't go pheonix to counter the thor? Even in a perfect scenario with the Liberators vs those Pheonix the liberators would still hold their own and take an even fight. The liberator can do everything and do everything well it's also pretty easy to mass up.
|
On September 10 2015 14:01 EonuS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals.
You need to realize that with the current macro mechanic changes, terran has received a huge boost to their economy thanks to mules AND supply drops, which means they will be at least even on economy with zerg for a while. Going lair very early just so you can deal with liberators is a huge commitment of resources that could have been drones at the 3rd base and even if you do go, you are most likely not gonna achieve anything because liberators will hit your mineral line and prevent you from mining, while terran safely takes his 3rd. Even ravagers with range upgrade come too late and by the time you throw those shots off, you're most likely gonna lose much more resources than him (mining time + lost ravagers). What's worse is that on some positions (orbital shipyard bottom spawn as zerg) they can LOCK DOWN your production because liberators can shoot down on larvae/eggs and when you can't make any units, the game is just over because you will die from terran's next push.
I shudder anytime something starts with "[let me inform you] you need to realize [...]". Ugh! But I get it. I guess it's just colloquial. Terran did not receive a huge boost to their economy, unless you're talking about the one week where we did not have MULEs and couldn't win anything other than TvTs. Supply dropping is completely stupid now with scans costing 100 energy. And are you saying Terrans are rushing Liberators and taking a quick 3rd while the first one is preventing some mining on one of your three hatches? Just build units and go kill the Terran.
I guess let me ask this question, because maybe I'm confused: should a Terran who invests in a high-tech rush play be able to cause some damage if the Zerg is unprepared, or caught of guard? It almost feels like the argument is "I should be able to defend easily with my fast three-hatch drone only openers." So please, inform me what an acceptable scenario looks like to you.
On September 10 2015 15:06 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 08:47 EonuS wrote:
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether. I'm not terribly opposed to the Fusion Core requirement either, as long as it's not Fusion Core and tech lab. But this would slow the Liberator rush by about 50 seconds (best case). More likely around 60 seconds. That seems like a fairly severe nerf, especially when the play can be dealt with currently, it can just be overly difficult if you're caught off guard. And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals. On September 10 2015 04:15 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different. Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that. If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy. I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once. Gotcha. Misunderstood. I also dislike the air stacking. I guess it's meant to simulate the vertical plane, but it's just bad. On September 10 2015 04:30 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both? Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash. Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does. The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range. Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators. Zerg doesn't have the same type of early harass units for a pretty fairly obvious reason: larva. Imagine producing an early banshee, or Adepts, or void rays with larva? Lulz. It's a legitimate complaint that Zerg's early harass isn't really as strong, but the tradeoff is that Zerg has the strongest economic openers. Then Mutas are probably one of the best harass / map control / tech switch game winners in the game. Blizzard agrees that the Liberator comes too early, and they're nerfing it. If it's too powerful, they will nerf the damage. It's a single-target DPS unit with a relatively small effective attack area (AG mode). For the cost, I don't think it's too powerful, from a DPS perspective. Man this has to be the most bias post yet. Ofcourse Zerg should be able to counter liberators on hatch tech, there is no way zerg can tech up in time to deal with it in time without sacrificing a lot of eco. Also you saying earlier that the timing window is already so small to do damage with them, yeah because it's totally fair they can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining and zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away. Anyway I thinkchanging the timing of the ground attack mode will help a ton. But I still think this unit will be too good, like it does everything a banshee, thor and siege tank does, but better. I really haven't seen a single banshee yet since this unit got introduced and thors are really rare aswell now. I just don't see how it's fair that a unit can have so many roles at once without being broken, last time we saw this with the infestor and we all know how that ended.
Well, I'm definitely speaking from a Terran perspective. So, I guess that's a bias. Sure. But the way you said it seemed like you were implying that my bias was unfairly skewing my observations. I'm fine with being wrong. We're all just discussing the game we love here. So, please, if I made an unfair comment, or am just wrong about something, please point it out. I felt like my comments (at least the one you quoted) were fair.
RE: hatch tech
To be fair, I said " I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high-tech Starport unit ". I stand behind that statement. But you might be talking about when I said, "And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals". Which I will submit is poorly worded. That bit about minerals was me saying, "you should have to spend some gas to defend this." And the other play I was referring to is the cloaked banshee rush.
