|
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.
|
Before all thing, i m a terran !!!!
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?[/b][/u]
In tvz : to counter mutat. but there is no mutat in lotv because terran can make too easely liberator. And to defend bases in late game.
In tvp : to counter all in toss and help the bioball to survive after the stupid nerf of the marauder....
In tvt : no utility
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
For toss : all toss unit wich can shoot it.
For zerg : zerg need fungal and corrupter to deal with liberator because it is too fast.
For terran : viking marine etc...
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Perfect like this. any comment.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
Perfect too
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
It must be a support unit but now it is a support unit in early game and in late game you can win games with an army composed at 90% of liberator. This is a big problem.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
If we want to see mutat in zvt, liberator must be product on tech lab
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
If you want to win in terran, you can play without liberator but if you want to win witout difficulties you must play liberator ^^
What do you think about its design in general?
It is most beautiful than the cyclone that looks like a Dalek of Doctor Who.... Cyclone sucks...
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Nothing it's a good unit. but I think it need to be nerf in siege mode and make less damange against mutat.
A blibli must nerf a little this unit because it is a hard counter of all unit and it is game breaker.
To conclude liberator is a good unit. I hope your next subject will be the cyclone because it must be removal for a bio unit !!!
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Probably as a stable core unit against Protoss and to counter mutalisks and ultralisks vs Zerg and to counter tanks in TvT.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Viking, Marine, Viper, Corruptor, Stalker, Carrier
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
I think it should be locked somehow and armory didn't seem to be the solution. But I dislike the techlab upgrade for a reactor unit. My personal choice would be to test a fusion core requirement, which is similar to the armory requirement but doesn't have the same utility and doesn't unlock hellbats at the same time.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
I think it is OK, but small cost tweaks are always a nice tool for balance should problems arise.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
That obviously depends on the situation, but usually such a gasheavy unit will be played in combination with an established core composition like bio that can afford it, but isn't completely relying on it.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
At the moment I don't mind Terran having accessibility to more units easily. Ask me again when the game is more balanced and I'm dying to mass liberators
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
It doesn't fill a hole. I have no real clue why this unit is here. It is just what I've been saying that the siege tank should be, a siege unit with high main target damage.
What do you think about its design in general?
I don't like air to ground siege units. I think they are dumb and force air-play from the opponent and from yourself to protect them, which is just horrible for the game.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Scrap it, amongst other units. SC2 doesn't need that many units, they just make other units reddundant by being better alternatives. At the end of the day high level play ends up with a small set of playable units again. The core to making more strategies viable is to balance the existing units better against each other, instead of having obvious superunits that you support with the right sidekick units for the given situation, while the other 3possible sidekick units are being unused.
|
1. What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Flying version of siege tank, anti mutalisk, early game harras
2. What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Terran: widow mines, marines
Zerg: corruptor, viper?
Protoss: phoenix with range, tempest
3. Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Yes
4. Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
More expensive.
5. Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Should be support unit, or pure anti air, but now its core unit.
6. Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
No
7. Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
No. It overlap with siege tanks, widow mines, banshees, vikings.
8. What do you think about its design in general?
Buffed version of valkyrie from brood war.
9. If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Anti air swarm unit or remove.
CONCLUSION: BUFF SIEGE TANKS
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
As mentioned, most likely a Siege unit, but in this it feels somewhat odd due to its relatively small siege area, even if it can fire at that area from a long range. It could work against Protoss deathballs (with good micro) but Blink Stalkers will have them for breakfast.
In TvZ they'll work great against Mutalisks and higher HP units such as Roaches.
Haven't seen them in TvT and doubt I will since Tank/Viking still rules the day there.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Corruptors, Void Rays, Vikings for obvious stat reasons.
Mutalisks are a dicey choice for Zerg, which I actually like, giving Terran a different option than the Thor to deal with them.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
In its current state, yes, because camping behind the mineral line is lame and I play Terran myself.
Were the unit to be modified to make that less viable, it could do without the upgrade.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
For Bio the cost works since Bio is mostly mineral heavy, but in a Mech composition the 150 gas is tricky.
Do you get them instead of Tanks and risk the enemy army running out of the siege area?
Do you get them instead of Vikings and risk losing them to enemy air counters?
I would be interested to see a patch where it's more mineral heavy and less gas heavy. (say 200/100)
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Obviously a support unit as its ground attack is very limited and its air attack is crap vs anything that isn't a Mutalisk or Phoenix.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Given its gas cost I don't see an issue with it being buildable without one.
To reactor them out you need 300 gas for each cycle which is immense.
The reactor does grant the ability to bring them out in larger numbers faster when you want to use them to deal with Mutalisks, which can also come out in large numbers quickly so I like it.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
Air wise, its primary role for me is provide a different way to handle Mutalisks.
Thors are slow, clunky and Mutalisks can fly circles around them.
Other than tanking Banelings they don't add much more to a TvZ bio army, but the Liberator can switch to ground mode once the Mutalisks are dealt with, providing some support.
I've yet to really use them in TvP, trying to go for them with the current warp prism + adapt meta is tricky.
What do you think about its design in general?
I like the idea, but the execution feels a little off due to having yet another anchoring unit and it having only a single area where it can attack. This just feels wonky and I fear that with time Protoss and Zerg players will learn to easily navigate around it.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Defender mode can only work above ground (impassable ground is okay), Blizzard could add some vertical thruster visuals or something to highlight this.
Range slightly decreased to say 11.
Ground area restriction removed, or it increases every second the Liberator remains stationary until it fully reaches all ground with the Liberator's reach.
OR
The ground area can be retargetted whilst in Defender mode with a short cooldown and switch animation.
Personal preference:
I'm not too fond of another anchor unit, the Siege Tank already does this and it doesn't do very well outside of TvT.
