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: [quote]
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.
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.
Why was the (if it's accurate) bit even included, I showed the Turret which has exactly the same range of a spore and queen so people know that I wasn't just arbitrarily drawing a line. Why don't people do it in pro game? Because they've not seen that it's possible or because they think there's better value in using them to stop transfers from 2nd to 3rd allowing for an easy base pick off. I have seen on streams people abuse the spots though, with moonlight madness being the most abusable map.
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: [quote]
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.
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.
I guess so,hard to argue with such people. Anyway I do hope blizzard will find a way to make the liberator a strong but unique unit. I just think it hits a bit too early and that's why it's a bit too strong in TvZ. In the midgame it should be a strong unit like it is at the moment, but it's overlapping too much with other units roles imo.
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: [quote]
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.
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.
Why was the (if it's accurate) bit even included, I showed the Turret which has exactly the same range of a spore and queen so people know that I wasn't just arbitrarily drawing a line. Why don't people do it in pro game? Because they've not seen that it's possible or because they think there's better value in using them to stop transfers from 2nd to 3rd allowing for an easy base pick off. I have seen on streams people abuse the spots though, with moonlight madness being the most abusable map.
The accuracy bit is just cautious hedging (screenshots from some guy on the Internet, no offense intended). It probably is accurate, and is useful if people want to memorize the limitations of static defense versus Liberator rushes on the current map pool. It really was excellent work.
I would argue that pros are the absolute best at exploiting this game. If something is broken, it is almost exclusively pro matches that highlight the break. Suggesting that pros don't know about these spots is a stretch, imo. I think you're probably more accurate in your assessment that these "dead zones" are just not as valuable as people make them out to be (otherwise pros would abuse them more, no?).
And for you guys, hCom and Parku -- just pick one or several of my positions and actually argue your view. The approach of just saying, "yeah uh no ..." and name-calling is just that. *shrugs* I've laid out my points clearly. If they're wrong, so be it. Show us. Show me.
ZvT feels awful against liberators. They already have two zoning units with mines + tanks, a third one is not what this game needs. At higher ranks, when people really know where to utilize liberators so that you cannot engage properly, it is quite painful for the opponent.
But once you get broodlord-vipers there is nothing the terran can do. Only mass cyclone can beat that and not guaranteed, zerg then just has to mix in infestors and hit just a single good spell.
On September 12 2015 01:17 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: But once you get broodlord-vipers there is nothing the terran can do. Only mass cyclone can beat that and not guaranteed, zerg then just has to mix in infestors and hit just a single good spell.
Uhhhh what? Mass Vikings + BCs with Thors + Tanks just demolish anything Zerg has, including Broodlords / Vipers / Corrupters. Unlike Z's spores, Terran turrets are also able to be built anywhere on map, which solidifies the Terran advantage that's already there. Watch this game. Zerg has way more economy but has no unit to actually defend against this.
On September 12 2015 01:17 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: But once you get broodlord-vipers there is nothing the terran can do. Only mass cyclone can beat that and not guaranteed, zerg then just has to mix in infestors and hit just a single good spell.
Uhhhh what? Mass Vikings + BCs with Thors + Tanks just demolish anything Zerg has, including Broodlords / Vipers / Corrupters. Unlike Z's spores, Terran turrets are also able to be built anywhere on map, which solidifies the Terran advantage that's already there. Watch this game. Zerg has way more economy but has no unit to actually defend against this.
Good job with bringing out hots on lotv discussion.
Good thijg zerg have no answer to air... except vipers have parasitic bomb in lotv that nullifies air in lotv.
Mass Cyclone doesn't even do job against broodlords. You need A2A due to existence of broodlings, not to mention Viper can abduct cyclones by one due to big cost of cyclones. This was pre cyclone G2A nerf
Also, skyterran can no longer have free ride with ground mech upgrades as before, which greatly weakens BCS due to its reliance on it. Corruptors, while shit unit, does its job in direct A2A combat and beats viking in direct combat due to its large health pool unless kited, which isn't option during engagement with broodlords
On September 12 2015 01:17 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: But once you get broodlord-vipers there is nothing the terran can do. Only mass cyclone can beat that and not guaranteed, zerg then just has to mix in infestors and hit just a single good spell.
Uhhhh what? Mass Vikings + BCs with Thors + Tanks just demolish anything Zerg has, including Broodlords / Vipers / Corrupters. Unlike Z's spores, Terran turrets are also able to be built anywhere on map, which solidifies the Terran advantage that's already there. Watch this game. Zerg has way more economy but has no unit to actually defend against this.