RE: Ravagers
Now, when you say "can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining", that's not really fair either. If the Terran is greedy, and tries to get the whole mineral line, you should be able to attack the Liberator without taking damage. In some instances, where there are "dead air spots", I think the Liberator can only barely cover a couple of patches on one base, and sometimes it's the third. So if you're calling me out for unfair bias, I might have to point out that I think this is at least a mischaracterization of the issue. No?
You say, "zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away". I would add that three ravagers can kill a Liberator if they launch bile while it's in AG mode. And, isn't chasing them away or killing them a successful defense? I guess I don't see the issue here. Terran has to open gas first, into double gas, into factory (100 gas) -> Starport (100 gas) -> Armory (100 gas) before they can even enter AG mode, while building the first Liberator (150 gas). So you can defend my 450 gas tech-rush play with 300 gas. What's the issue? You're in the green a full 150 gas, and you're probably significantly more in the green on minerals.
RE: The unit is too good
The unit fills a critical role for Terran in Legacy, especially because of the extremely deadly new units added to both the Zerg and Protoss arsenal. It doesn't fill the role of a tank, because the tank has a radial range. It's definitely not a Thor, because the Liberator is a glass cannon, and is fast, and it's not a banshee, because it can't cloak and is immobile while attacking.
Please correct me, or push back, on what I got wrong here.
|
On September 10 2015 23:41 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 14:01 EonuS wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals.
You need to realize that with the current macro mechanic changes, terran has received a huge boost to their economy thanks to mules AND supply drops, which means they will be at least even on economy with zerg for a while. Going lair very early just so you can deal with liberators is a huge commitment of resources that could have been drones at the 3rd base and even if you do go, you are most likely not gonna achieve anything because liberators will hit your mineral line and prevent you from mining, while terran safely takes his 3rd. Even ravagers with range upgrade come too late and by the time you throw those shots off, you're most likely gonna lose much more resources than him (mining time + lost ravagers). What's worse is that on some positions (orbital shipyard bottom spawn as zerg) they can LOCK DOWN your production because liberators can shoot down on larvae/eggs and when you can't make any units, the game is just over because you will die from terran's next push. I shudder anytime something starts with "[let me inform you] you need to realize [...]". Ugh! But I get it. I guess it's just colloquial. Terran did not receive a huge boost to their economy, unless you're talking about the one week where we did not have MULEs and couldn't win anything other than TvTs. Supply dropping is completely stupid now with scans costing 100 energy. And are you saying Terrans are rushing Liberators and taking a quick 3rd while the first one is preventing some mining on one of your three hatches? Just build units and go kill the Terran. I guess let me ask this question, because maybe I'm confused: should a Terran who invests in a high-tech rush play be able to cause some damage if the Zerg is unprepared, or caught of guard? It almost feels like the argument is "I should be able to defend easily with my fast three-hatch drone only openers." So please, inform me what an acceptable scenario looks like to you. Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 15:06 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 08:47 EonuS wrote:
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether. I'm not terribly opposed to the Fusion Core requirement either, as long as it's not Fusion Core and tech lab. But this would slow the Liberator rush by about 50 seconds (best case). More likely around 60 seconds. That seems like a fairly severe nerf, especially when the play can be dealt with currently, it can just be overly difficult if you're caught off guard. And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals. On September 10 2015 04:15 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different. Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that. If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy. I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once. Gotcha. Misunderstood. I also dislike the air stacking. I guess it's meant to simulate the vertical plane, but it's just bad. On September 10 2015 04:30 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both? Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash. Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does. The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range. Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators. Zerg doesn't have the same type of early harass units for a pretty fairly obvious reason: larva. Imagine producing an early banshee, or Adepts, or void rays with larva? Lulz. It's a legitimate complaint that Zerg's early harass isn't really as strong, but the tradeoff is that Zerg has the strongest economic openers. Then Mutas are probably one of the best harass / map control / tech switch game winners in the game. Blizzard agrees that the Liberator comes too early, and they're nerfing it. If it's too powerful, they will nerf the damage. It's a single-target DPS unit with a relatively small effective attack area (AG mode). For the cost, I don't think it's too powerful, from a DPS perspective. Man this has to be the most bias post yet. Ofcourse Zerg should be able to counter liberators on hatch tech, there is no way zerg can tech up in time to deal with it in time without sacrificing a lot of eco. Also you saying earlier that the timing window is already so small to do damage with them, yeah because it's totally fair they can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining and zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away. Anyway I thinkchanging the timing of the ground attack mode will help a ton. But I still think this unit will be too good, like it does everything a banshee, thor and siege tank does, but better. I really haven't seen a single banshee yet since this unit got introduced and thors are really rare aswell now. I just don't see how it's fair that a unit can have so many roles at once without being broken, last time we saw this with the infestor and we all know how that ended. Well, I'm definitely speaking from a Terran perspective. So, I guess that's a bias. Sure. But the way you said it seemed like you were implying that my bias was unfairly skewing my observations. I'm fine with being wrong. We're all just discussing the game we love here. So, please, if I made an unfair comment, or am just wrong about something, please point it out. I felt like my comments (at least the one you quoted) were fair. RE: hatch techTo be fair, I said " I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high-tech Starport unit ". I stand behind that statement. But you might be talking about when I said, "And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals". Which I will submit is poorly worded. That bit about minerals was me saying, "you should have to spend some gas to defend this." And the other play I was referring to is the cloaked banshee rush. RE: RavagersNow, when you say "can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining", that's not really fair either. If the Terran is greedy, and tries to get the whole mineral line, you should be able to attack the Liberator without taking damage. In some instances, where there are "dead air spots", I think the Liberator can only barely cover a couple of patches on one base, and sometimes it's the third. So if you're calling me out for unfair bias, I might have to point out that I think this is at least a mischaracterization of the issue. No? You say, "zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away". I would add that three ravagers can kill a Liberator if they launch bile while it's in AG mode. And, isn't chasing them away or killing them a successful defense? I guess I don't see the issue here. Terran has to open gas first, into double gas, into factory (100 gas) -> Starport (100 gas) -> Armory (100 gas) before they can even enter AG mode, while building the first Liberator (150 gas). So you can defend my 450 gas tech-rush play with 300 gas. What's the issue? You're in the green a full 150 gas, and you're probably significantly more in the green on minerals. RE: The unit is too goodThe unit fills a critical role for Terran in Legacy, especially because of the extremely deadly new units added to both the Zerg and Protoss arsenal. It doesn't fill the role of a tank, because the tank has a radial range. It's definitely not a Thor, because the Liberator is a glass cannon, and is fast, and it's not a banshee, because it can't cloak and is immobile while attacking. Please correct me, or push back, on what I got wrong here.
Go back and check my image spots on moonlight madness whole bases can be covered whilst being in a safe spot, everyone must agree that the ATG limits map making design with it's 15 range.
|
On September 10 2015 23:46 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 23:41 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 14:01 EonuS wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals.
You need to realize that with the current macro mechanic changes, terran has received a huge boost to their economy thanks to mules AND supply drops, which means they will be at least even on economy with zerg for a while. Going lair very early just so you can deal with liberators is a huge commitment of resources that could have been drones at the 3rd base and even if you do go, you are most likely not gonna achieve anything because liberators will hit your mineral line and prevent you from mining, while terran safely takes his 3rd. Even ravagers with range upgrade come too late and by the time you throw those shots off, you're most likely gonna lose much more resources than him (mining time + lost ravagers). What's worse is that on some positions (orbital shipyard bottom spawn as zerg) they can LOCK DOWN your production because liberators can shoot down on larvae/eggs and when you can't make any units, the game is just over because you will die from terran's next push. I shudder anytime something starts with "[let me inform you] you need to realize [...]". Ugh! But I get it. I guess it's just colloquial. Terran did not receive a huge boost to their economy, unless you're talking about the one week where we did not have MULEs and couldn't win anything other than TvTs. Supply dropping is completely stupid now with scans costing 100 energy. And are you saying Terrans are rushing Liberators and taking a quick 3rd while the first one is preventing some mining on one of your three hatches? Just build units and go kill the Terran. I guess let me ask this question, because maybe I'm confused: should a Terran who invests in a high-tech rush play be able to cause some damage if the Zerg is unprepared, or caught of guard? It almost feels like the argument is "I should be able to defend easily with my fast three-hatch drone only openers." So please, inform me what an acceptable scenario looks like to you. On September 10 2015 15:06 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 08:47 EonuS wrote:
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether. I'm not terribly opposed to the Fusion Core requirement either, as long as it's not Fusion Core and tech lab. But this would slow the Liberator rush by about 50 seconds (best case). More likely around 60 seconds. That seems like a fairly severe nerf, especially when the play can be dealt with currently, it can just be overly difficult if you're caught off guard. And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals. On September 10 2015 04:15 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different. Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that. If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy. I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once. Gotcha. Misunderstood. I also dislike the air stacking. I guess it's meant to simulate the vertical plane, but it's just bad. On September 10 2015 04:30 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both? Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash. Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does. The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range. Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators. Zerg doesn't have the same type of early harass units for a pretty fairly obvious reason: larva. Imagine producing an early banshee, or Adepts, or void rays with larva? Lulz. It's a legitimate complaint that Zerg's early harass isn't really as strong, but the tradeoff is that Zerg has the strongest economic openers. Then Mutas are probably one of the best harass / map control / tech switch game winners in the game. Blizzard agrees that the Liberator comes too early, and they're nerfing it. If it's too powerful, they will nerf the damage. It's a single-target DPS unit with a relatively small effective attack area (AG mode). For the cost, I don't think it's too powerful, from a DPS perspective. Man this has to be the most bias post yet. Ofcourse Zerg should be able to counter liberators on hatch tech, there is no way zerg can tech up in time to deal with it in time without sacrificing a lot of eco. Also you saying earlier that the timing window is already so small to do damage with them, yeah because it's totally fair they can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining and zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away. Anyway I thinkchanging the timing of the ground attack mode will help a ton. But I still think this unit will be too good, like it does everything a banshee, thor and siege tank does, but better. I really haven't seen a single banshee yet since this unit got introduced and thors are really rare aswell now. I just don't see how it's fair that a unit can have so many roles at once without being broken, last time we saw this with the infestor and we all know how that ended. Well, I'm definitely speaking from a Terran perspective. So, I guess that's a bias. Sure. But the way you said it seemed like you were implying that my bias was unfairly skewing my observations. I'm fine with being wrong. We're all just discussing the game we love here. So, please, if I made an unfair comment, or am just wrong about something, please point it out. I felt like my comments (at least the one you quoted) were fair. RE: hatch techTo be fair, I said " I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high-tech Starport unit ". I stand behind that statement. But you might be talking about when I said, "And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals". Which I will submit is poorly worded. That bit about minerals was me saying, "you should have to spend some gas to defend this." And the other play I was referring to is the cloaked banshee rush. RE: RavagersNow, when you say "can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining", that's not really fair either. If the Terran is greedy, and tries to get the whole mineral line, you should be able to attack the Liberator without taking damage. In some instances, where there are "dead air spots", I think the Liberator can only barely cover a couple of patches on one base, and sometimes it's the third. So if you're calling me out for unfair bias, I might have to point out that I think this is at least a mischaracterization of the issue. No? You say, "zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away". I would add that three ravagers can kill a Liberator if they launch bile while it's in AG mode. And, isn't chasing them away or killing them a successful defense? I guess I don't see the issue here. Terran has to open gas first, into double gas, into factory (100 gas) -> Starport (100 gas) -> Armory (100 gas) before they can even enter AG mode, while building the first Liberator (150 gas). So you can defend my 450 gas tech-rush play with 300 gas. What's the issue? You're in the green a full 150 gas, and you're probably significantly more in the green on minerals. RE: The unit is too goodThe unit fills a critical role for Terran in Legacy, especially because of the extremely deadly new units added to both the Zerg and Protoss arsenal. It doesn't fill the role of a tank, because the tank has a radial range. It's definitely not a Thor, because the Liberator is a glass cannon, and is fast, and it's not a banshee, because it can't cloak and is immobile while attacking. Please correct me, or push back, on what I got wrong here. Go back and check my image spots on moonlight madness whole bases can be covered whilst being in a safe spot, everyone must agree that the ATG limits map making design with it's 15 range.
I remember the post. A lot of work, and potentially useful analysis (if it's accurate). And yeah, spores cannot hit Liberators in certain positions on certain maps. Might need ravagers. Also, I would ask that you produce one or several pro-level matches of Legacy where Zerg builds ravagers and cannot attack a rushed Liberator. The dead space argument is brought up a lot, which would suggest that it's broken, which would suggest that we should be seeing it in virtually every game where Liberators are rushed, right? I've watched a lot of Legacy, and I just don't see this happening.
|
On September 10 2015 22:47 Ovid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 04:28 TheWinks wrote:I count 10 liberators, that's 1500 gas. So that would be 5 Thors vs 12 stacked Phoenix. https://gfycat.com/GratefulObedientBatThe terran is being attacked into, the Thors have longer range which would make up for the fact that slightly less stacked phoenixes would take more shots, and Thors have been built by pro terrans against mass phoenix builds at points in HotS. The Thors would have popped the phoenixes in much the same manner. Liberators and Thors share the same function against light air. The Thor is being intentionally deemphasized by the liberator in design. I'm not sure why you're trying to use this to call it imba. Because you don't go pheonix to counter the thor?
