EPTLiberator in TVZ : is it imba? - Page 5
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Towelie
United States561 Posts
Wow I thought they did require a tech lab, I haven't played or watched much LotV. They definitely need to change that. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
Honestly for how strong it is, I feel the liberator needs to be sitting in the center of their bombard range, sitting safely a good 4 squares away just makes the unit feel unbeatable to a race that has no early AA option. | ||
|
Plantarbre
France45 Posts
Like, instead of doing 80 damages, it could deal 35 damages with a faster attack speed (multiplied by 80/35). Then, hydras will take 3 shots before dying, they will survive longer (also, the liberator will lose some damages as the third shot will waste 25 damages) AND queens will be much efficient against them. The good thing is, the liberator will still be a viable option (against ultras too), and if it's still too strong, then we can consider the numbers are really wrong. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
Honestly for how strong it is, I feel the liberator needs to be sitting in the center of their bombard range, sitting safely a good 4 squares away just makes the unit feel unbeatable to a race that has no early AA option. The advantage of the Liberator over the Siege tank is clear: Better in smaller numbers and much better all-round unit which especially comes in handy early/midgame. The advantage of the Siege Tank: Late game it scales better + you have frontline to soak damage for the tanks (deathball FYI). Late game you also won't be as exposed to AA as you likely will mass Cyclones too. But those differences are kinda boring. The tanks then becomes a unit you add to the deathball in the late game. And the Liberators is something you get in the early/midgame. If - as you proposed - it had shorter range, it would be a ton weaker vs ground-to-air units such as Stalkers, Marines and Hydralisks. If its balanced around that, then it might be easier to disgunish its role from the Siege tank. However, if its weaker vs those units, then it needs to be even better vs AA units and ground-only units. Is that really desireable? I've spent lots of hours thinking about its role, and I can't see any way where it really fits into the terran army. In fact I think it probably would have been better to give the anti-ground mode to the BC and remove the Liberator. That will make sure that all units have interesting weakness's and strenghts and that the BC will be more fun to use as well. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 22 2015 18:20 Hider wrote: The advantage of the Liberator over the Siege tank is clear: Better in smaller numbers and much better all-round unit which especially comes in handy early/midgame. The advantage of the Siege Tank: Late game it scales better + you have frontline to soak damage for the tanks (deathball FYI). Late game you also won't be as exposed to AA as you likely will mass Cyclones too. But those differences are kinda boring. The tanks then becomes a unit you add to the deathball in the late game. And the Liberators is something you get in the early/midgame. If - as you proposed - it had shorter range, it would be a ton weaker vs ground-to-air units such as Stalkers, Marines and Hydralisks. If its balanced around that, then it might be easier to disgunish its role from the Siege tank. However, if its weaker vs those units, then it needs to be even better vs AA units and ground-only units. Is that really desireable? I've spent lots of hours thinking about its role, and I can't see any way where it really fits into the terran army. In fact I think it probably would have been better to give the anti-ground mode to the BC and remove the Liberator. That will make sure that all units have interesting weakness's and strenghts and that the BC will be more fun to use as well. Definitely agree that its role should have been the BC ones to begin with. But I don't see why its antiair would need to be buffed if its ground mode is weaker. Its antiair is really good against certain units and in general quite good against bigger clumps of enemies as far as I have seen. (though no unit tester involved so far TT) Like what you are saying runs under the assumption that the unit right now is a) balanced b) units in general have a certain, equal power level I'm not sure about a) and b) is certainly not the case. There are (much) better and (much) worse units in the game. Its anti air mode in combination with being a mobile flyer itself and having some ground capabilities makes it much more attractive as splash support anti-air than thors when playing against units like mutalisks. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