We have so many mobility and harassment options these days that anchoring a unit just feels weird.
Constantly switching modes feels clunky. I wouldn't mind a lategame upgrade (maybe requiring Fusion Core) that would allow Defender mode Liberators to move very slowly (at say the old Overlord speed).
If the Liberator could only go into Defender mode above ground, I see no reason why it shouldn't be able to attack structures (perhaps with reduced damage vs structures).
|
On October 01 2015 17:24 FromtheAbysS wrote:Show nested quote +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.
put WM or any other support for Liberators
|
On October 01 2015 18:41 shin_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2015 17:24 FromtheAbysS wrote: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. put WM or any other support for Liberators
WM is good against blink openings? Since when?
In general, yes, the thing to do is to have something under the liberators that can attack. Then you use the liberators to control where your opponent is allowed to stand (a bit like a forcefield, actually, but with more interaction), understanding all along that your opponent probably won't walk into the circle so you'll have to do damage with your other units. I don't think you should never make them against Protoss, but they'll need marines or something underneath them that will actually do most of your damage.
Against a blink opening specifically, they're terrible. WM's aren't great against blink openings, among other things because you can blink out of the way of the mine and then it's out of commission for a real long time. I was just noting to all the people that seem to be inflating their utility a bit that unlike tanks, they have fairly little utility in staying alive early game, where tanks are amazing for that purpose.
|
Don't add air units Blizzard, liberate us from this all overlapping piece of shit.
|
I am Zerg so these are my answers
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Harassment, countering mutas, protecting tanks from ultras
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Zerg - Ravager, later on corruptor
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
I will only say that I haven't seen a single hellbat / liberator push since they changed the liberators requirements. I haven't examined this in great detail so I don't have a huge opinion on this. Weighing this against a tech lab requirement for example. I didn't have a huge problem against hellbat liberator to begin with, but it felt a little strong, so either an upgrade or a techlab requirement - something like this, does seem needed.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
For now it seems reasonable until more information on the lategame is gathered
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
More support, though against mutas it can become a core unit. But I don't really know since I've seen very little use of cyclones in the beta so far, and that unit could change the way Terran works on a fundamental level. So who knows.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Not much opinion, though I'm leaning toward they should have a techlab. They shut down muta harass too easily with the reactor, and having a research upgrade doesn't solve this while it pushes early aggression back moreso than a techlab requirement does; while the techlab requirement balances the stream of production better, which is the main problem with liberator pushes is they can get out of control too quickly.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
It definitely helps against mutas and helps against ultras when you have tanks. Since marauders are weak here, that's fairly useful. Are also more mobile so they can siege up places quickly. Though cyclones are also supposed to be strong against ultras and are also mobile. But I haven't seen much cyclone use. In any case, yes, it's a distinct unit.
What do you think about its design in general?
I think it's probably Blizzard best attempt at adding to an already fully fleshed out race.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Probably I'd reduce the casting range of the circle
|
1.Anti muta/phoenix, zone control and all-ins.
2. For Zerg I would say corrupters but hydras are even better if you can backstab the liberators(walking around/drops/nydus). For Terran I'd say vikings or marines if they can outposition like hydras. For Protoss I'd say carriers or possibly stalkers, same as hydras/marines.
3. Yes I believe so unless its defender mode is nerfed in someway that makes its all-in and harass utility less pronunced.
4. I'm undecided on this issue, too hard of a call to make at the moment.
5. Definitely a support unit, as a massable unit it should be counterable by air units that are indivudally stronger like corrupter/carrier/viking/battlecruiser. This is as it should be
6.Depends on its strength as all-in/harass, now when the upgrade is added I believe its fine without a tech-lab but it depends.
7. It overlaps a lot, however I believe that is a good thing, its supposed to be a situational support unit that you can always get a few and use well regardless of the situation. I really like that line of thought, I feel it could be similar to how you some games gets 1 infestor, 1 raven or 1-2 tanks. Its getting a unit that you can use regardless for the utility/safety it provides. This makes the game more fun to play and watch and adds more things to do when playing and appreciating when watching. Its great to be used as AA or zone control but I would not like to see it in mass. I'd like the game to steer away from stale compositions of all roaches/stalkers/marines and deathballs and instead move towards skirmishes with a great variation of composition.
8. As a utility unit I love it, but for some reason it is not being used as such and therefore I dislike the way its used at the moment.
9. Undecided.
|
I lost count of the times the word 'topic' was used in the OP
|
I hate all units that replace old units and are designed with less decision making. So yeah Liberator die like the Tempest.
|
1.What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Complements mech army well in terms of AA, especially vs Zerg where mech is vulnerable to Muta early. Thors are slow, but Liberators are fairly fast and can defend well against Muta. Later on once the air threat is taken care of Liberators can act as a siege unit and allow the rest of the army to move into place while they zone out space.
2.What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Zerg: Corruptors, Vipers w/ parasitic bomb. I don't think Hydras can close the distance with Hellbats/Tanks in the army composition.
Protoss: Tempests can outrange the siege mode, Carriers are good. Blink Stalkers might be good early against Liberator rushes but like Hydras I don't think they'll be able to get in close enough once Hellbats/Tanks are out.
Terran: Vikings. There's really no other way to engage the siege mode. I don't see the AA mode being used in this matchup.
3.Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Yes. It's very strong and provides added functionality to a unit that's already got great functionality out of the gate (dedicated anti-muta unit). Without the research, Liberator rushes might be a bit too strong against non-air openers.
4.Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
It's hard to say what the cost should be. Cost can stay the same and stats can change. Or stats can stay the same and cost can change. I'm open to either, as long as it's balanced.
5.Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
My gut feeling is that it SHOULD be a support unit... something to add to a mech army to help with AA.