If you go phoenix to counter liberator, you're rolling the dice that you're going to be able to keep the liberator count really low. If you fail, the phoenix investment becomes a liability.
|
On September 10 2015 23:41 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 14:01 EonuS wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals.
You need to realize that with the current macro mechanic changes, terran has received a huge boost to their economy thanks to mules AND supply drops, which means they will be at least even on economy with zerg for a while. Going lair very early just so you can deal with liberators is a huge commitment of resources that could have been drones at the 3rd base and even if you do go, you are most likely not gonna achieve anything because liberators will hit your mineral line and prevent you from mining, while terran safely takes his 3rd. Even ravagers with range upgrade come too late and by the time you throw those shots off, you're most likely gonna lose much more resources than him (mining time + lost ravagers). What's worse is that on some positions (orbital shipyard bottom spawn as zerg) they can LOCK DOWN your production because liberators can shoot down on larvae/eggs and when you can't make any units, the game is just over because you will die from terran's next push. I shudder anytime something starts with "[let me inform you] you need to realize [...]". Ugh! But I get it. I guess it's just colloquial. Terran did not receive a huge boost to their economy, unless you're talking about the one week where we did not have MULEs and couldn't win anything other than TvTs. Supply dropping is completely stupid now with scans costing 100 energy. And are you saying Terrans are rushing Liberators and taking a quick 3rd while the first one is preventing some mining on one of your three hatches? Just build units and go kill the Terran. I guess let me ask this question, because maybe I'm confused: should a Terran who invests in a high-tech rush play be able to cause some damage if the Zerg is unprepared, or caught of guard? It almost feels like the argument is "I should be able to defend easily with my fast three-hatch drone only openers." So please, inform me what an acceptable scenario looks like to you. Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 15:06 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 08:47 EonuS wrote:
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether. I'm not terribly opposed to the Fusion Core requirement either, as long as it's not Fusion Core and tech lab. But this would slow the Liberator rush by about 50 seconds (best case). More likely around 60 seconds. That seems like a fairly severe nerf, especially when the play can be dealt with currently, it can just be overly difficult if you're caught off guard. And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals. On September 10 2015 04:15 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different. Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that. If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy. I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once. Gotcha. Misunderstood. I also dislike the air stacking. I guess it's meant to simulate the vertical plane, but it's just bad. On September 10 2015 04:30 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both? Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash. Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does. The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range. Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators. Zerg doesn't have the same type of early harass units for a pretty fairly obvious reason: larva. Imagine producing an early banshee, or Adepts, or void rays with larva? Lulz. It's a legitimate complaint that Zerg's early harass isn't really as strong, but the tradeoff is that Zerg has the strongest economic openers. Then Mutas are probably one of the best harass / map control / tech switch game winners in the game. Blizzard agrees that the Liberator comes too early, and they're nerfing it. If it's too powerful, they will nerf the damage. It's a single-target DPS unit with a relatively small effective attack area (AG mode). For the cost, I don't think it's too powerful, from a DPS perspective. Man this has to be the most bias post yet. Ofcourse Zerg should be able to counter liberators on hatch tech, there is no way zerg can tech up in time to deal with it in time without sacrificing a lot of eco. Also you saying earlier that the timing window is already so small to do damage with them, yeah because it's totally fair they can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining and zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away. Anyway I thinkchanging the timing of the ground attack mode will help a ton. But I still think this unit will be too good, like it does everything a banshee, thor and siege tank does, but better. I really haven't seen a single banshee yet since this unit got introduced and thors are really rare aswell now. I just don't see how it's fair that a unit can have so many roles at once without being broken, last time we saw this with the infestor and we all know how that ended. Well, I'm definitely speaking from a Terran perspective. So, I guess that's a bias. Sure. But the way you said it seemed like you were implying that my bias was unfairly skewing my observations. I'm fine with being wrong. We're all just discussing the game we love here. So, please, if I made an unfair comment, or am just wrong about something, please point