But I don't see why its antiair would need to be buffed if its ground mode is weaker Well weaker is very unspecific. Under the assumption that the unit basically has no range at all but just a circle very close to the Liberator, that will be an extreme nerf to the Liberators ground-mode. So it would need to be compensated in some way, and I don't see how there is any real compensation that creates interesting dynamics here. Regardless of how you tweak/modify the unit, it's always gonna end up creating some heavy overlaps with the Siege Tank/Thor/Cyclone/Viking. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 22 2015 19:38 Hider wrote: Well weaker is very unspecific. Under the assumption that the unit basically has no range at all but just a circle very close to the Liberator, that will be an extreme nerf to the Liberators ground-mode. So it would need to be compensated in some way, and I don't see how there is any real compensation that creates interesting dynamics here. In that scenario it would be a strong anti-air unit for certain situations, with the option to turn it into a sort of widow mine against low-midtier units. "You can't go there with roaches, hydralisks, ultralisks, zealots etc, you need to defuse the liberator first with artillery" It would still be off use after you got it for its antiair role. This is not from a design point of view of course, from that I take the stance that the unit is unncessary and for me personally the siege circle-unsiege-if-the-opponent-finds-a good-angle dynamic feels clunky to use. (but other people might be ok with that) But from a role/usability point of view I could see the unit still being useful. Though I'm not sure range is the real problem. 75dps for 300resources is plainly stupid. It is more than stimmed marines of the same price have but without the armor/splash weaknesses and on a flyer which is invulnerable against 50% of the units in the game to begin with. It is more than 2times what immortals do against armored. And all of that on a flyer. When seeing such a sort of unit the only way it can turn out balanced is that the unit can be supermegahardcountered, in the case of the liberator that it will eventually create a dynamic in which the opponent instaloses if he touches the circles but has ways to kill the liberator without it ever getting shots of. | ||
|
ZergLingShepherd1
404 Posts
On July 22 2015 18:07 Energizer wrote: The problem with the liberator is that its so increadibly cheap and easily produced to counter essentially anything zerg does in the mid game - It stops all early game aggression from zerg, it completely thwarts mutas and one shots zerg's other Anti air (hydra). This forces zerg to tech straight into viper in order to have a chance against a liberator swarm. Which of course doesn't help you when the libs are knocking at your door within 3 minuets into the game. Honestly for how strong it is, I feel the liberator needs to be sitting in the center of their bombard range, sitting safely a good 4 squares away just makes the unit feel unbeatable to a race that has no early AA option. It will be nerfed, only terrans at this point are trying to silence this IMBA stuff. | ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1467 Posts
On July 22 2015 20:05 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote: It will be nerfed, only terrans at this point are trying to silence this IMBA stuff. And you will always be there to whine on bnet while vigourly defending clearly op traits of your own race Anyways, liberators are bit strong and tanks don't really do the justice of its name. As much as the roles overlap, can't help but to feel the liberator ground damage should have went to siege tank in upgrade form and liberator remain for AA purposes only | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
You can't go there with roaches, hydralisks, ultralisks, zealots etc, If it no longer can outrange Hydras I think it would be a huge nerf vs that unit in medium-larger engagements. Instead it's utility will mainly be vs units that can't shoot back at it, which makes it overlap with the Banshee. But from a role/usability point of view I could see the unit still being useful. Yes, it has a role as I described in my initial post. It's definitely very strong when you can build them in the early midgame and they do well vs everything + function well in low numbers. But I very much dislike how that "role" works. I prefer when units have clear weakness's. Building tanks vs liberators in the midgame should have a significant difference in terms of how they impact the playstyle with different advantages and disadvantages. The same thing should be the case for Thors/Vikings vs Liberators when you use it for AA. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 22 2015 20:17 Hider wrote: If it no longer can outrange Hydras I think it would be a huge nerf vs that unit in medium-larger engagements. Instead it's utility will mainly be vs units that can't shoot back at it, which makes it overlap with the Banshee. yeah, but that's not going against what I said. You don't get it for the antihydra, but if it can still take down 1-2 of them you can be pretty happy under the assumption that the liberator has done its job against e.g. mutas already. There are many such dynamics in the game where you get a unit to do a job and retain it and eventually if the role isn't needed anymore you trade it inefficiently, which is still better than not trading it and doesn't change the fact that the unit already gave you an edge somewhere. Not that you really want to do it in the case of the liberator, but say you defended mutas and have a few of them and next thing your zerg is allinning you with roach hydra. Those liberators are still going to take down a bunch of roach/hydra before going down, even if they can't zone them. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
