|
If you include your Twitter ID with your reply, we can include it in a possible shoutout if your comment is interesting! |
Legacy of the Week: Liberator
October 1st, 2015 01:18 GMT
LotV LiberatorWelcome to the 1st edition of the weekly Focus Topic! As the previous sentence implies, this will be a weekly focus topic discussion, covering a new topic each week. With Legacy of the Void inching closer on the horizon, we’ve decided to put together this weekly topic to encourage and focus discussion about key elements in LotV's beta. In summary, it will feature a simple topic, and a list of questions will follow for you to answer. Ideally we’ll pull together roughly ten questions per week for the topic, and hopefully this will result in positive discussion about the topic at hand. For the first week we have decided to choose the liberator as the focus topic. With another change to it yet again this balance patch, it makes it the perfect topic to begin this series with. It’s currently in a constant state of change in the beta, and with that comes much to talk about. Here are the general stats of the unit: - Costs 150/150
- 43 second build time
- 3 supply cost
- 180 health
- Air damage: 7 (x2)
- Ground damage: 85
- 4.72 speed
It’s worthy to note that this unit can be reactored out of a starport, therefore does not require a tech lab. Its air attack does splash damage similar to that of the thor, and hits twice dealing 7 damage each. Its ground attack now requires an upgrade again, and takes 79 seconds to research, costing 150/150. Blizzard has gone back and forth with the upgrade, testing out balance changes associated with the upgrade. Now that the basic unit idea is out there, let’s get into the questions: - What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
- What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
- Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
- Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
- Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
- Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
- Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
- What do you think about its design in general?
- If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Leave your answers to these questions in a comment below. You don't have to answer each question in your reply, but please try to address at least one of them. We'll be selecting some answers and tweeting them out on @TeamLiquidNet. Stick around until next week to find out what the next topic is!
|
1) Replacement siege tank in TvP, possibly TvZ as well on certain maps, and potent harass tool, especially to punish people who went for all ins.
2) Strictly speaking, mutas/corruptors for Zerg, Voidrays for Protoss and vikings for Terran. But in tvt, no-one makes libs that often so it's not an issue, and they're just broken in tvp mid-late game.
3) Doesn't matter whether it does or not, early game lib harass is extremely problematic against zerg either way. If the Lib were nerfed to near uselessness as a harass tool, then I think you could remove the research.
4) One could make a reasonable argument that they should require a tech lab but 150/150/3 is a fair cost I believe
5) Support. The nature of it's Defender mode makes it very hard for it to hit stuff unless it's part of determined battlelines and especially if you can set up near a choke.
6) I don't really know, it does feel weird that you can but it might make them too hard to add onto compositions if you did require a tech lab. Might need testing, hard to say.
7) As of Heart of the Swarm there's no missing role in the Terran arsenal. We're quite well rounded as it is, and I think this is true for all 3 races. I believe that all Blizzard should try to do is create fun, interesting units for us to play with. The Lib is a wee bit Siege Tank and a wee bit Thor and a wee bit flies around and isn't quite as strong as all that individually. But it's effective, particularly against Protoss, and it's not completely stupid (like the Cylone!) so I guess I'm ok with it.
8) Meh.
9) Remove the line of sight bonus it receives once it has set up Defender Mode. This will make it much more vulnerable to queens and spores when it attempts to harass, and I would imagine makes it less broken without restricting map design to accommodate it. Consider removing the research requirement in that situation.
EDIT- @iaguzSC2
|
The liberator stands a pretty good chance of breaking up something people have been looking to destroy for a really long time: the deathball.
Here's a pretty standard logic from people who say BW was better than SC2: in SC2, high ground grants no advantage if your opponent has vision. Because of this and a huge number of other changes (maybe biggest is just how much easier it is to move your army around), defender's advantage is much weaker in SC2. Without a strong defender's advantage, if your opponent is knocking at your front door, it's a lot harder to stall his army while you harass him elsewhere around the map. As a result, if your opponent stacks all his supply on one big attack and pushes it towards you, the only good response is to gather your own army into one big defense and try to win the fight.
