| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On September 16 2015 06:04 Cyro wrote: I linked the video to show the splash radius No you didn't. 'They beat phoenix and void rays too if they get past fairly small numbers' They generally beat phoenix, as they should, but the dps in that video against non-light air is very different from live. | ||
|
wjat
385 Posts
On September 16 2015 04:08 SCguineapig wrote: I just played my first game of LOTV and I played terran, but crap these liberators are strong, you can get them out early and rek a mineral line with them, and by the time they get decent static D up your liberators will have dealt signifcant economic damage. At the end of the game there was a big fight and I just crushed my opponent with the help of a couple of liberators, they seem really strong IMO. Ofc I've only played 1 game of LOTV so far, but my first impressions are "imba unit." lol | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
On September 16 2015 23:06 TimeSpiral wrote: I mean, that was a LotV demo video release by Blizz, right? In the VR scenario they were focusing a command center with Liberators clearly in range, taking pot-shots. It is still a nice display of the radius though, but not exactly representative of VR's utility versus Liberators (though I don't think VRs are really intended to fight Libs very well). Zerg and Protoss will start needed to do split micro to maximize the utility of their AA Air Units versus the Liberator in AA Mode. Split micro is just very awkward/unusable when there are many of them stacking and splashing you with a big splash radius. Even magic-boxed units get splashed - look at the splash radius in the video again. They basically do ok in small numbers (as expected for a unit that is, at it's core, an anti-ground siege unit) but are extremely good in mid-large numbers. No you didn't. Yes i did They generally beat phoenix, as they should As they should? Phoenix are more dedicated anti air than libs and their slightly cheaper cost is offset by increased cost of production buildings to make enough to win fights. Why should liberators win air fights against phoenix, void rays, mutas and corruptors cost for cost, supply vs supply and production time vs production time? They're probably pretty decent against Vikings too. Libs are worth their weight in gold when you have 4-6 of them in a midgame engagement | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2623 Posts
On September 17 2015 00:30 Cyro wrote: As they should? Phoenix are more dedicated anti air than libs and their slightly cheaper cost is offset by increased cost of production buildings to make enough to win fights. Why should liberators win air fights against phoenix, void rays, mutas and corruptors cost for cost, supply vs supply and production time vs production time? They're probably pretty decent against Vikings too. Libs are worth their weight in gold when you have 4-6 of them in a midgame engagement No they don't do well vs vikings, or corruptors, or carriers, or tempest, or void rays unless they are really clumped and you have a ton of liberators. No the splash isn't as big, neither the damage, as it was showed in the demo video. Yes I agree liberators are too strong for their costs, specially the AG but the AA also, but you are blowing things out of proportion. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
No the splash isn't as big The splash is pretty huge, i can't say for sure if it's actually as big as in the video but it's surprisingly big. I'l test out some air to air fights with amove, magic box, pre-split etc soon. but you are blowing things out of proportion. perhaps so, there's a lot of people biased on the other side of the discussion so i'd like at least an even playing field (especially when it obviously needs to be looked at in some form, even if only having tech lab requirement added). I wouldn't want the "numbers seem a little wonky at the moment" discussion buried under a ton of people saying "it's completely fine" until 2 months after launch when liberators are used every game and a matchup flips 60/40 because of it, so i'd often rather go against the crowd in discussion with very powerful new units. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 17 2015 00:55 Cyro wrote: The splash is pretty huge, i can't say for sure if it's actually as big as in the video but it's surprisingly big. I'l test out some air to air fights with amove, magic box, pre-split etc soon. perhaps so, there's a lot of people biased on the other side of the discussion so i'd like at least an even playing field (especially when it obviously needs to be looked at in some form, even if only having tech lab requirement added). I wouldn't want the "numbers seem a little wonky at the moment" discussion buried under a ton of people saying "it's completely fine" until 2 months after launch when liberators are used every game and a matchup flips 60/40 because of it, so i'd often rather go against the crowd in discussion with very powerful new units. For the record, I think I'm okay with the tech-lab requirement. This is a reasonable nerf to the production cost, maybe, depending on what they do with the AG upgrade. I do think it's a little unfair to say that you need six stargates to match 3 Reactor Starports, and I think you know this too. Chronoboost. By that time we're pumping mass Liberators off three reactor Starports in LotV, you've got to be--what?