yeah, but that's not going against what I said. You don't get it for the antihydra, but if it can still take down 1-2 of them you can be pretty happy under the assumption that the liberator has done its job against e.g. mutas already. Which isn't really different from how the Thor works. My issue here is that I don't see any interesting dynamics coming out of using the Liberator for AA relative to the thor as AA. That's not to say that you aren't rewarded for mixing the units together. But what are the strategic implications? Does it allow/reward players to execute very different styles if the terran/his opponent opts for Liberators instead of Thors and vice versa? When the zerg sees Thors (and no Liberators) does this have a huge strategic implication. Is gameplan/strategy X now much weaker and is he heavily rewarded for switching to gameplan Y? And what happens when they are mixed together. Does that have a specific disadvantage/advantage as well or is it always optimal to mix them together due to synergy? | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On July 22 2015 19:38 Hider wrote: Well weaker is very unspecific. Under the assumption that the unit basically has no range at all but just a circle very close to the Liberator, that will be an extreme nerf to the Liberators ground-mode. So it would need to be compensated in some way, and I don't see how there is any real compensation that creates interesting dynamics here. Regardless of how you tweak/modify the unit, it's always gonna end up creating some heavy overlaps with the Siege Tank/Thor/Cyclone/Viking. Here's a radical idea, they change how the units all function to stop that Overlap. Remove the Liberator (I say that because I really dislike the model) create something that is purely for AA splash and then buff the siege tanks zone control on the ground. The cyclone just needs to be removed, not because it's inherently broken or unbeatable but because it's just not a fun unit design, moving into a zone auto locking and keeping something in a huge circle isn't too skilled. My suggestion would actually be to make it a donut shape around the unit, so it's a skill balancing the units inside that donut ring and also allows people to charge in past that point to break the tether, this wouldn't affect it's strength when in low numbers but would make massing them much less viable. I also dislike the model for the cyclone someone suggested using the diamondback model I would propose a base that's similar but then keep the missile pods for the turret. The initial build is strong but counter-able but you have to be preparing for it before you can even scout it. | ||
Vanadiel
France961 Posts
Anyway, problem is in this beta I don't know at all the level of the players I play against, obviously if I face a GM his timing will be much crisper than mine and I should lose, no matter if the unit is balanced or not. Anyway, it will need to testing from the pros before we can draw any conclusion, it looks definitely strong though. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 22 2015 20:34 Hider wrote: Which isn't really different from how the Thor works. My issue here is that I don't see any interesting dynamics coming out of using the Liberator for AA relative to the thor as AA. That's not to say that you aren't rewarded for mixing the units together. But what are the strategic implications? Does it allow/reward players to execute very different styles if the terran/his opponent opts for Liberators instead of Thors and vice versa? When the zerg sees Thors (and no Liberators) does this have a huge strategic implication. Is gameplan/strategy X now much weaker and is he heavily rewarded for switching to gameplan Y? And what happens when they are mixed together. Does that have a specific disadvantage/advantage as well or is it always optimal to mix them together due to synergy? I agree, but thats the design part. Which for me doesnt justify a theoretical compensation for a theoretical nerf. It means they should go back to the drawing board with the unit or a different one (e.g the Thor) to create the diversity you argue for. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
Remove the Liberator (I say that because I really dislike the model) create something that is purely for AA splash and then buff the siege tanks zone control on the ground. The cyclone just needs to be removed, not because it's inherently broken or unbeatable but because it's just not a fun unit design, moving into a zone auto locking and keeping something in a huge circle isn't too skilled. Below are my suggestions for terran mech partly inspired by what worked in BW and my own ideas: Thor - Moves faster (2.25-2.5) - Two attack transformations: - Transformation 1 = Very good vs armored units (much better than it was in HOTS) - Transformation 2 = Larger splash radius but no bonus vs light It's default role will be the same as the Goliath had in BW (AA vs armored), so it will replace the Viking (or Cyclone) currently have. However, when facing a large amount of enemy air units, it can transform and do signficant amount of damage due to the large splash radius. It's however definitely weaker vs Mutas in low numbers. Viking - More damage vs light than armored (still