But to your points: Terran can spend money to build structures around the map (turrets). Zerg can spend energy to spread free, invisible, buildings that prevent those buildings from going up while granting vision and a permanent speed buff to all. Plus, Zerg has two forms of semi-mobile static defense: spores and spines. A Terran with a huge bank spamming turrets hardly "solidifies the Terran advantage".
I just recently watched a HotS game ... I think it was Marinelord vs. Zanster? Something like that. Marinelord had the exact comp you're talking about, and still couldn't handle the Zerg late-game tech switches.
But, back to the main point: This is the LotV beta. Show me an example of this issue in LotV and we'll talk.
Last time I checked, Zergs didn't get a new anti-air fighting unit (ravagers don't count). Yes Vipers can nullify but spellcasters aren't just sufficient. Z needs an actual fighting unit against it. That is why it's ok to compare the 2 games. Bonuses of a creep is not involved in this discussion, because Z units are weaker, melee units that need the speed buff to fight against kiting bio due to its range. I'm solely talking about the 2 static defenses: spores / turrets. Turrets can be built anywhere; spores need creep, and creep can be denied constantly with vigilent scan / clearing.
On September 15 2015 04:22 parkufarku wrote: Last time I checked, Zergs didn't get a new anti-air fighting unit (ravagers don't count). Yes Vipers can nullify but spellcasters aren't just sufficient. Z needs an actual fighting unit against it. That is why it's ok to compare the 2 games. Bonuses of a creep is not involved in this discussion, because Z units are weaker, melee units that need the speed buff to fight against kiting bio due to its range. I'm solely talking about the 2 static defenses: spores / turrets. Turrets can be built anywhere; spores need creep, and creep can be denied constantly with vigilent scan / clearing.
No it is not OK to compare because of that. You got the most broken spell in the game with Parasitic Bomb. I am not seeing this composition in LotV - which is why you cannot produce any LotV evidence of it.
You are derailing this thread just like ZerlingSherperd used to do.
On September 12 2015 01:17 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: But once you get broodlord-vipers there is nothing the terran can do. Only mass cyclone can beat that and not guaranteed, zerg then just has to mix in infestors and hit just a single good spell.
Uhhhh what? Mass Vikings + BCs with Thors + Tanks just demolish anything Zerg has, including Broodlords / Vipers / Corrupters. Unlike Z's spores, Terran turrets are also able to be built anywhere on map, which solidifies the Terran advantage that's already there. Watch this game. Zerg has way more economy but has no unit to actually defend against this.
I like how you told off another poster for being biased and unreasonable, yet here you are, posting a HotS replay for a LotV discussion for your cause.
People saying that the answer to Terran liberators being absolutely broken vs Zerg are Vipers and Brood lords are clearly playing this game at such a low level, a spell caster at Hive tech and T3 Tech cannot be the logical answer to being completely unable to correctly ingage due to Liberators, also if Terran has 10 Liberators with his composition and has them split out with a nice number of Vikings, what is the answer then? Parasitic bomb all day, go back consume, do it again, and hope you win?
Please.....
The low level analysis and Terran players defending liberators is funny, also saying Roach Ravager Hydra is the answer to mech is also silly.
Tank + Liberator outscales and outranges ravagers so easily, throw a few banshees in the mix in the early game before hydras are there and it is even easier. All Terran has to do is micro decent and not get hit by Corrosive bile, there is no way for Zerg to properly engage.
Every Terran player that thinks Zerg can easily tech up to Parasitic Bomb and that is the answer to everything, you clearly know nothing about this game and are playing at a really low level.
On September 15 2015 06:46 GGzerG wrote: People saying that the answer to Terran liberators being absolutely broken vs Zerg are Vipers and Brood lords are clearly playing this game at such a low level, a spell caster at Hive tech and T3 Tech cannot be the logical answer to being completely unable to correctly ingage due to Liberators, also if Terran has 10 Liberators with his composition and has them split out with a nice number of Vikings, what is the answer then? Parasitic bomb all day, go back consume, do it again, and hope you win?
Please.....
The low level analysis and Terran players defending liberators is funny, also saying Roach Ravager Hydra is the answer to mech is also silly.