There are a few mechanics in SC2 already that kind of change this, and sometimes players will use them to push away the big attack while the rest of their supply attacks around the map. Terrans will sometimes harass with medivac drops, and if the opponent decides to push in and try to kill them, they defend with tanks and widow mines (and maybe even PFs). Protoss will sometimes threaten on the map, and if the opponent tries to just go kill them instead of defending, they use Photon Overcharge to hold off the attack. Zergs will sometimes harass a Terran with mutalisks, while the Terran doesn't feel safe running onto creep and killing them for fear of losing their whole army to banelings. But in general most people probably still think that deathballs are too prevalent in SC2, simply because it's too hard to hold off a big attack unless you use your whole army to do it.
Liberators offer crazy strong space control, but they can't just engage around the map so easily because they have to siege up to threaten a particular spot, and even when they do they're always vulnerable to a flank. This has a lot of cool benefits – it makes map design a lot more important, because the liberators will want to engage in specific spots; it gives Terran a way to hold off a frontal attack without committing their whole army, which means their opponents have to instead go for more engagements around the map; and in the case of a big engagement, it makes success in the engagement for either player depend heavily on smart positional play, rather than correctly choosing a composition or performing immaculate micro in the fight.
It perhaps runs the risk of creating boring, turtle-ey games like the current TvZ Mech style in HotS. The fear would be that Terran turtles on a few bases, builds an invincible god army, holds off any possible aggression with his defender's advantage, and then wins the game. For that to happen, though, there are two requirements:
1) Terran needs to have a stronger late-game composition than the other race could possibly muster. That means that in a NR100 scenario where both players have all the time in the world to build the most expensive 200/200 army they can imagine, the Terran comes out on top.
2) Terran needs to be able to defend the number of bases required to build that invincible god army. In HotS TvZ, you need 3, maybe 4 bases to build your invincible mech army. Then you can use that army to take more bases, and it doesn't matter if your opponent takes more bases than you because no matter how much money he has, he can't kill your army.
I don't know just yet whether the first is true. In TvZ, it seems unlikely simply because of parasitic bomb. If Terran's death army involves air units it can be killed by a Zerg who uses parasitic bomb for air superiority, and if it's a ground-only army, it should die to things like broodlords. In TvP, Protoss lategame isn't really solved yet, so things are a bit unclear – probably carriers are the way to go, but it's unclear if given infinite prep time, Terran's lategame army would be stronger than a giant carrier force.
But the second probably is not true, because the new economy is too punishing of turtle play. If a Terran were to try to sit on three bases and build an invincible army, he would just run out too fast. Once his main mined out, he would need to take a fourth, and all the defender's advantage in the world can't get you the map control to take new bases. Based on that alone, I would suspect the liberator won't cause this kind of problem.
All in all, the liberator is a very interesting unit, with a lot of interesting decision-making in where to place it, as well as how to engage against it. I'm excited to see how it plays out.
|
1)Defensive space control role against Protoss and certain zerg comps, harass early game and midgame, zoning of mutas
2)Mutas are decent against small groups of liberators, and can take fights with large numbers of liberators as long as they magic box. Corruptors slaughter them. For Protoss, phoenix are decent but voidrays are better, but voidrays aren't generally that useful. vs T they aren't that great anyway because marines have too low health and can just run underneath. They don't really fill a new role here.
3)It doesn't really matter whether it's researchable or not, as long as it's possible to get it on 3 bases. Early liberators against zerg are difficult for zerg to deal with, and pigeonholes their builds, so a research and more is probably the way to go. Maybe make it like drilling claws? (research requires armory)
4)150/150 seems very good. More gas and they'd be too valuable to use to attack often. Less gas and they'd be too expendable.
5)100% support. They need some kind of ground army to zone the opponent into the circles and stop them from just getting underneath. As an air zoning unit against mutas, they need an army to run back to.
6)I'd say they shouldn't require a tech lab because otherwise the transition is too difficult and expensive to make.
7)It fills a tank role in TvP, which you could argue was missing (but mines did space control too.) It overlaps with other units a bunch but i think it's different enough from them to work.
8)I like it. It upends a huge amount in the game; terran hasn't had a unit this impactful perhaps ever. I like playing with it more than I like it objectively, if that makes sense.