it out. I felt like my comments (at least the one you quoted) were fair. RE: hatch techTo be fair, I said " I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high-tech Starport unit ". I stand behind that statement. But you might be talking about when I said, "And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals". Which I will submit is poorly worded. That bit about minerals was me saying, "you should have to spend some gas to defend this." And the other play I was referring to is the cloaked banshee rush. RE: RavagersNow, when you say "can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining", that's not really fair either. If the Terran is greedy, and tries to get the whole mineral line, you should be able to attack the Liberator without taking damage. In some instances, where there are "dead air spots", I think the Liberator can only barely cover a couple of patches on one base, and sometimes it's the third. So if you're calling me out for unfair bias, I might have to point out that I think this is at least a mischaracterization of the issue. No? You say, "zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away". I would add that three ravagers can kill a Liberator if they launch bile while it's in AG mode. And, isn't chasing them away or killing them a successful defense? I guess I don't see the issue here. Terran has to open gas first, into double gas, into factory (100 gas) -> Starport (100 gas) -> Armory (100 gas) before they can even enter AG mode, while building the first Liberator (150 gas). So you can defend my 450 gas tech-rush play with 300 gas. What's the issue? You're in the green a full 150 gas, and you're probably significantly more in the green on minerals. RE: The unit is too goodThe unit fills a critical role for Terran in Legacy, especially because of the extremely deadly new units added to both the Zerg and Protoss arsenal. It doesn't fill the role of a tank, because the tank has a radial range. It's definitely not a Thor, because the Liberator is a glass cannon, and is fast, and it's not a banshee, because it can't cloak and is immobile while attacking. Please correct me, or push back, on what I got wrong here.
Few patches yeah uh no..
The advantage of other races is that they can tech so heavily early game compared to Zerg, and zerg can't just mine as much gas as the other races do without hurting their own economy heavily.
The problem is like early hots hellbat drops, you can probably defend it, but even if you do it perfectly you will still be behind.
And yes it does make thors and banshees completely obsolete, it's better at harras then a banshee by far, is a lot faster then thors and can be reactored.
I do agree tanks are still very useful due to their splash, but liberators can zone out armies almost just as well.
But keep being bias, that's fine, just don't be suprised when the nerf hammer is gonna hit this unit hard.
|
On September 11 2015 01:16 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2015 23:41 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 14:01 EonuS wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:
And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals.
You need to realize that with the current macro mechanic changes, terran has received a huge boost to their economy thanks to mules AND supply drops, which means they will be at least even on economy with zerg for a while. Going lair very early just so you can deal with liberators is a huge commitment of resources that could have been drones at the 3rd base and even if you do go, you are most likely not gonna achieve anything because liberators will hit your mineral line and prevent you from mining, while terran safely takes his 3rd. Even ravagers with range upgrade come too late and by the time you throw those shots off, you're most likely gonna lose much more resources than him (mining time + lost ravagers). What's worse is that on some positions (orbital shipyard bottom spawn as zerg) they can LOCK DOWN your production because liberators can shoot down on larvae/eggs and when you can't make any units, the game is just over because you will die from terran's next push. I shudder anytime something starts with "[let me inform you] you need to realize [...]". Ugh! But I get it. I guess it's just colloquial. Terran did not receive a huge boost to their economy, unless you're talking about the one week where we did not have MULEs and couldn't win anything other than TvTs. Supply dropping is completely stupid now with scans costing 100 energy. And are you saying Terrans are rushing Liberators and taking a quick 3rd while the first one is preventing some mining on one of your three hatches? Just build units and go kill the Terran. I guess let me ask this question, because maybe I'm confused: should a Terran who invests in a high-tech rush play be able to cause some damage if the Zerg is unprepared, or caught of guard? It almost feels like the argument is "I should be able to defend easily with my fast three-hatch drone only openers." So please, inform me what an acceptable scenario looks like to you. On September 10 2015 15:06 mCon.Hephaistas wrote:On September 10 2015 09:17 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 08:47 EonuS wrote:
my opinion of moving liberators to fusion core tech still stands, because even if you give liberators a ATG upgrade on tech lab, it can still come way too fast for zerg to have any reasonable counter to it (liberator production time + movement to zerg's base and the upgrade is essentially done anyway), especially when you can't hit them with either spores or queens on certain maps and lock down your economy altogether. I'm not terribly opposed to the Fusion Core requirement either, as long as it's not Fusion Core and tech lab. But this would slow the Liberator rush by about 50 seconds (best case). More likely around 60 seconds. That seems like a fairly severe nerf, especially when the play can be dealt with currently, it can just be overly difficult if you're caught off guard. And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals. On September 10 2015 04:15 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 04:05 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 10 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:On September 10 2015 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
Equivalent cost Thors would do the same thing. nope Come on, Big J. That video can't be used as any credible evidence. It would be like unstimmed marines walking into a ball of banelings and then QQ'ing that banelings are wildly broken. If that Protoss waits until the Liberators enter AG mode then that fight looks so much different. Did I say something like that? I just find his argument stupid. He is comparing a highly microable air unit with a slow, ground walker. I don't think you can make 5 Thors stack like that and jump on top of an opponent who is making a movement mistake like that. If his point is that in theory other units have that damage output then I don't see the point of his argument. Of course. 27widow mines are the same cost as those liberators and massively outperform those liberators in that situation. That doesn't make them "do the same thing". Or be a viable strategy. I don't think the video shows something broken. It just highlights once again how stupid starcraft air stacking is. In this scenario the "too strong" (stacking liberators for insane damage density) and "too volatile" side (having half of your army one-shot due to stacking) at once. Gotcha. Misunderstood. I also dislike the air stacking. I guess it's meant to simulate the vertical plane, but it's just bad. On September 10 2015 04:30 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 23:14 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 10:41 parkufarku wrote:On September 09 2015 08:11 TimeSpiral wrote:On September 09 2015 07:03 zelderan wrote:On September 08 2015 17:05 Ryndika wrote:
It forces corruptor,broodlord,infestor shit because corruptor is the only unit that can attack it so it's kind of meh unit. It should be nerfed enough to allow different choices for zerg so game stays more fun for more people. If anything I feel corruptors are pretty bad against them because of the AoE that liberators give. As a zerg you need to get a shitton of corruptors up to even have an effect on them. Not getting that critical mass of corruptors means nothing when 5-10 liberators can demolish anything, air or ground. Corruptors are absolutely not the answer to early/mid game liberator/hellion/hellbat harass. There lies the problem for the unit. What zergs are having to do now is having a ton of spores/queens and one to two ravagers per base which is downright stupid. The unit as a whole needs to be balanced, be it prolonging air to ground mode or decreasing damage done to ground. This is all just *shrugs*. There are numerous "he built [THIS] so I have to build [THAT]" scenarios. That is kinda what Starcraft 2 is, to a large extent. Nice argument. He describes how AoE shreds the composition and you just shrug and imply that X beats O so it doesn't really matter. We all try to have fruitful discussions in this thread and you come here to attempt to downplay anything that will give the Terran race a nerf. Classy. If an opponent is demonstrating that he will focus on harass play, is it not an appropriate response for you to defend your bases? If the opponent is using air units, would you not focus that defense on AA, such as Spores, Queens, and Ravagers (if you're not going to respond to Starport with Spire)? Maybe you think this dedication to defense is too much, or unfair? Have you ever seen what a Terran has to do to defend Muta harass, or Ling run bies, or burrowed harass, or nydus? When someone is very harass oriented, or stressing your multitasking abilities, it's tough to deal with. That's the point of this demanding style of play. This is my opinion, of course, but the Liberator's effective harass window is small, and this is why Terrans literally sacrifice everything to rush them out. But the tears have run thick, and this timing window is going to be nerfed--good job, guys!--making it even smaller. After this window is closed, Zerg should have caught on to the play and responded, no? Or, is your argument that not only is the rush play unfair, but battling this unit in army compositions is also unfair? Is it both? Yeah, it's normal to assume Zerg will produce defensive units to shut down their harrass, but the main crux of the voices of posters on this thread are saying that the harrass comes too early, and it's just too powerful that cannot be shut down with spores / queens. When Mutas come, even AA on Liberators is devastating with splash. Terran doesn't have to rush tanks or rush starport just to defend from special harass from Zerg. Terran can go 4M and counter anything Zerg does. The bottom line is that Liberators come too early, and they are too powerful for their costs (1 shot hydras? was the Blizz balance team drunk when they made this?), to the point where Z cannot effectively deal with it when their only viable anti-air fighting