--four basing with expansion five and six building? Even if it's a little less, you've definitely got three Chronoboost assignments available for each Stargate. You'll end up building just as much air, for a less expensive production cost (50/50/50 for each reactor). I'll let you have the unlikely scenario that three reactors were prebuilt, and did not disrupt the start time of the Liberators. But, if the reactors were ordered on the Starport, that's a full round of production or more from your CB'd Stargates. Your production cost and build time arguments do not hold water, in my opinion, even with the Reactor in play. And the reactor doesn't matter versus Zerg either, from a comparative perspective, because they have larva. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
I do think it's a little unfair to say that you need six stargates to match 3 Reactor Starports, and I think you know this too. Chronoboost. By that time we're pumping mass Liberators off three reactor Starports in LotV The guy who build 3port lib against me recently was on 6 gasses w/ a small gas bank (it's very easy to bank gas building marine/marauder when you don't need medivacs or vikings) and it was pretty early in the game. He didn't put reactors on the second and third port very quickly but he could have done. Dropping 2 extra stargates (to 3) and going straight phoenix (already had a couple) was an inadequate response even though the starports were scouted during construction - he took air dominance and it was not possible to get it back. That surprised me at the time because i already thought that the response of going 3stargate with full chrono phoenix fleet was an overkill response but it actually failed to fight even the liberators alone and changed my perspective on their build time and supply efficiency. So in order to beat them strongly, you'd need 4 stargates (or 3 stargates with all of your chrono) against 4x lib production (2 starports + reactors or one reactored port + 2 naked ones) Given the choice between 3 stargates with 100% of your chronoboost on them vs 4 stargates, the 4 stargates is probably the most effective option. It's the lesser of two evils. It costs more, but the opportunity cost of not having chrono on any of your important upgrades and such is probably an even greater cost By that time we're pumping mass Liberators off three reactor Starports in LotV, you've got to be--what?--four basing with expansion five and six building? you can make a really surprising amount at a rate of 3-6 at a time with 2-3 cc's | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 17 2015 02:00 Cyro wrote: The guy who build 3port lib against me recently was on 6 gasses w/ a small gas bank (it's very easy to bank gas building marine/marauder when you don't need medivacs or vikings) and it was pretty early in the game. He didn't put reactors on the second and third port very quickly but he could have done. Dropping 2 extra stargates (to 3) and going straight phoenix (already had a couple) was an inadequate response even though the starports were scouted during construction - he took air dominance and it was not possible to get it back Given the choice between 4 stargates with 100% of your chronoboost on them (or 4 stargates and all 3 of your nexii chronoing 3 of them) vs 5 stargates, the 5 stargates is probably the most effective option. It's the lesser of two evils. It costs more, but the opportunity cost of not having chrono on any of your important upgrades and such is probably an even greater cost Nobody secured a fourth for any significant period of time in that game Oh, okay. Didn't realize you were talking about one instance of a specific game you played. I feel ya. LotV feels very "Snowball-y" at the moment. This is especially true in Archon Mode. Either way, you can keep adding conditions, and the like, such as, "I'd rather use my chrono on important upgrades" but that doesn't really change the argument that 3 Stargates with Chronoboost could probably do okay versus three Starports with reactors (cost for cost though, it's probably closer to four Stargates versus three Starports with reactors). Whether or not you choose to do that, or whether or not this is possible in a particular in-game scenario, is not very relevant to the argument, imo. Not sure where you're going with the gas bank. Sounds like your opponent made a strategic decision and sacrificed vital support units (i.e., medivacs). But talking about specific in-game scenerios out of context of the entire game is pretty pointless too, given the Snowball-y nature of LotV. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