I think we will know it's too strong if people start basing their armies around it.
6.Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
They should require a tech lab. The versatility and somewhat cheap cost make reactoring them out a little silly IMO.
7.Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
Terran mech lacks an early answer to Muta... but that said Terrans in HotS are doing just fine against Zerg.
I think against Zerg you'll see them used against Muta and against Protoss they will fill the role that most meching Terrans would like the Siege Tank to occupy: high single target damage from long range.
8.What do you think about its design in general?
I don't like how big it is (looks wise) and I feel that its role overlaps with the Tank too much (air to ground mode). I think for 150/150 (same cost as a disruptor) it's providing too much value.
9.If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
I don't think the ground attack needs to exist. With the Immortal nerf, Colossus nerf, and the introduction of the Cyclone, I think mech vs. Protoss is more viable than ever. And vs. Zerg Liberator AA and Tanks synergize well.
HUGE EDIT - THE CIRCLE SHOULD NOT GIVE VISION.... make them require some sort of spotter like they do for Siege Tanks and Protoss does for Tempests.
TLDR; This unit should have the ground attack removed and be renamed the Valkyrie, but I just don't think it needs to exist...
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Anti mass muta
To prevent deathball
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
ravager (tho inefficient; and sometimes impossible in early game due to long range), corruptor/viper later
stalkers, voidray
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
yes, from fusion core
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
cost yes, but build time could be increased (considering it's reactored)
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
support
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?tech lab would be better
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
overlaps, but not that hard
What do you think about its design in general?
a little shabby, because it creates many opportunities very early, especially vsZ, where he needs to defend vs too many possible openings: hellbats, banshees, tank drops, widow mine drops, early bio pushes, early air harass, early ground harass. Some of them should be pushed later, or easier to scout, or less powerful, or less cost efficient.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
reduce the AG attack range to ~10, reduce damage to less than 1-shot hydras;
reduce their movement speed: 10-15%
|
Serious question though...
Does mech really need an anti-Muta unit? Muta are basically the only thing that Zergs have to play against Mech and delay bases, harass, etc. Does Terran really need an anti-Muta unit that ALSO one-shots Hydras?
That seems a bit silly...
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37018 Posts
|
DinoMight Profile Blog PM Joined June 2012 United States2510 Posts
6 minutes ago #34
Serious question though...
Does mech really need an anti-Muta unit? Muta are basically the only thing that Zergs have to play against Mech and delay bases, harass, etc. Does Terran really need an anti-Muta unit that ALSO one-shots Hydras?
That seems a bit silly...
unless they buff SH to be a viable harass unit. CC killer.
or reduce the Nydus cost to be viable as harass.
they can do stuff, if they want the game to be balanced. but I'm not so sure they do. think about other Blizz games, and the rotation they use for buff/nerf classes. nevertheless, SC should be the one franchise to NOT receive the same treatment. SC is supposed to be the ultimate tool of measuring a gamer's skill.
|
I mean think about it...
For 150/150 you can have a Disruptor, or a Liberator.
|
Austria24417 Posts
If you guys include your twitter accounts (provided you have accounts!) in your replies, we can shout them out on twitter if your replies are interesting!
|
As a random Archon GM player, here are my thoughts:
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Liberators were great as early game harass, but now not so much. There will be a couple timing pushes with them, and they are fantastic killing muta balls.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Protoss - early game requires a couple blink stalkers or a well placed pylon for the MSC to overcharge. Later, either ignore them or engage with carrier / tempest.
Zerg - Early game requires a decent creep spread, a spore at each base, and 1-2 ravagers. Later in the game corrupters are good vs low numbers, ling runbys with a ling/bling/hydra core with a fight before the mass siege up.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
It should not be a researchable upgrade. The early game impact is too small for a heavy early investment, cutting down the nearly worthless harass possible and is also easily thwarted by a couple pieces of static D or a dedicated AA flyer.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
If the liberators require research to unlock, then 150/150 is far too much. They don't provide all that much excess value to your army en masse unless dealing with a mass air opponent or a ling / bling / x opponent where you can snipe banelings. If the upgrade cost is removed, the high price (150/150) is necessary to limit their early game push potential.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Liberators are definitely a support unit
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
It seems fine to me as the general transition is directly into medivacs with a couple vikings.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
While it does overlap with other units in the terran arsenal, it fills several roles.
1. It is good versus mobbed air
2. It's a flying siege tank with shorter range and 1HKO instead of splash
3. It can harass on its own, but cannot do game ending damage
What do you think about its design in general?
Meh, it's an interesting early game unit but it really doesn't have amazing presence in late game armies unless you're facing mass air.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Revert to armory for the unlock ability.
|
Silver Zerg here. Just my thoughts but letting you guys know it's from an amateur
1.What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Plenty. Drone harass, base siege or defense, extra damage to air, etc.
2.What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
I originally thought ravagers were the right counter to liberators, but Terrans are now getting better at microing their liberators to avoid corrosive bile. Ex. when an engagement starts, Terrans won't siege their liberators until after the ravager uses corrosive bile. So ravagers don't really counter liberators anymore, rather they create a stalematel: Zerg can't use corrosive bile and Terran can't siege. One interesting thing, though, is that a player with good micro can weasel themselves out of this ex. a Zerg player can corrosive bile and then run away while the liberators siege.
3.Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
As a Zerg I don't think it really matters. If it is not researchable, I'll get roaches when I see a starport since I'll need ravagers to deal with banshee/medivacs anyways.
4.Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
I think that it's in a good place. The high cost prevents a Terran from massing up and, if used well, it's definitely worth the cost.
5.Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
I think a bit of both. It has high damage output and it can definitely hold it's own with it's anti-air, so it gives the terran a lot of space to work. At the same time, if a terran were to go mech, he may rely on siege tanks more than liberators so the liberator would just serve as a support unit in this case.