9)Make it come later in some way? I'm not sure on this.
|
-What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?*
TvZ : muta zoning, and increasing mech capacity to armlock the game into a campfest. Won't be used with bio since it take starport to build instead of medivacs, and that bio generally needs AoE instead of single target damage to deal with banelings
TvP : may help with mech based compositions. Suits the role A SIEGE TANK should have in TvP
TvT : timing pushes and skyterran only I guess
-What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Vikings/BCs/marines/corruptors/ravagers/infestors/void rays/carriers/phenixes
-Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Yes. Or at least tone down its damage a lot, and have a research boosting them.
-Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
The cost seems good, it's the design that's wrong. It's an air siege tank : the siege tank should fit this role !
-Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Depends largely on the balance. The design makes it so it's either gonna be a core unit, or either a useless unit.
-Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
The design of the unit is gimmicky, balancing it around it will make it even gimmickier
-Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
Largely overlaps with the siege tank and in some way the thor.
-What do you think about its design in general?
The design is quite terrible. The fact it sieges from the air will make it either terrible, either overwhelming depending on the balance.
-If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Keep the AA as it is. It overlaps with the thor but the fact it is a cheaper air unit makes dosage different. The "area siege" is a terrible idea though. It helps mech armlocking the game into a camping contest. Why not tone down its damage, and give it 7 range while sieged? While keeping the low ROF/high damage/position control sky terran kinda lacks?
Sorry for failed double post
|
|
|
1) Zoning and alternate to tank. strong harass and powerful verse high hp comps.
2) early game zerg ravager queen is pretty good. late game corrupter viper.
3) defiantly as without the upgrade liberators come out too early and hard to stop from harassing mineral lines.
4) the cost is fine as long as the starport requires tech lab to make liberators.
5) i see it as a support unit with strong firepower. a bit of overlap with other units.
6) no i disagree its a unit with little counters (in the right comp so should be treated as a support unit.
7) it overlaps too much with thor and siege tank. changes would need to be made for it to have a role of its own.
8) looks interesting but not much of a fan compared to bw and sc2 units design.
9) less damage but faster rate of fire for AA mode and defender mode. so they do less damage but faster rate of fire.
Edit: cool thread hope to see more 
Edit 2: Twitter is @Ascarecrow101
|
1) The liberator is a good harassment unit as well as a good support unit for both mech and bio armies. It is probably better with bio seeing as it is more mobile and can fulfill the role of siege and AA while not being stronger than a tank or a thor.
2) For Zerg, I think Corruptors and Ravagers are the best. Mutalisk do all right, but the splash of the liberator and speed quickly snowballs over them. For Protoss, Void Rays and Phoenix can do ok but Phoenix run into the same issue as Mutalisk. For Terran, Vikings do quite well, but Liberators don't have a lot of utility in TvT so it's not too big of an issue.
3) Defender mode is really what makes the Liberator worthwhile as a unit, but it should be an upgrade. As a Terran player, I'd love it not to be but I don't want Blizzard tailoring maps to lessen liberator's effectiveness. It creates a lot of map control with the ability as it is, so that type of control shouldn't be automatic, especially in the early game.
4)I think the cost is just fine. An increase would make them less viable and a decrease would probably make them OP.
5) Mostly a support unit. The Liberator is going to support and compliment whatever composition you choose to build with it. It doesn't do enough damage on it's own to actually be a core unit.
6) With the upgrade requirement, I think keeping it on a reactor is fine. I think the real fear of the liberator siege is in the early game, so slowing down the production of that ability with an upgrade is fine. After release we may see that the liberator is too strong and changing it to a tech lab may be a thing but right now I don't see that being necessary.
7) I think it does a good job of being a multi-use support unit. It has use in both mech and bio compositions. As for holes, I think Terran is the best designed race and there were few holes in the design to begin with.
8) It is nice to have a new starport unit that fulfills the role of other units while not doing as much damage as those other units yet making up for them in ways those units lacked. Specifically, tanks were not super useful against toss because of immobility and mines were easier for Toss to deal with in the mid-game.
9) What Iaguz said above.Limit the sight range and you may be able to remove the researchable ability and not have to worry about map design so much.
|
#1. Since they are almost always useful, they will always be built.
#2. For terran its keep air control early with vikings, match in liberators or bcs, for protoss i'm not sure i die before i can find out, and for zerg ravagers, muta, and corruptor. Poor Zerg 
#3. If the unit must stay then yes.. Should be pushed back to fusion core if the damage is not being toned down.
