|
Hello everyone, decided to put this thread together to discuss something i feel is a gameplay issue in LOTV - air units from all 3 races are basically taking over the game.
Why is this an issue? Here is some background knowledge that is necessary:
A lot of you may know that throughout WOL and HOTS i play mech a lot and helped popularize the mass viking/raven late game versus Protoss and Zerg.
A lot of people that don't understand the game well or were just learning the game thought i was doing this because i wanted to the entire time or because it was broken. But the reason myself and a lot of other Terrans adopted this style of late game is because mech has no good anti-air unit in the game that can be made from the factory, likewise bio.
The only counter to an opponent who began amassing broodlord/infestor or mass carrier/tempest was to inevitably begin amassing starport units yourself - aka the viking and raven because BCS a lot of times were too difficult to get in a high quantity to compete.
There simply never was a way as a meching Terran to attack cost efficiently into those mass air compositions from the opponent, so you were forced into making air units yourself which of course stalls out the game making it take forever.
So what does that have to do with LOTV? Well, the above issue that forced myself and other mech Terrans to turtle into mass ravens...now is spreading to the entire game across all 3 races because every race now has air units that completely trump the ground anti-air from all other races.
I have played beta from the perspective of all 3 races, and when a Protoss begins to amass carriers and tempests with high templar underneath...there is no unit composition in the game of any race that can counter this from the ground.
When a Zerg begins to amass broodlords and mass amounts of vipers for parasitic bomb...no ground composition in the game can beat this or even compete against it when "they get there."
And wait for it...the same is true of Terran with liberators. Once Terran starts making mass liberators and gets up to that 10-12 mark...no ground army can beat this, especially once there's some support underneath them.
So a problem that originally was only an issue for mech vs Z/P...now has spread to the ENTIRE LOTV GAME. Maybe it is not so apparent now because the relative skill level of beta may not be high and games may not be going long on average...but from the games i've played and seen from the smarter players...games are already trending to accumulating your race's OP air unit.
This leads to stalemate types of games and not as much action because if one player gets enough of their OP air unit the person that has the bigger ground army no longer can do anything until they amass air themselves.
In some cases, such as T mech vs Z...you now autolose because those air units u need to counter your opponents (vikings) are all instantly killed from parasitic bomb.
This is not a good trend for LOTV gameplay. My opinion is that SC2 is meant to have action and ground armies fighting each other - not this amassing of air units where 4-6 carriers immediately make a 200/200 mech army or a 200/200 hydralisk army completely worthless (i played a PvZ game in beta and killed 55 hydras with 8 carriers and 8 high templar with no economy off 2 base and won the game -_-).
Blizzard may not understand this is an issue - it is APPARENT they do not understand this is an issue at all because in their last update yesterday on Oct. 15th they said they liked parasitic bomb and that carriers were fine essentially...
Does this SC2 community find this to be a problem? I suppose that is a question to everyone that plays this game. This is beta, this forum is meant for discussion and feedback, please give your thoughts about the discussion points i've provided.
If you agree with me that's great, maybe some anecdotes about your in-game play can point out the issue more to blizzard.
If you disagree with me that's great too, perhaps you have not run into these types of games or have a different gameplay experience, or have not run into this meta.
Summation: liberators, carriers, brood/viper are all too strong and there are no ground units from any race that can counter these units when they are amassed.
Perhaps air units need to be toned down, ground anti-air needs to be toned up, or a combination of both.
|
I fully agree with this statement, my personal solution to this was to just run around with cracklings and ultralisks. Straight up it seems impossible to beat air armies with ground.
|
- goliath
- scourge
- arbiter (better stasis)
sigh :\
|
Honestly, I think PB and the Liberator were meant to solve this issue by giving powerful anti-air tools that are not equal to their anti-ground functions. The Carrier simply is good vs both ground and air, but they are looking into nerfing it some -- the build time was a big thing, I'm interested to see what its reversion will do. Personally, though, I would have rather tried an increase in supply (starting with 8 per Carrier) -or- a reduction of max Interceptors per Carrier (to 6).
As far as PB is concerned, it takes a ton of energy, but is super strong. It has less of the affect of breaking up air balls as it does forcing a single unit away. I think if the radius was decreased, and/or was given various damage rates depending on how far away you are from the target unit, combined with a moderate energy cost decrease, it could be a more appropriate support against mass air.
As far as the Liberator is concerned, I think it should have more focus on its anti-air than its anti-ground aspect. Where to buff its anti-air, I don't know, maybe start with higher splash burst? There are a couple things I would like to see tested concerning its anti-ground. One of them is a simple radius decrease. The other is trading DPS and/or range for a faster transform time, to make it more of a skirmishing unit and differentiate it more from the Tank.
Another Liberator option is to completely get rid of its anti-ground capabilities (or at least make them Wraith-level), balancing it around its anti-air capabilities. In turn, the Thor could lose its anti-air and be given a second anti-ground mode that targets a zone with its cannons, similar to the Liberator.
As far as ground-to-air buffs are concerned, I'm interested to see what the Cyclone changes are going to do for Terran. For Zerg, I'm not entirely sure they need something depending on what the Carrier nerf(s) accomplish. Also, it's been tested, it takes absolutely forever for Carriers to kill Ultras on max vs max, so Zerg has a lot of base trade power there against mass Carrier (though nothing's stopping the Protoss from also making Void Rays if they scout and react well). I say just wait and see for Zerg and Terran. Maybe if Zerg is having some trouble, the Corruptor can get an anti-air or general damage/slow/SOMETHING ability in addition to its attack to replace Caustic Spray.