6.Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
I'm not sure. I think they should put the liberator in a place in the tech tree where it would be a good complement to bio play. Whether that's armory or tech lab I'm not sure.
7.Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
I wouldn't say that it fills a missing hole, but that it opens up a new realm of options. It's similar to ravager in that because it is such a great support unit, it opens up a new world of different timings for the Terran.
8.What do you think about its design in general?
I love it. I think it's positional nature makes it a strong tactical unit. Also it opens up options for the zerg to micro against with Ravagers. I think it'll be real fun to play with and against in the future.
9.If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Decrease anti-air damage output by either decreasing dps or decreasing splash radius. It's kind of crazy against mutas and phoenixes. If the splash radius was decreased, it would be nice cuz then I'd be able to spread out my mutas to better deal with it.
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
I think Liberators will mostly see use in securing strategic locations like alternate attack paths and expansions. They’ll also see good use in sieging your opponent when you can’t kill a defensive player but it will allow the Terran to expand freely while knowing their opponent is stuck making units to be able to break their siege. They’ll also see use in mid-late game mineral line harassment with the current implementation of the anti-ground mode.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
For Terran, Vikings are pretty good at dealing with Liberators while they’re in anti-ground mode, and Marines in high numbers can deal with them effectively if they can get in range due to the huge overkill Liberators have on Marines.
Zerg has Ravagers which can 3-shot Liberators and Mutalisks while the Liberators are in anti-ground mode. If there is a particularly heavy usage of Liberators in large numbers, Corruptors can also be a decent answer to them due to their higher Armor able to soak up more Liberator shots if they clump up.
Protoss can deal with them with Phoenix when they’re initially out, but once the numbers get high enough a transition into Tempests seems necessary since they aren’t as susceptible to their Anti-Air mode and can attack from a distance. The only issue with Tempests is that they’re slow to get and slow to move so Terran has a good timing window during this transition to get good damage in if the Protoss makes the transition too early. Stalkers aren’t really a viable option since they should not be able to get under Liberators (even with Blink) if there is ground bio support.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
I believe it should be a reachable upgrade, but obviously not as early as it was pre-Tech Lab patch. Though, currently, I think it would be better to make the upgrade on the Armory. Having the upgrade on the Tech Lab makes it so Terran has to not only dedicate resources to the unit, but also time that could be better used in making one of bio’s core units: the Medivac. I think having an Armory would be better as it would be a smoother transition into Liberators for the later stage of the game, while also giving Terran the option to dedicate more towards Liberators by getting an earlier Armory than standard to get the upgrade faster for either a harass or siege strategy.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
This seems like a good cost. It’s a decent gas sink for bio play pre-Ghosts in TvP, and in general a good gas dump in the TvZ match up. I feel like they will be used in less numbers in TvT so the gas dump issue isn’t as strong there. I would like them to be more like 100/175 or something where they are not as mineral heavy since their usage in bio can really drain the bio count, and bio needs more gas dumps to have a more balanced spending quotient. I’m not sure how this will affect mech, since I don’t know how much they are used in that playstyle. If making them more gas intensive makes mech less viable, then 150/150 could be fine.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
I think it’ current implementation makes a really good core unit. An issue I have with it now is that it kind of replaces the Siege Tank in many ways. To remedy this, I think the Liberator should get a slightly slower attack speed and the Siege Tank should lose its ability to be dropped while sieged and get a damage upgrade to create more of a distinction in their usage.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
I agree they should be a reactored unit since, to make their anti-air property useful, they need to be in a large enough number. Also, making them a Tech Lab unit would make making liberators too much of a tech decision, rather than as an option, and would reduce the medivac count significantly.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
I think it currently overlaps with the Siege Tank a bit. As I said earlier, I would rather have a less mobile, stronger Siege Tank in the Terran arsenal for a good AoE anti-deathball unit, while the Liberator be more focused on killing larger, high-armored units such as Ultralisks, Archons, Thors, etc. This would create a nice distinction between these two siege options and would give Terrans more options to opt for one over the other.
What do you think about its design in general?
I think the design is interesting. It’s a nice form of anti air-ground for larger units that doesn’t really exist in the game maybe outside of Void Rays, but has a good distinction from other air units in the game of being a siege unit (outside of the Tempest, though I believe the Liberator does a much greater job at being a siege unit over the Tempest).
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Make it attack slower, maybe with a bit more damage to balance out the DPS. This would make it worse vs smaller, massable units and stronger vs larger, high armored targets. To supplement this, as I’ve said before, would be to make the Siege Tank not pick-up or droppable in siege mode while giving it higher damage in the AoE aspect to give it a clearer, more distinct role in the game.
|
On October 01 2015 23:27 DinoMight wrote:
I mean think about it...
For 150/150 you can have a Disruptor, or a Liberator.
I think you're using that to argue that the liberator is really cheap? But I'm not sure your point comes across that well, because I don't think it's very obvious whether disruptors or liberators are stronger. Certainly liberators are better against disruptors than vice versa, but which has more potential to be a total blowout in a battle? I'd say it's unclear at best.
Compared to a battlecruiser, a liberator technically has quite a bit higher DPS, but since that DPS will rarely be active since it requires your enemy to stand in a circle while you shoot them, they wind up having a lot less utility. Overall I think it makes sense for a liberator to cost about half of a battlecruiser. Technically that would be 200/150, not 150/150, but that's a really silly thing to make a fuss over. Surely no one actually thinks that would be an issue.
Some stats about the liberator I'd be interested to see added to the OP:
-The radius of the Defender Mode circle
-The splash radius of the AA attack
-the cooldown of the both attacks and the DPS of Defender MODE (since it's a little weird to report DPS on a splash attack)
|
I don't think that the Liberator is a particularly good or bad unit. They're a flying siege tank with all the weaknesses which that entails.