#4. MORE EXPENSIVE. Thor is 300/200 and sucks vs any non light air units and it's not fast or flying.
#5. Liberator is a support unit, but it's different from the others because it does well in every situation.
#6. No, my others answers sum up why I believe so.
#7. It is a complete overlap with multiple units. Thor, Mine, Tank, Viking all in one. Just build liberators now.
#8. Not a fan.
#9. REMOVE IT. I don't know what else to do. No matter what it would always have this huge overlap. If they want space control buff the tank, there are plenty of counters to it for every race. If they want something to deal with mutas....WTF? marines, mines, turrets, thors, vikings not enough!?!!?!? I think it is, but if not just reduce viking damage slightly and give it bonus to light, while giving the thors standard aoe attack bonus vs armored.
|
It's good, I just wish it wasn't so good at so many things.
It's terrific against Mutalisks, and Vikings and Ravens deal with Corruptor flocks pretty decently already, the ground mode thing is absurd at shutting down drone lines, totally absurd, that needs to be removed.
Maybe nerf the ground mode in exchange for a siege tank buff instead of making an air unit that does it's job better?
|
Since people seem to think the unit is without weaknesses, we should probably start a little discussion about that:
The defender mode liberator is crazy good at killing stuff that walks into its circle. It is, obviously, terrible at killing anything else on the ground. I bring this up because it seems like it should be a strong defensive unit, and in some ways it is, but it's pretty terrible at some kinds of defense.
For instance, pre-patch (that is, when defender mode didn't need an upgrade), I tried making liberators pretty quickly in TvP. A lot killed me in TvP pre-patch, but one of the things that absolutely destroyed that build was a blink stalker rush. You'd have 4 or even 6 liberators out, but you just couldn't kill the stalkers. You could cover the whole blinkable cliff in defender circles, but they could just walk up your ramp, blink past the circles, and start shooting at you from out of range. Even if you got out enough liberators to cover the whole base in circles, they could still all group up in one spot, kill the one liberator targeting that spot, and then proceed to shoot everything else from there. The same is true of drops, or anything else that tries to get your army out of position to attack. So when you're up against Nydus, Warp Prism, or Medivac (three of the most common occurrences in LotV, they struggle to even be able to attack.
People are insisting that they're better than tanks at pretty much everything, but I'll tell you this – tanks don't struggle so hard against blink stalkers, and you can defend drops in your main easily enough, too.
|
It simply doesn't feel like a reactor unit. Should be techlab.
|
1. Pretty much what everyone said, zoning, supporting, anti mass air etc.
2. I am not so sure but for zerg, probably vipers with heavy numbers of corruptors, that of cause depends on the other composition from the terran.
3. Definitly, the better option imo is the un-upgraded defense mode has shorter range and radius and upgrade makes it to what we have right now.
4. I think the mineral/gas can be adjusted a little, but it is also why the unit is good for both bio and mech. Hard to say.
5. A very strong aggressive support I suppose. Good enough to be a core unit, I would say it is similar to marauder.
6. I think tech lab requirement is pretty important. The unit itself doesn't feel like it should be a massable unit.
7. I think its role positioning is quite good, slight overlap with the zoning for siege tank but they have pretty distinctive difference. And of cause it overlaps vikings, I actually find vikings are inferior in many aspects.
8. I feel it is a cool looking unit with some unique role. I am just not sure whether it is a unit that will be fun to watch and play. The early push requires too much of dedicated anti air counter which I dislike.
9. If it was upto me, I would remove vikings and make liberator into reactor-able, cheap, with all stats torn down type of unit (including the ground defense mode of cause)
|
The liberator is great but there is a big flaw with the unit - it requires so much micro management and is such a huge apm sink that I am not sure how players of more avarage skill are supposed to use it effectively. If its siege mode was more like the siege tank where it wouldn't require ground targeting but the damage was nerfed I think it would make for a more fun unit overall
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
The Liberator will through heavy single-target damage in flying siege-mode assume a role of securing static positions for Terran. Unlike Siege Tanks, the Liberator is vulnerable due to the limited area of which it can attack.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
For Zerg the Ravager has great potential to deal with Liberators as they, like Siege Tanks, are static when sieged.