Tank + Liberator outscales and outranges ravagers so easily, throw a few banshees in the mix in the early game before hydras are there and it is even easier. All Terran has to do is micro decent and not get hit by Corrosive bile, there is no way for Zerg to properly engage.
Every Terran player that thinks Zerg can easily tech up to Parasitic Bomb and that is the answer to everything, you clearly know nothing about this game and are playing at a really low level.
Some pretty sweeping generalizations. Zerg currently has the most broken mechanic I've ever seen: automatic spawn larva. Even more broken than the Khaydarin Amulet! And you've got to go way back for that one. But that's beside the point.
I don't think anyone is suggestion Vipers are the answer to the Liberator rush. And if they are, they are very clearly wrong. Spores, Queens, and Ravagers, with maybe 2-base muta do just fine against that extremely aggressive Terran opener. I believe the argument for Vipers is late game, as it's a Hive Tech unit. Because Sky Terran--when it gets scary--is obviously very late game.
And argument like this, "All Terran has to do is micro decent and not get hit by Corrosive bile" is a two-way argument. I could just as easily say, "all Zerg has to do is use their free hatch-tech cooldown spell and land dem corrosive biles". It's the same argument.
I get it though. It's tough to win a SC2 game. It's frustrating. Matchmaker forces you to play opponents much better than you, and it just looks so easy for them. So easy it must be broken! Granted: in some cases, it is. Liberator probably comes a little too early, Ultras are unkillable derp-fests, and Adepts are way too strong in the early game.
On September 15 2015 04:22 parkufarku wrote: That is why it's ok to compare the 2 games.
We might have to agree to disagree here. I don't think you can use one HotS game as an example to illustrate a detailed conversation in the LotV beta.
Ooh, you edited your post! Ravagers anti-air skill shot absolutely counts as a new anti-air measure.
Oh, right, because I listed out the difference between HotS and LotV (Viper spell) and included it in my discussion while other variables stayed the same, but it still can't be used as an illustration because it would hurt your argument that 'Zerg is fine.' It's really unpleasant responding to a super-biased Terran like you because you deny anything that gives your race a disadvantage. Thankfully, TL is not full of race-biased posters that can have reasonable discussions without twisting/exaggerating the truth.
On September 15 2015 04:22 parkufarku wrote: Last time I checked, Zergs didn't get a new anti-air fighting unit (ravagers don't count). Yes Vipers can nullify but spellcasters aren't just sufficient. Z needs an actual fighting unit against it. That is why it's ok to compare the 2 games. Bonuses of a creep is not involved in this discussion, because Z units are weaker, melee units that need the speed buff to fight against kiting bio due to its range. I'm solely talking about the 2 static defenses: spores / turrets. Turrets can be built anywhere; spores need creep, and creep can be denied constantly with vigilent scan / clearing.
No it is not OK to compare because of that. You got the most broken spell in the game with Parasitic Bomb. I am not seeing this composition in LotV - which is why you cannot produce any LotV evidence of it.
You are derailing this thread just like ZerlingSherperd used to do.
And you are derailing this thread just like TimeSpiral is doing. Spells cost energy. Energy takes time. Even consume takes time. So let's say Zerg is able to use Parasitic Bomb to defend against T sky-army. Then what? Hope that you did enough damage with your insufficient AA combined with the spell that Terran doesn't steamroll you by the time your energy is recovered?? "Broken spell" is YOUR opinion. Just because others don't agree with your view doesn't give you the right to accuse another user is derailing the thread in hopes of getting a user banned, just like you guys did with ZerglingSheperd.
On September 15 2015 06:46 GGzerG wrote: People saying that the answer to Terran liberators being absolutely broken vs Zerg are Vipers and Brood lords are clearly playing this game at such a low level, a spell caster at Hive tech and T3 Tech cannot be the logical answer to being completely unable to correctly ingage due to Liberators, also if Terran has 10 Liberators with his composition and has them split out with a nice number of Vikings, what is the answer then? Parasitic bomb all day, go back consume, do it again, and hope you win?
Please.....
The low level analysis and Terran players defending liberators is funny, also saying Roach Ravager Hydra is the answer to mech is also silly.
Tank + Liberator outscales and outranges ravagers so easily, throw a few banshees in the mix in the early game before hydras are there and it is even easier. All Terran has to do is micro decent and not get hit by Corrosive bile, there is no way for Zerg to properly engage.