Interesting for sure, but certainly it's hard to use them right.
|
None of these questions matter because without a strong liberator, terran is useless. The only "hole" the liberator filled was giving Terran a unit that is so cost efficient that it makes up for the lack of tier-2 and tier-3 units at its disposal. Currently, every other race is much more efficient early game, and have powerful units to build when they get to the late game. The thor is awful for the cost and build time, the tank is too weak against all the fast units that can get right in its face, the mines are gimmicky, BCs take too long to get to, and the cyclone does nothing. There is and was a reason why bio has always been the mainstay of Terran and its because there is nothing else for them to build.
|
The hole that the liberator fills was artificially created through the ultralisk buff and the marauder change. It might lead to a healthy transition dynamic for bio-play, so that you will eventually go into different units than MMM as your core army. it was however not necessary to introduce a new unit for this, because multiple terran units would have offered that potential. Worst of all thisdynamic enforces the usage of ultralisks as zerg player, the most boring unit blizzard has ever created with close to zero micropotential and questionable movement behaviour on the usual starcraft maps.
|
@Guillermoman, current Terran HotS Diamond and former Master player. I usually only lurk on TL, but when it comes to the Liberator, I have used it a lot in all matchups and I have some perspectives that haven't been mentioned yet.
1. What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
I will break down its utilization for each matchup, since it serves a different purpose.
Vs Terran:
Initially (pre-upgrade) there were rushes to get Liberators sieged on your mineral line; however, Viking openings to counter tank drops also counter this play too. Vikings kill Liberators 1 on 1 but the Liberator can run away. I think in its current form early game Liberators won't be seen anymore.
Later in the game, Liberators will be more useful. The siege mode is really good at forcing tanks to unsiege, but with Medivacs these can be moved out of range. While few should be seen by each player in the Marine Tank mirror match, there may be strategies where bio players try to get air control and mix in a few Liberators to combat mech.
For mech compositions, Liberators have quite a bit of viability vs other mech players. To start, players will make Vikings with a Raven in support, but the later it goes there is pressure to switch to Liberators. Liberators in higher volumes (8+) can shred mass Viking with AoE and have the speed to pursue. Also interesting to note is that Raven PDD also negates Liberator shots; this allows a player to make only Vikings and punish a player during their transition to Liberators. Also, the siege mode is important as mech won't have the Medivacs to avoid the circle. So in mech vs mech it is more of a late game unit but it will be quite popular.
Vs. Zerg:
Opening 3 CC Liberator is not quite as safe after the upgrade was included, but is still viable. Especially on Orbital Shipyard, opening with 2 Liberators and a wall can hold early aggression, but Siege Tank drops are a safer opener. Liberator/Hellion timings can hit, but you have fewer Liberators as you can't immediately open with double Liberator production.
However, if you get past the opening with Liberators it provides for a really strong midgame. For mech, Liberators have replaced Vikings in the midgame as the go-to air unit to support the ground army. Once you get 8+ Liberators you can shred Corruptors and Mutas. These are really strong for any pre-Hive timing.
Zerg does have the ability to completely punish a high Liberator count at Hive because Viper's Parasitic Bomb 2 shots the Liberators and they tend to clump a lot (as a bit of an aside it is hard for me to identify which Liberator(s) has Parasitic Bomb on it with the current animation). Liberators in siege mode in theory should be strong against Ultralisks but in reality it is very hard to get the Ultralisks in the circle and it still takes six shots. Also, if Zerg goes for Broodlords alongside Vipers you lose if you only have Liberators because of the Viper's effectiveness and the accompanying mass Corruptor
Vs. Protoss:
I am sure that Liberators are also really good in the midgame utilizing siege mode. If you are able to survive early Adept timing attacks, Liberators really flip the HotS script on TvP. Liberators give bio play the heads-up strength that it hasn't had since the WoL 1-1-1 (which isn't really bio anyway). The move from Armory to an upgrade has made it hard to fit in the Defense Mode upgrade, but you can Reaper expand into 2 gas geysers to rush out Defense Mode. It is almost like you're Protoss forcing out Thermal Lance on 2 base. Liberators plus Meditanks are what Terran desperately needed to fight Protoss armies.
2. What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Protoss: Stalker, Phoenix, Carriers (late game)
Terran: Viking, Marine
Zerg: Ravager and Mutalisk early, Corruptor and Viper late 2 (Parasitic Bombs wrecks Liberators so hard)
3. Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
I think the move to an upgrade from Armory is what was needed to balance it early game vs Zerg.
4. Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
I think the cost makes sense. It is not too much gas to be dissuaded from Mech but also not too mineral intensive for Bio either.
5. Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
TvT: support unit
TvZ: support unit
TvP: core unit
6. Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Yes. This is a strong midgame unit in TvZ and TvP. Requiring a techlab will require 2-3 starports instead of the one currently required for production, and no Terran build will be able to
7. Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
8. What do you think about its design in general?
I think the Liberator is by far the best unit in the expansion. This unit is exactly what Terrans were missing in WoL and HotS for providing positional support, while its high single shot damage pairs nicely with the Siege Tank splash damage. If Blizzard isn't going to give high single target damage to the Siege Tank, this works as an alternative. I also like the air splash damage attack against
9. If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
The only suggestion I would have is to remove Liberator sight from the circle in siege mode and rebalance around that. With that change it might be able to go back to Armory unlock. The range sight is what makes the harassment option strong.