For Protoss the Tempest is an ideal counter due to long-range and little damage from Lurkers as well.
For Terran it might be best to play similarily with your own Liberators, focusing on ground, but obviously vikings seem to be the most available choice here as other options are too expensive. (Bio is an equal option as anti-air.)
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Yes. The way it is now, various early-game attacks are weaker and that way we do not necessarily have to nerf the actual attributes of the current Liberator to compenste for that earlygame strength, especially in TvZ.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
The only quesitonable thing is why the Liberator is a tech-lab unit, but with the upgrade, this is more reasonable. Tech-labbed Liberators would suffer a lot in especially PvT.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
It is both, it adds strength and flexibility to Bio armies, allowing them to push forward and feel safe within the circles-of-fire from Liberators, while Liberators themselves has a high damage output and provide key firepower.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
With Defender Mode being an upgrade, reactored Liberators seem to be fine. Otherwise the answer would be likely yes, but the upgrade is a better solution.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
You could argue that the Liberator overlaps with Thor due to a similar anti-air mechanic. Still, the Liberator fills a strong and cool anti-ground support role for especially Bio units that Blizzard has been looking for.
What do you think about its design in general?
I think the design is in a reasonable spot. It is unique without overlapping with the Siege Tank, and the whole "air-support for infantry" concept is quite an exciting theme used both in movies and in games. Unlike Vikings, Liberators seem more cool in their ability to destroy ground units.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
I would decrease the Anti-Air of the Liberator as it currently feels strong versus some air units like Mutalisk and Phoenix. It should be a more supportive attack like Viking ground mode, so signficantly reducing anti-air damage or splash will be great and also increase the incentive of leaving the ground mode strong.
|
1. TvZ: Hellbat / Bio timing pushes, worker line harass, and deterrence vs fast muta or roach/bane/ling pushes.
TvP: Worker line harassment vs no stargate on certain maps.
TvT: Supplements bio or mech armies well, functions as deterrence vs medivacs as well.
2. Z: Ravager and muta in early - mid game, corrupter / spore / viper late game.
P: Blink stalkers, Carriers, Phoenix
T: Widowmine / Marine / viking in early - mid game, Turret / Viking / Battlecruiser / raven late game,
3. Yes due to variance in air rush distance.
4. I think the cost is in a decent place, not too much of an gas investment for Mech and not too mineral intensive for bio.
5. I think the type of attacks that it has (shorter anti air, can't damage ground structures) forces it into the support role.
6. If the upgrade stays, it's perfectly fine with out tech lab, this is with consideration for the ramped up late game anti-air potential of Zerg and Protoss.
7. There is overlap for sure, but it gives bio players a much more versatile tool to transition, especially in the vZ match up and some times in the vT mirror match up which are aspects that tanks and thors do not offer on their own.
8. I think the design itself fits the terran theme very well, and if it creates more interesting composition and transition choices for Terran it can be a positive for the game.
9. I think tweaking the vision radius of the unit in defender mode can fix alot of the gripes players have with it and solidify its support role.
|
What do you think about its design in general?
It is a terribly designed unit, which is too well rounded and excels at too many roles. It will be nerfed to uselessness I'm sure of it, because there is no way to balance a fast, flying siege unit, with enormous range a one of the highest DPS values in the game. It's basically a flying colosuss, which doesn't do splash to ground, but rather to air.
Blizzard insists on breaking the conventions of strategy and common sense with units like the Liberator and abilities like siege tank pickup and drop. One of the most basic rules is that powerful units have to have weak points, like for example being slower. But no, Blizzard wants to give its new units every imaginable advantage and is then utterly surprised when these units end up breaking the game.
|
On October 01 2015 16:24 CheddarToss wrote:
What do you think about its design in general?
It is a terribly designed unit, which is too well rounded and excels at too many roles. It will be nerfed to uselessness I'm sure of it, because there is no way to balance a fast, flying siege unit, with enormous range a one of the highest DPS values in the game. It's basically a flying colosuss, which doesn't do splash to ground, but rather to air.
Blizzard insists on breaking the conventions of strategy and common sense with units like the Liberator and abilities like siege tank pickup and drop. One of the most basic rules is that powerful units have to have weak points, like for example being slower. But no, Blizzard wants to give its new units every imaginable advantage and is then utterly surprised when these units end up breaking the game.