Every Terran player that thinks Zerg can easily tech up to Parasitic Bomb and that is the answer to everything, you clearly know nothing about this game and are playing at a really low level.
Well you do realise that he was talking about a HotS game don't you? There are a lot of imbalances at the moment and it will release unbalanced due to the 10th November release date.
The 13 range Ravager is not an answer to siege tanks and Liberators? The Liberator needing a TL for an AG upgrade is not an answer to slowing the number of Liberators you will face? Blizzard is dealing with it - are you saying you want even more?
On September 15 2015 04:22 parkufarku wrote: That is why it's ok to compare the 2 games.
We might have to agree to disagree here. I don't think you can use one HotS game as an example to illustrate a detailed conversation in the LotV beta.
Ooh, you edited your post! Ravagers anti-air skill shot absolutely counts as a new anti-air measure.
Oh, right, because I listed out the difference between HotS and LotV (Viper spell) and included it in my discussion while other variables stayed the same, but it still can't be used as an illustration because it would hurt your argument that 'Zerg is fine.' It's really unpleasant responding to a super-biased Terran like you because you deny anything that gives your race a disadvantage. Thankfully, TL is not full of race-biased posters that can have reasonable discussions without twisting/exaggerating the truth.
On September 15 2015 04:22 parkufarku wrote: Last time I checked, Zergs didn't get a new anti-air fighting unit (ravagers don't count). Yes Vipers can nullify but spellcasters aren't just sufficient. Z needs an actual fighting unit against it. That is why it's ok to compare the 2 games. Bonuses of a creep is not involved in this discussion, because Z units are weaker, melee units that need the speed buff to fight against kiting bio due to its range. I'm solely talking about the 2 static defenses: spores / turrets. Turrets can be built anywhere; spores need creep, and creep can be denied constantly with vigilent scan / clearing.
No it is not OK to compare because of that. You got the most broken spell in the game with Parasitic Bomb. I am not seeing this composition in LotV - which is why you cannot produce any LotV evidence of it.
You are derailing this thread just like ZerlingSherperd used to do.
And you are derailing this thread just like TimeSpiral is doing. Spells cost energy. Energy takes time. Even consume takes time. So let's say Zerg is able to use Parasitic Bomb to defend against T sky-army. Then what? Hope that you did enough damage with your insufficient AA combined with the spell that Terran doesn't steamroll you by the time your energy is recovered?? "Broken spell" is YOUR opinion. Just because others don't agree with your view doesn't give you the right to accuse another user is derailing the thread in hopes of getting a user banned, just like you guys did with ZerglingSheperd.
But you are using a HotS game to argue for imbalance in LotV.
There are imbalances and at this point we need to wait and see what the next balance patch brings because Blizzard are addressing issues (slowly). They have said this is an area that they are looking at. Their changes will significantly impact what we see and what we will communicate back to them. Arguing for this change or that (or whining) at the moment is therefore moot.
On September 15 2015 06:46 GGzerG wrote: People saying that the answer to Terran liberators being absolutely broken vs Zerg are Vipers and Brood lords are clearly playing this game at such a low level, a spell caster at Hive tech and T3 Tech cannot be the logical answer to being completely unable to correctly ingage due to Liberators, also if Terran has 10 Liberators with his composition and has them split out with a nice number of Vikings, what is the answer then? Parasitic bomb all day, go back consume, do it again, and hope you win?
Please.....
The low level analysis and Terran players defending liberators is funny, also saying Roach Ravager Hydra is the answer to mech is also silly.
Tank + Liberator outscales and outranges ravagers so easily, throw a few banshees in the mix in the early game before hydras are there and it is even easier. All Terran has to do is micro decent and not get hit by Corrosive bile, there is no way for Zerg to properly engage.
Every Terran player that thinks Zerg can easily tech up to Parasitic Bomb and that is the answer to everything, you clearly know nothing about this game and are playing at a really low level.
Well you do realise that he was talking about a HotS game don't you? There are a lot of imbalances at the moment and it will release unbalanced due to the 10th November release date.
The 13 range Ravager is not an answer to siege tanks and Liberators? The Liberator needing a TL for an AG upgrade is not an answer to slowing the number of Liberators you will face? Blizzard is dealing with it - are you saying you want even more?
13 Range Ravager is NOT the answer for SIEGE TANKS & Liberators, Do you think you can just mass a bunch of 13 range Ravagers, and take out a tank line / liberator line with ease? Please do post replays of this happening, thanks.
EPT