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
It's more of a harass unit in the early game, and a powerful zoning tool that allows Terran to entrench itself and do anything from turtle on multiple bases to hold a position outside it's opponents army. It reinforces the power of Terran pre-splitting and setting up a forward position, which your opponent can't really do anything to stop.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Speaking from strictly a Zerg perspective, Corruptors are really the only option in the late game. But in the early game, if they're in small numbers, ravagers can potentially deal with them effectively.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
If they decreased the distance the liberator has to be to it's circle (target area), then I would be okay with Defender Mode being a free ability. However, if they're going to continue to maintain the liberator as it is, then it should continue to be researchable.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
The cost seems fine. If they make Defender Mode free, gas cost should increase to 150/200. But if it continues to be an upgrade you purchase then the cost is fine.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Definitely more of a support unit.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Once again, returning to the condition of a researchable Defender's Mode, if it needs to be researched, then Liberators producing from reactors is fine. But if Defender's Mode comes free, then I believe it should require a tech lab.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
It overlaps. The aoe is approachable with Thor's AA or addressable by the Raven. It's siege capabilities overlap with the siege tank and, to some extent, severely outperform the siege tank.
What do you think about its design in general?
It's an unnecessary unit to add to the Terran arsenal due to how many overlaps it makes with other Terran units, but it's tolerable...
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
Honestly, I would scratch the unit completely. But since that's unlikely, I would address the firing rate of the Liberator in it's siege mode to be slower, maybe even take a look at the damage it deals while in it. I would also decrease the distance the Liberator can be from it's target area so that it can be easier to deal with.
|
1.What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
I see the liberator being used against muta and phoenix for its air aoe. On the ground, it is an amazing unit. TOO GOOD in my opinion.
2.What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
ravager, corruptor, void rays, carriers, viking
3.Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
If this has to be kept in the game then yes
4.Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
More expensive
5.Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Support Unit
6.Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
no
7.Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
I think the liberator takes the role of the bee early game with its mineral line harassment. However, it is much much much less fun to watch and doesn't take as much skill. I think its air aoe was needed to combat large muta balls in tvz and phoenix in pvt, but I think the ground attack takes many aspects of the banshee and tank.
8.What do you think about its design in general?
I think it is a clunky and uninteresting unit. I think the unit should have 1 attack. That's hits both air and ground (like the tempest) but doing aoe to both. There is no air unit in the game (exception of seeker missle) that deals aoe to ground units. Something like a long range archon attack. I think the anti-ground mode promotes stale play as people will sit outside opponents bases with the ground mode activated and try to force their opponents to attack into them by using siege tanks in conjunction with them.
9.If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
See above...Terran needs a BIO UNIT. Remove either the cyclone or liberator (preferable cylclone because it is just super marauder from the factory). Bio has become so weak with the marauder change, the disruptors and super ultras.
|
I wrote @iaguzSC2 for mine at the start, WHERE MAH SHOUTOUTS AT BROS?
|
Overlaps too much and thus is clumsy design. Scrap it or design it to do a niche like nearly all other tier 2/3 units.
***This consult was given free of charge***
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Harrasment, forcing armies into a spot where they dont want to go (liberators are extremely imba)
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Z Vipers P Tempest or Carriers T Vikings?
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
ABSOLUTELY
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
More expensive, 100/200
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Liberator is very IMBA nerf DMG already. (Legacy of the Liberators)
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Absolutely NOT
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
Terran doesn't have a hole in its arsenal
What do you think about its design in general?
Design in general is good but needs SEVERE TWEAKING AND NERFING
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
Zoning, leap-frogging siege and anti-muta balls.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Corruptors, ravagers (early game), blink stalkers, void rays, carriers, vikings.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
Yes. Otherwise all maps need to be designed so there's no possibility of an early Liberator sitting on the back of the mineral line, harrassing without any real counter.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
The cost seems very middle of the road and I'm ok with it. As is, it's clearly better for bio compositions than mech (it's a bit too gas expensive). I wouldn't mind seeing it changed depending on which type of army needs it more (125/175 to support bio better, 200/100 to help it become a core mech unit).
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
Support for bio and core for mech, since mech lacks reliable anti air (mines are too random, thor and viking are just not good enough against mutas).
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
Yes. Being "reactorable" and defender mode requiring an upgrade is the perfect place to be IMO.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
It overlaps with Thor and the siege tank. Kinda outclasses both of them simply because it cannot be targeted by many ground-to-ground units these two often have trouble with (marauders, zealots, immortals, tanks, lings, even roaches...).
What do you think about its design in general?
A bit boring, but still much better than the tempest  I could grow to like it.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
TBH, I would have scrapped the unit and added a bio or bio-mech kind of unit. As it is, I'd change the Defender mode quite a bit: slightly reduce the range (too many long range units, overlaps with tank), nerf the base damage so it doesn't one shot a hydra and give it a small bonus damage against massive (there's no such unit in the terran arsenal? Would help against ultras). If the result is too underpowered, then I would reduce the cost.
|
1.dps down units with high armor like Ultralisks, early harass.
2.spore, vipers rekts air units / cannons, voidray, phoenix / more liberators!!!
3.yes, early liberators behind mineral lines was a low risk high reward strategy, it was way too quick and way too cost efficient.
4.150/150 is reasonable, maybe minor adjustments.
5.definitely a support unit.
6.no, if banshees and ravens requires a tech lab to build, then so should the liberator.
7.no
8.I personally don't like the design, just too different from anything before.
9.reduce the fire rate of liberators on defenders mode.
|
After losing a few games to liberators when I first got into beta I was all for following the ways of freedom and whisky. I hopped into a new game and built a massive fleet. My army obliterated everything in it's path. Until at last I arrived at the zerg natural.
And five vipers parastic bombed and killed 14 liberators GG.
I fight for the swarm now.
|
On October 03 2015 09:52 TheDougler wrote:
After losing a few games to liberators when I first got into beta I was all for following the ways of freedom and whisky. I hopped into a new game and built a massive fleet. My army obliterated everything in it's path. Until at last I arrived at the zerg natural.