but that doesn't really change the argument that 3 Stargates with Chronoboost could probably do okay versus three Starports with reactors 3 stargates with chrono (or 4 stargates without) against either 2 reactor ports or the 1 reactor port + 2 naked port combo. that few stargates cannot deal with 6x lib production I think there is no situation where it's better to put all of your chrono on 3 stargates for a significant portion of the game rather than building a fourth stargate and using the chrono on stuff like air attack upgrade instead Not sure where you're going with the gas bank. Sounds like your opponent made a strategic decision and sacrificed vital support units (i.e., medivacs) Medivac blobs are not vital in a world where liberators exist - nor are viking blobs Not sure where you're going with the gas bank. Anyone going 5-10 minutes deep into a lotv game with a bio army (without the need to get those ~6-8 medivacs) will float gas even if they don't take all of their gasses. Gas to mineral ratios are a bit higher in LOTV midgame than in HOTS and bio was already mineral heavy. People are having no real trouble building small to moderate amounts of ghosts, medivacs and libs at the same time if they feel like it, some choose to divert the gas and go nuts with the liberator spam instead which is probably strategically weaker Oh, okay. Didn't realize you were talking about one instance of a specific game you played That's just one example which changed my perspective, i've played somewhere between about 10 and 20 liberator games in the last 3 weeks or so. We won that one but really shouldn't have. There have been quite a few that make me think "wtf is this unit" but two things stand out in particular: simultaneously excellent at anti-air and anti-ground in both supply and cost efficiency build time that doesn't really compare to any other units, you can get a lot of them super fast I've said a bunch of times i don't think it's very good at all to pull 20 libs out of your ass halfway through a game - but doing so really makes the strengths and weaknesses of the unit obvious and turns the game into these ridiculous situations that look like somebody mashing armies of unit X vs unit Y together in a unit test custom map. People building crazy amounts of libs in surprisingly little time has been most of my direct interaction with them, that's what people tend to do on ladder because it's very difficult to respond to and nets a lot of free wins even if it's not strategically sound. They'll still be a core army unit without that capability, they're rather good and especially cost+supply effective as 16 supply of liberators (8 libs) causes a disproportional amount of problems for your opponent in the midgame | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
You got caught, dude, own up. On September 17 2015 00:30 Cyro wrote: As they should? Phoenix are more dedicated anti air than libs and their slightly cheaper cost is offset by increased cost of production buildings to make enough to win fights. Why should liberators win air fights against phoenix, void rays, mutas and corruptors cost for cost, supply vs supply and production time vs production time? They're probably pretty decent against Vikings too. Libs are worth their weight in gold when you have 4-6 of them in a midgame engagement Should a unit designed for a primary use case of killing light, clumped air be able to cost effectively kill light, clumped air? Yes. Otherwise it's like complaining banelings do too much damage to clumped up marines.They don't trade with void rays, vikings, and corruptors cost efficiently with the barest of micro done by the opponent. On September 17 2015 00:55 Cyro wrote: perhaps so, there's a lot of people biased on the other side of the discussion so i'd like at least an even playing field (especially when it obviously needs to be looked at in some form, even if only having tech lab requirement added). Own your opinion, don't try to say you're being a devil's advocate here. The tech lab requirement would be awful. The liberator is a Thor replacement against light air. It takes ~2 liberators to equal the effectiveness of a Thor. Given their cost this isn't a coincidence. In lower numbers, the Thor is actually more effective! It's only as you increase the number of liberators that they overtake the Thor. If you were to force a tech lab requirement, you would have to compensate it with something like cutting liberator production time or increasing the effectiveness of the unit somehow, like making it 3 food, but stronger and tankier. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 17 2015 02:22 Cyro wrote: I edited post some as you were quoting ~ the new post is better 3 stargates with chrono (or 4 stargates without) against either 2 reactor ports or the 1 reactor port + 2 naked port combo. that few stargates cannot deal with 6x lib production I think there is no situation where it's better to put all of your chrono on 3 stargates for a significant portion of the game rather than building a fourth stargate and using the chrono on stuff like air attack upgrade instead Medivac blobs are not vital in a world where liberators exist - nor are viking blobs Anyone going 5-10 minutes deep into a lotv game with a bio army (without the need to get those ~6-8 medivacs) will float gas even if they don't take all of their gasses. Gas to mineral ratios are a bit higher in LOTV midgame than in HOTS and bio was already mineral heavy. People are having no real trouble building small to moderate amounts of ghosts, medivacs and libs at the same time if they feel like it, some choose to divert the gas and go nuts with the liberator spam instead which is probably strategically weaker That's just one example which changed my perspective, i've played somewhere between about 10 and 20 liberator games in the last 3 weeks or so. We won that one but really shouldn't have. There have been quite a few that make me think "wtf is this unit" but two things stand out in particular: simultaneously excellent at anti-air and anti-ground in both supply and cost efficiency build time that doesn't really compare to any other units, you can get a lot of them super fast I've said a bunch of times i don't think it's very good at all to pull 20 libs out of your ass halfway through a game - but doing so really makes the strengths and weaknesses of the unit obvious and turns the game into these ridiculous situations that look like somebody mashing armies of unit X vs unit Y together in a unit test custom map. People building crazy amounts of libs in surprisingly little time has been most of my direct interaction with them, that's what people tend to do on ladder because it's very difficult to respond to and nets a lot of free wins even if it's not strategically sound. They'll still be a core army unit without that capability, they're rather good and especially cost+supply effective as 16 supply of liberators (8 libs) causes a disproportional amount of problems for your opponent in the midgame Gotcha. So you're suggesting that Terrans you're facing are just eating the permanent damage from Stim, and trading out, letting the cost effectiveness of the Liberators and Ghosts balance that out? I can see that. I would quibble with the simultaneous bit, just because they can't do both at the same time. They are either static AG, or mobile AA. Sounds like me and you are fairly close to the same page. Put Liberators on a tech lab. I think the AG mode at Armory is fine, but some want an upgrade of a fusion core. I'm less inclined to like the fusion core, as we kinda need the armory for air and factory upgrades, and the Fusion Core upgrades are typically considered late game--if used at all. All three of Terran's powerful anti-ground units can't fucking move, lol (e.g., tanks, widow mines [hate widow mines, for the record], and liberators). I feel like this limitation is almost never referenced. Imagine if Colossus had to enter "Thermal Lance" mode, or something ridiculous like that. That idea would be laughed out of the room (rightfully). Lurkers can't move either, granted, but they're fucking invisible, lol. Either way. I digress. The Liberator has become essential in all three matchups. Try to win a TvX without Liberators and you get stomped. Somebody mentioned this once, and it resonated with me, that I really don't want the Liberator to become the Colossus of HotS. Basically: build Colossus, or lose. The Liberator is a new unit, that will require responses, and it's not really clear the best way to deal with it yet. I think this is fairly expected, no? It probably comes a little too fast: agreed. But I like that a risky rush play can do damage. I don't want to see that go away. It probably should be on a reactor. Fine. I think the siege/unsiege mode timings might need a tiny bit of tweaking. You have to predict bile shots. It does not seem possible to react to the, atm. If damage output gets nerfed, at all, I would lobby for the warning indicator to be removed (unless you can click on the Liberator, similar to a siege tank). | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
It probably comes a little too fast: agreed I don't think that it comes too early in the game, i think that it's too easy to build a lot of them The tech lab requirement would be awful. The liberator is a Thor replacement against light air. Pick a role, anti-air or anti-ground siege unit. It's exceptional at both at the moment and i prefer the anti-ground siege design. Anti-air support is good, anti-air dominator is.. not so good. Thors have way more weaknesses than liberators. There are cooler and more effective ways to make anti-air specialists. If a unit does multiple things at once, it should do them less effectively than specialists - worse than viking/phoenix air to air and worse than tank anti-ground siege, but capable of both easily for example. Tanks don't have an anti-muta mode yet are they really dominant over liberators in the anti-ground siege role? | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On September 17 2015 04:00 