I so agree with this, here's my proposed redesign.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/36dL5Q9.jpg)
User was temp banned for this post.
|
With good things already mentioned, I want to bring out two points that I think are most important:
1) It is impossible to tell whether a Terran player is going for cloaked banshees or Liberators with siege upgrade until you actually see one of these units coming. In ZvT especially this creates a problem of overreacting. Both reactions include spore crawlers, but lair timing is different as well as preferred units. Also cloaked banshees often result in a mech composition for the Terran while Liberators often support a bio-based composition. So you have two sets of buildings:
Baneling Nest + 2 Evos and Roach Warren + 1 Evo; place the wrong answer and you're out of luck.
2) There is no negative to building Liberators. If you end up with 10 Liberators, there's nothing your opponent could do to make you say "Oh no! I built Liberators!". It's always "Oh god yes! I have Liberators! Pewpew!". They are never bad. They are very mobile and take a couple of hits, high-damage in both air and ground and in general just always useful.
Now for the more specific questions. This is mostly from a ZvT standpoint as I have little to no experience in the other matchups.
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
It is a unit that can do it all. Place a Liberator behind a base for great harrassment potential. Even if you lose the unit, you will most likely end up doing enough damage that it is worth it.
Build a lot of Liberators to support any kind of army. It is as viable as a siegetank in terms of zoning and can deal a great amount of damage to airballs.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
I am a main Zerg so I only answer that. In lower numbers, Mutalisks still work if you split them properly. If the numbers get too big Vipers will work wonders.
Granted this implies that he has all his Liberators in one place. A skilled player will have 2-3 Liberators per base, forcing the Zerg to split his army, and then attacking with the main army at one focused point.
If the Terran has a strong Mech army supported by Liberators, I have no idea what to do. When Terran is going Bio with Liberator support, I tend to ignore the Liberators and just go Muta/ling/bling and micro my heart out.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Yes, definitely. Without the upgrade, it hits too early and you would always have to prepare against Liberators, even if they're never coming. This is free economic damage for Terrans to any kind of opponent.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
I think for their incredibly usefulness they should be more expensive. Alternatively a nerf to either of their strengths(mobility, damage to ground for example) could make the cost viable.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
As I mentioned above, I think it is both. You can either support a strong army to make it even stronger and a very hard-to-kill deathball, or you can get mass Liberators with a few support units to do the same.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
No. I think requiring Tech Lab could be the change that makes this unit a lot better to deal with. Or maybe thats not enough.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
I think it greatly overlaps with others. The liberator does what cloaked Banshees or Ravens did before. It also shares similar functionality to Siege Tanks, especially with their new ability to be picked up in Siege Mode. I don't know what I hate more as a zerg, 2 sieged tanks with medivacs carrying them around or 2 Liberators. Probably Liberators though, as they can attack air as well.
What do you think about its design in general?
I dislike the design because it doesn't feel like it gives Terran a new tool. It is just the same tool in a better and easier-to-use version. Nothing the Liberator does is new, just combined in one unit instead of two or three.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
I'm pretty adamant about getting innovative design so I'd scratch the whole unit and try to give Terran a new and interesting tool that is really something different instead of more of the same.
|
On October 01 2015 14:36 ChristianS wrote:
For instance, pre-patch (that is, when defender mode didn't need an upgrade), I tried making liberators pretty quickly in TvP. A lot killed me in TvP pre-patch, but one of the things that absolutely destroyed that build was a blink stalker rush. You'd have 4 or even 6 liberators out, but you just couldn't kill the stalkers. You could cover the whole blinkable cliff in defender circles, but they could just walk up your ramp, blink past the circles, and start shooting at you from out of range.
Yeah. I had the same experience so many times !
Blink stalker just crush liberators, they jump out of the circle and kill them all. So I don't think it is a go to unit vs P, not at all.
The only reason to build liberator is that it is a reasonable early game harass unit. It Makes the job in a mineral line, but I don't agree with those who say it is an ultimate defender unit. Maybe 5-6 liberators to defend a B4 or B5 far from the main but that's all.
Vs air units, the 7 x2 damage is good but as good as Thor (6 (+1) x4)
I am a little bit disappointed with this unit because I think it is fun, I like design but there are few reasons to build it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