And five vipers parastic bombed and killed 14 liberators GG.
I fight for the swarm now.
This story sounded extremely painful, but made me laugh as a Zerg. :D
|
On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote: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.
Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional [and resolved very fast]. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ).
Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva).
It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close).
|
On October 03 2015 19:12 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote: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. Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ). Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva). SC2 had (past tense just kidding) some good ideas but failed to implement them smartly. It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close).
Two things for the record:
1) I meant no offense using the past tense, and that sentence maybe should have read "...people who think BW was better-designed than SC2." In that sense, you could talk about WoL and HotS in the past tense, too.
2) I had no intention of initiating a BW vs. SC2 fight here. TL has had far too many of those, and they tend to consume any thread where they're allowed to take hold, so forgive me if I don't engage too much with some of your broader criticisms. Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that BW is better than SC2, just noting a common criticism of SC2 which I have most frequently heard from BW fans. So you might not find me as much of an ally as you're hoping on a lot of your "terrible terrible damage is everything wrong with SC2" or "Dustin Browder doesn't know anything about Starcraft" claims. Personally I like SC2 quite a bit.
|
On October 03 2015 19:28 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 19:12 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On October 01 2015 11:16 ChristianS wrote: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. Yes and it goes one step further : while SC2 gets players to gather big deathball army and clash balls (lol), the deathball fight itself is generally simplified and shortened by the way units move (too small collision, auto surround, often too short attack recovery, too simple movement. unique movement characteristics are missing for units like inertia, melee sticks & repeatedly attacks too easily, zealots charging are uncontrollable... the design "philosophy" was "terrible, terrible damage", opportunities for units to easily just unleash a massive damage bomb very fast), making even big fights a lot less positional. These reasons are some of the core of why BW is better (personnally I think it's best to stop refering to older games in past tense, they are still there^^ by this logic any game that came out earlier than today is past? ). Some other reasons though : much better general race design (more globally thought, so that individual "hero units" // hard counters don't keep breaking the game and every race has unique and diverse playstyles available). And better macro economics (the rate at which you gather resources per worker, the way you produce workers, the absence of things that break economy progression such as Mules or spawn larva). SC2 had (past tense just kidding) some good ideas but failed to implement them smartly. It definitely has to do with the producers will to create a game that caters to a certain crowd (low risk financial gain), and also with the fact people like Dustin Browder have a much lesser understanding of Starcraft & generally RTS compared to any seasoned bw gamer, so the head of development are unable to match quality, let alone improve, on the previous game (which in all honesty is extremely hard to best, no developer yet has come close). Two things for the record: 1) I meant no offense using the past tense, and that sentence maybe should have read "...people who think BW was better -designed than SC2." In that sense, you could talk about WoL and HotS in the past tense, too. 2) I had no intention of initiating a BW vs. SC2 fight here. TL has had far too many of those, and they tend to consume any thread where they're allowed to take hold, so forgive me if I don't engage too much with some of your broader criticisms. Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that BW is better than SC2, just noting a common criticism of SC2 which I have most frequently heard from BW fans. So you might not find me as much of an ally as you're hoping on a lot of your "terrible terrible damage is everything wrong with SC2" or "Dustin Browder doesn't know anything about Starcraft" claims. Personally I like SC2 quite a bit.
That's all right I wasn't expecting that you would agree or ally with me here, and I know you meant no offense with past tense. There are (good) reasons why these arguments have kept happenning. People knew when SC2 came out that bw was better but many wouldn't talk much about it because a lot of money was injected into a new competitive scene and everything controlled by the company. Day9 is an important example. But I don't want to blame him, his goal was to be an Esport ambassador and he did well. I don't think SC2 is a terrible game, but it is good not to over-hype it or overstate its quality. Further understanding of why / what is better helps people decide what they want to play and any future game designers to make better games.
I'll just add this little paragraph :
You know this thing with the past tense, I think there is this tendancy and it is in the advertisement and communication of the greedier companies like blizzard is now, they want us to view the latest release as the next best thing and whatever is previous to be forgotten (they intentionally destroyed the bw pro-scene, left battle.net public servers to die and stop supporting any tourneys long ago).
But the previous games are still all there. If WoL or HotS is better than LotV, that's what you should play. But all the eyes are on the thing that's put in front of everyone at the sponsored events. Does it matter? Community is very important. But it should be free from the $ interest of the companies.
It's important to say this I think, especially in an era where financial & market systems have made it difficult for quality games to be made by reasonable sized teams (small & medium companies). A lot of the games that came out the last 5-10 years are downgraded reiterations of some franchise, producing games industrially to make money out of it. There is little creativity anymore, and little love in making games. It has become financially focused. It is killing a lot of things in gaming, temporarily.
|
Liberators they need to be part of the core bio ball PvT for the sake of strategic depth and diversity. That's why I prefer liberators from reactors instead of tech lab.
|
added my twitter to post. nice to see so many detailed responses maybe blizz will listen to advice? :D
|
At the end of the the day. The idea of this unit is great. Something for a little answered role between the tank and the viking. However, in its current state, it is in fact, too strong. It's easy to get a vast quantity amount of them while they are extremely efficient. I think a nerf of 10-20% damage in defender mode strictly and the defender mode should be an upgrade via armory/starport tech lab.
|
On October 08 2015 00:07 UR.Solo wrote:
At the end of the the day. The idea of this unit is great. Something for a little answered role between the tank and the viking. However, in its current state, it is in fact, too strong. It's easy to get a vast quantity amount of them while they are extremely efficient. I think a nerf of 10-20% damage in defender mode strictly and the defender mode should be an upgrade via armory/starport tech lab.