Cyro wrote: Pick a role, anti-air or anti-ground siege unit. It's exceptional at both at the moment and i prefer the anti-ground siege design. Anti-air support is good, anti-air dominator is.. not so good. Thors have way more weaknesses than liberators. There are cooler and more effective ways to make anti-air specialists. If a unit does multiple things at once, it should do them less effectively than specialists - worse than viking/phoenix air to air and worse than tank anti-ground siege, but capable of both easily for example Phoenixes trade decently with non-light air, but their primary purpose is light air. The liberator is not a light air unit and in fact is designed to kill light air effectively, while it does not trade cost effectively with non-light air. Its ATG mode leaves it vulnerable and fills a necessary hole in the terran force in the face of other legacy design changes. We can bicker about balance when it comes to cost and dps or whatever, but this isn't about balance. You just don't want the unit to exist in the role that it was created to fill. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
I'd rather have liberator than phoenix as anti muta, yet it has the whole ground mode too. You can counter phoenix w/ muta but you need to invest a ton more, having splash inherantly makes a smaller amount of units more dangerous to a pack. | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
but they're not being massed like the initial incarnation of the ravager, for instance They are in some master level games but ravager is inherantly easier to mass because of zerg production mechanics (and being tier 1.5) | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 17 2015 04:00 Cyro wrote: I don't think that it comes too early in the game, i think that it's too easy to build a lot of them Pick a role, anti-air or anti-ground siege unit. It's exceptional at both at the moment and i prefer the anti-ground siege design. Anti-air support is good, anti-air dominator is.. not so good. Thors have way more weaknesses than liberators. There are cooler and more effective ways to make anti-air specialists. If a unit does multiple things at once, it should do them less effectively than specialists - worse than viking/phoenix air to air and worse than tank anti-ground siege, but capable of both easily for example. Tanks don't have an anti-muta mode yet are they really dominant over liberators in the anti-ground siege role? I would quibble with this bit. It's AG mode cannot attack buildings, so It'm no sure you can classify it as a siege unit. In AG mode the Liberator is a single-target DPS unit with a "long-range" -- but that's deceptive to say the range is long, because the range to place targeting area is large, but the range from the center of the targeting area to the edges is quite small. And it can't move. The unit benefits from the long range, but only in one direction. Other long-range units benefit from a radial targeting area, which is omnidirectional by nature. It is an interesting, when compared with the Thor. The Thor's anti-air mode is really long range, and splash. And it's single-target DPS range is really small, and the DPS is not that high. The Liberator has short AA with Splash, and a similar range in the AG mode (in the targeting area), but a long range in placing the targeting area. I really like the design of the unit. It's interesting, and novel. | ||
|
parkufarku
882 Posts
On September 17 2015 05:42 TheWinks wrote: A unit only makes sense within the context of the game it is in. There is no exterior objective measure of too good/too bad to be made. If people were only building liberators that would be an indication that they are too strong relative to opponent units or relative to the strength of other terran units, but they're not being massed like the initial incarnation of the ravager, for instance. Just because it's not the only thing massed does NOT mean it's not too strong. Worst logic I've ever heard. | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
TvZ they are basically unusable with mech in the current meta (outside early cheese), but TvP and especially TvT they are good. | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On September 17 2015 11:25 parkufarku wrote: Just because it's not the only thing massed does NOT mean it's not too strong. Worst logic I've ever heard. Not being massed certainly harms the accusation that it is too well rounded of a unit. It could be too strong overall, but it certainly isn't obviously too strong. We could say that about a lot of units in Legacy right now, like the adept, lurker, and the viper with parasitic bomb. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
Mapu2
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaNa
ByuN vs Classic
Afreeca Starleague
Jaedong vs Light
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Creator
Cure vs ShoWTimE
OSC
Replay Cast
SpeCial vs Cham
The PondCast
PiG Sty Festival
Reynor vs Bunny
Dark vs Astrea
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