unit gets sniped before it gets into firing range. Well, I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high tech Starport unit ; ) But moving on from that ... Mutas easily beat liberators in small numbers with magic box. So if you rush mutas versus a liberator rush you'll be fine to push away the liberators. Zerg doesn't have the same type of early harass units for a pretty fairly obvious reason: larva. Imagine producing an early banshee, or Adepts, or void rays with larva? Lulz. It's a legitimate complaint that Zerg's early harass isn't really as strong, but the tradeoff is that Zerg has the strongest economic openers. Then Mutas are probably one of the best harass / map control / tech switch game winners in the game. Blizzard agrees that the Liberator comes too early, and they're nerfing it. If it's too powerful, they will nerf the damage. It's a single-target DPS unit with a relatively small effective attack area (AG mode). For the cost, I don't think it's too powerful, from a DPS perspective. Man this has to be the most bias post yet. Ofcourse Zerg should be able to counter liberators on hatch tech, there is no way zerg can tech up in time to deal with it in time without sacrificing a lot of eco. Also you saying earlier that the timing window is already so small to do damage with them, yeah because it's totally fair they can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining and zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away. Anyway I thinkchanging the timing of the ground attack mode will help a ton. But I still think this unit will be too good, like it does everything a banshee, thor and siege tank does, but better. I really haven't seen a single banshee yet since this unit got introduced and thors are really rare aswell now. I just don't see how it's fair that a unit can have so many roles at once without being broken, last time we saw this with the infestor and we all know how that ended. Well, I'm definitely speaking from a Terran perspective. So, I guess that's a bias. Sure. But the way you said it seemed like you were implying that my bias was unfairly skewing my observations. I'm fine with being wrong. We're all just discussing the game we love here. So, please, if I made an unfair comment, or am just wrong about something, please point it out. I felt like my comments (at least the one you quoted) were fair. RE: hatch techTo be fair, I said " I'm fine with spore and queens doing a less than perfect job against my high-tech Starport unit ". I stand behind that statement. But you might be talking about when I said, "And I'm perfectly fine with Zerg not being able to completely fend off two of my high-tech rush plays with hatch tech and minerals". Which I will submit is poorly worded. That bit about minerals was me saying, "you should have to spend some gas to defend this." And the other play I was referring to is the cloaked banshee rush. RE: RavagersNow, when you say "can just completely deny a whole mineral line from mining", that's not really fair either. If the Terran is greedy, and tries to get the whole mineral line, you should be able to attack the Liberator without taking damage. In some instances, where there are "dead air spots", I think the Liberator can only barely cover a couple of patches on one base, and sometimes it's the third. So if you're calling me out for unfair bias, I might have to point out that I think this is at least a mischaracterization of the issue. No? You say, "zerg has to invest in 3 ravagers(300 gas) to just chase them away". I would add that three ravagers can kill a Liberator if they launch bile while it's in AG mode. And, isn't chasing them away or killing them a successful defense? I guess I don't see the issue here. Terran has to open gas first, into double gas, into factory (100 gas) -> Starport (100 gas) -> Armory (100 gas) before they can even enter AG mode, while building the first Liberator (150 gas). So you can defend my 450 gas tech-rush play with 300 gas. What's the issue? You're in the green a full 150 gas, and you're probably significantly more in the green on minerals. RE: The unit is too goodThe unit fills a critical role for Terran in Legacy, especially because of the extremely deadly new units added to both the Zerg and Protoss arsenal. It doesn't fill the role of a tank, because the tank has a radial range. It's definitely not a Thor, because the Liberator is a glass cannon, and is fast, and it's not a banshee, because it can't cloak and is immobile while attacking. Please correct me, or push back, on what I got wrong here. Few patches yeah uh no.. The advantage of other races is that they can tech so heavily early game compared to Zerg, and zerg can't just mine as much gas as the other races do without hurting their own economy heavily. The problem is like early hots hellbat drops, you can probably defend it, but even if you do it perfectly you will still be behind. And yes it does make thors and banshees completely obsolete, it's better at harras then a banshee by far, is a lot faster then thors and can be reactored. I do agree tanks are still very useful due to their splash, but liberators can zone out armies almost just as well. But keep being bias as fuck, that's fine, just don't be suprised when the nerf hammer is gonna hit this unit hard.
The reason why he's being biased and downplaying any disadvantages Z has is because he doesn't want that nerf hammer to hit hard. He's gotten to the point of being Avilo-level denial on Terran superiority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
127
52
EPT