Already is
|
After watching some more LotV, the Defender mode damage seems completely bonkers. This is much much better than the tank.
|
I don't have time to fill out the entire form but wanted to add my 2 cents on liberator. Full disclosure, I play as zerg so this is coming from that perspective.
My feelings are basically that at the moment, it is over powered. I don't ENTIRELY dislike the unit, although i don't feel like Terran needs more units like the siege tank that just "siege up" and dont require any huge amount of micro.
Problems I have with the unit:
1) In some cases, it can out range spores and queens and still hit drones.
2) It 3 shots queens, 1 shots drones, kills everything else pretty fast
3) It can be reactor'd out (a major problem)... requiring tech lab would be a good nerf IMO
4) It is extremely strong against zerg air when you have 3-4+ liberators
In summary, it can be reactor'd out early, has very strong attacks vs. air and ground units. I'm confident it will be nerfed again. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't happened already.
All of these things combined make it very strong against most things a zerg can do early game if it isn't scouted immediately.
|
On October 10 2015 05:11 Salteador Neo wrote:
After watching some more LotV, the Defender mode damage seems completely bonkers. This is much much better than the tank.
What you have to keep in mind is that it's much harder to get that damage to happen. If you have 10 tanks in a fight, you can count on having 10 times the damage output of one tank. If you have 10 liberators, you probably just spread out the circles to have 10 times the chance that your enemy will be in one of them.
|
1. Right now it seems to be mostly used for zoning tank lines. It does have uses against air units like mutas, but mostly it just dominates ground based comps. Especially when you get enough of the.
2. As a zerg player I can only speak for zerg, but Corruptors seem to be the way to kill them. However, corruptors are not a very good unit to sink supply into. Especially since liberators have a great anti-ground attack where as corruptors are useless pre Greater spire. So having to make corruptors is a bad thing.
3. Yes it should be an upgrade.
4. I don't know about the cost. Right now they are too good all around. They are very good at shutting down muta comps, but also very good at dealing with ground based comps. It seems weird to have a unit that can shut down air but then turn around and also shut down ground.
5. Right now it very much core. It is way better than vikings and way better than thors. It steps on those units a bit in the mid game. Only in the late game (against zerg) are vikings needed for things like BL or Vipers. Before then Liberators are the better choice.
6. In there current form they are too strong for a reactor.
7. No, right now it steps on the thor and the viking. It also steps on the siege tank a bit too. It can chase mutas meaning that the muta mobility vs the range of the thor is no longer an issue. It can be reactored so if you can keep ground based armies off of them they are much better than tanks at dealing with ground. Right now it doesn't do anything interesting are that was really needed.
8. I think it is not that well designed. it seems to be more about giving terran a second unit rather than add something new to the game. Hots introduced factory units and legacy did the same. I would rather see a new bio unit than simply promoting more mech. It's attack radius is way too large.
9. It's ground based attack is way too strong,, I would make it more about space control. It has no AA attack but can attack multiple ground based units at once when it sets up. It deals low damage but can be good at dealing with lategame harassment or just zoning out part of the map. Right now it is not very interesting and way too strong. In addition, it steps on 3 already existing units.
|
does viking/liberators work good in any match up? it should in theory without no real weaknesses
|
On October 14 2015 01:11 Garmer wrote:
does viking/liberators work good in any match up? it should in theory without no real weaknesses
First im Mid/High Master atm
Its hard to get so far but its not that bad in TvP
In TvZ Viper will rekt u if the Zerg is not bad
In TvT if he goes Mass marines will shred u too
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
It compliments terran bio by providing zoning power that requires the enemy to have anti air. It works wonderfully versus protoss ground and ultralisks.
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
Depends on the composition of their army. Vikings, Ravangers, Vipers, Corruptors, Pheonix and Tempest.
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
No. Just like the siege tank it should just come with this ability. However I think they should require a tech lab and have a research that allows it to be built with out a tech lab.
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
It's fine. This cost is definitely not unfair for what this unit does for terran.
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
It's an artillery unit just like a siege tank and colossus are.
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
It should be an upgrade from the tech lab that allows it to produce out of a reactor. I think terran should be able to spam these guys out throughout the game because they will need to be replaced. However having two early liberators in the beginning of the game is over powered.
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
With the buff of the ultralisk and the nerf of the marauder I think legacy created it's own gaping hole that the liberator fixed.
What do you think about its design in general?
Amazing. That being said I think it should not be able be an early game mineral harassment. It feels very abusive and cheesy.
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
nerf the range of the circle, allow it to siege-mode with out research, and have it require a tech lab but can be researched to be built from the reactor.
|
What strategic use do you think Liberators will have in LotV?
i think it shoudl be more like the valkyrie. nothing but taking over what other units coulda done
What units (from all three races) would you say are best equipped to deal with Liberators?
corruptor still sux so fuck this siht, vikings and stalkers i guess
Do you think Defender Mode should be a researchable upgrade?
i think it should be removed from the game because it fucks with banshee's role
Is the current unit cost (150/150?) in a good place, or should Liberators be more/less expensive?
aight
Do you see the Liberator as more of a support unit, or a core unit that you should build around?
support
Do you agree that Liberators should be built without an attached tech lab?
no
Does the current state of the unit fill a missing hole in the Terran arsenal or does it overlap with others?
overlaps with banshee, viking. make it more like the valkyrie
What do you think about its design in general?
meh rly. weird fuse of 2 existing units
If you could make any changes to the Liberator, which would it be?
make it more like the valk
|
The Liberator should be a support unit that helps zone out the opponents army. I like the changes that they've added, to put the range increase upgrade at the fusion core. This makes it not as overwhelming in the early game harass, and you'd really have to rush to fusion core in order to do that, which is a heavy gas investment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