single target) - Range = 7 - Upgrade that increas speed to 3.25-3.5. The reason I am not giving the Viking the splash-role is that it will be too easy to completely shut enemy air harass (Mutas/Phoenix). Instead, I believe the Thor vs Mutalisk dynamic will be more interesting due to it being more about mobility. The Viking will then be better vs light air units in small numbers + also capable of assting the Thor in terms of mobility. With the Viking no longer being good vs armored air units, it also mean that its no longer this Viper/broodlord/dropplay shutdowner. That obviously has a few balance consequences that must be adressed, and I think that will both improve micro interactions and the gameplay dynamic (because the shutdown role of the Viking is really dumb imo). TLDR AA Unit roles - Vs armored air units --> You get Thors - Vs light air units in small numbers --> Vikings typically your best bet. - Vs light air units in larger numbers --> Thors in splash-mode or you can opt to mass Vikings. Siege Tank With new econ, just buff the tank and make it 2 supply. With the redesigned Viking that can no longer shut down enemy dropplay/air spellcasters, turtle mech will be nerfed anyway. Cyclone I think it can still exist, but it must be a supportive unit. I imagine that it starts with heavily nerfed air and ground attacks, + lower max range. Thus its core stats will be heavily inferior to the Siege Tank. Instead, it should have two strenghts: (1) A debuff/buff ability that makes it synergize with friendly units during teamfights. This ability shouldn't scale well. (2) Give it extra damage vs structures, so it can assist Hellions/Banshee's when harassing as static defense won't shut down mech harass so hard. | ||
|
CycoDude
United States326 Posts
i think it's still early to call anything OP just yet; remember how long it took people to figure out wol / hots. it's the same thing here. | ||
|
Ovid
United Kingdom948 Posts
On July 22 2015 20:50 Hider wrote: God we agree on that. My suggestion is based on learning from the BW unit roles. In that game teran mech AA armored is the Goliath which is relatively mobile and a ground unit. The splash unit (Valkyrie) functions better vs light units (since they typically are more massable) and is massable. The issue with the Cyclone as the AA vs armored is that the whole lock-on --> move back isn't fun at all and it also suffers from the same design problem as the Liberator in that it being good vs everything (no real strategic weakness). Given that I would actually change the Thor to make it more like a Goliath. That implies making it somewhat faster (around 2.5 MS), and give it a strong anti-air vs armored attack with around 9-10 range. On top of that I like to keep the transformation mode so it can transform into the splash-attack. Relative to the Sc2-version, it should not deal extra damage vs light but rather have a larger splash radius. The reason I am not giving the Viking the splash-role is that it will be too easy to completely shut enemy air harass (Mutas/Phoenix). Instead, I believe the Thor vs Mutalisk dynamic will be more interesting due to it being more about mobility. The Viking, however, must also be changed due to the Thor being the new AA vs armored unit. I propose to give it strong single-target damage vs. light units. This way it will be better vs light air units in small numbers + it will also be able to assist the Thor when it lacks mobility. I also propse to give the unit a speed upgrade to 3.25-3.5, but reduce its range to 7. This creates a dynamic where it can kinda kite Mutalisks, but it will take a bit of damage in the process. TLDR: Unit roles - Vs armored air units --> You get Thors - Vs light air units in small numbers --> Vikings typically your best bet. - Vs light air units in larger numbers --> Thors in splash-mode or you can opt to mass Vikings. Synergize effect: Even with Thors faster MS, it’s still slow vs enemy air units, the Vikings can help support them, but obviously can’t deal with a big Mutalisk flock by them selves. Thus you need to kite with Vikings and lure enemy Mutas into Thor range. I agree mostly what I would be saying is make the Liberator the Valkyrie with the range in a area that mutalisk could still bomb in spread up and do damage, you want a micro interaction not a hard counter. I would prefer to have the Cyclone removed but I have my doubts that would happen which is why I suggest it's lock on radius to be a donut ring around the edge of it's current vision this allows more mobile units to bomb past breaking the lock on, also it means keeping the units inside the ring is harder than just following the units movement. It also doesn't affect the units strength in what I think the intended role is which is using low numbers 3-4 to snipe out key units. Would love the Thor to change into a Goliath but I think your Goliath is a bit catch all. The viking change is where I completely disagree, the unit should stay as a unit that focuses key units down from afar, what I would prefer to see is a method of making it's transformation more useful because currently you mainly see it after someone has killed all the collosi and perhaps in mech where someone gains air lead and you don't want to throw the units away. Eitherway Terran mech needs an overhaul. | ||
| ||