As far as Protoss is concerned, I'd really like to see a buff to the Stalker's anti-air tested, maybe accompanied by a decrease in their anti-ground capabilities or a cost increase (though I don't know if either actually necessary, that's what the testing is for). Honestly, once they get the Adept fine-tuned under its new design, I think Protoss Gateway will be fine on the ground, or at least the Stalker won't add much more than an Adept or Chargelot would do -- I just wish the Adept had more normalized damage instead of being super strong vs Light. I'm not saying equal damage Armored and Light, but just a little less Light and a little more Armored, that would give some wiggle room for changes to the Stalker.
I also wouldn't mind seeing some anti-air splash from the Tempest tested.
|
Yes this is a definite problem that has always existed and always been really frustrating to deal with when you're a player who prefers ground base play over air base play. I'm of the personal opinion that they should make ground to air stronger, rather than just nerfing sky units. I feel like adding a modifier like, "Does x bonus damage vs Flying" might be a good way to go. The sucky part of it is that it adds another layer of complexity to the game by adding another rule, but I think it would be a good solution.
Starcraft is supposed to be a game where every unit is viable from the moment it is made to the end game via upgrades and good control. Bio is the most apparent of this due to Stim and Combat Shield along with Engie Bay upgrades. With support from other high tier units such as the Medivac and Liberators, this let's this low tier army compete with higher tiers due to their upgrades. The point of upgrades is to essentially bump your Tier 1 and Tier 2 units to Tier 3 level.
When it comes to mass flying units, though, they feel like they're really a Tier 4 unit, which these units are unable to deal with. The problem with my solution, as far as I see, would be like if you made the Stalker do, as an example, +10 vs flying, you would only need 4 Stalkers to 2 shot a medivac instead of 6, and only 8 Stalkers to 1 shot a medivac instead of 12, which could cause problems in PvT. An argument could be made that, vs Bio, this could be a buff that would help Protoss deal with multi-pronged drop harass more effectively and deal with Liberators more effectively and is something toss needs, but I don't think that could be the best way to go about it.
Though nerfing specific air units could, in the long term, be the best solution, since you're just nerfing the capabilities of specific units rather than all air units, it would take a lot more time to fully balance the Carrier, Liberator, Viper, Tempest, etc rather than just adding a bonus damage to the core ground-air units. Also, the fact that Mutalisks are pretty important in ZvT for Zerg to harass and snipe off Medivacs, adding a special case could make this a very Terran favored situation if they were to add it to, say, the Thor.
It's a difficult situation to handle, and I don't know the absolute best way to go about it. I think both options are valid, but come with their own problems (as everything does). I don't think there can be a perfect solution.
Though, I can say, the Strength of air units should come from their mobility from not being affeced by terrain, not by their pure strength in DPS or ability to tank shots. Mutalisks and Phoenix are perfect example of this kind of strength, as they are good because they are very mobile units that can get in and out of combat to do damage, but aren't very good in a straight up fight.
|
I dont like the design of air units in SC2 in general. Air units in SC2 seem to be core units (Void Ray, Banshee, Viking, Corrupter) in comparison to broodwars air units which were support or harassment. But air units make horrible core units because they dont care at all about terrain, walls or chokes.
|
I agree. Maybe they can look to nerf the liberators AG mode somehow but improve the AA splash? Many times it feels like I need like 5+ liberators to take out a group of mutas.
|
On October 17 2015 04:34 CrazyBread92 wrote:
I agree. Maybe they can look to nerf the liberators AG mode somehow but improve the AA splash? Many times it feels like I need like 5+ liberators to take out a group of mutas.
considering you can make liberators out of reactors, is that a bad thing that you need 5+?
|
good points Avilo, I agree as well. Air units should be inherently weaker since they can dodge terrain. Every race needs some AA splash from the ground that is legit imho.
|
i agree that air units are too strong but some of the points you make are straight up silly, for example
On October 17 2015 03:23 avilo wrote:
(i played a PvZ game in beta and killed 55 hydras with 8 carriers and 8 high templar with no economy off 2 base and won the game -_-).
hydras arent supposed to counter storm, and that toss army is way more expensive than 55 hydras so its rly dumb to say this to make a point about air being too strong
|
On the topic of air units in general being too strong, I agree. I also think there are far TOO MANY air units in SC2.
With that said, as a Zerg player since BW, honestly I felt air was too strong ever since this beginning of SC2. This was a much bigger issue than it needed to be as a Zerg player, as with no true T1 anti air units, Zerg has always been a lil weaker to air units than the other races.
I feel that Zerg PB in lotv is intended to be an AIR COUNTER similar to how Dev/Scourge was in BW. A very strong air counter. Which, I believe is how it should be, not just for Zerg. All races should be able to reasonably defend against air. IMO, air should only have a huge advantage against unprepared/undefended locations.
In this case, I believe the problem for Zerg is not parasitic bomb directly, as it only kills OTHER AIR UNITS, rather it is the power of Broodlords alongside PB that is the problem, as BL allows the Zerg air army to turn from a harrassment/anti air force, to a complete offensive powerhouse.
If the developers insist on air units being as strong as they are in this game, I believe all races should have strong anti air such as PB.
With so many air units, especially super powerful air units that many are stronger than ground units, anti air should be a more reasonable option.
|
On October 17 2015 08:07 Spyridon wrote:
On the topic of air units in general being too strong, I agree. I also think there are far TOO MANY air units in SC2.
With that said, as a Zerg player since BW, honestly I felt air was too strong ever since this beginning of SC2. This was a much bigger issue than it needed to be as a Zerg player, as with no true T1 anti air units, Zerg has always been a lil weaker to air units than the other races.
I feel that Zerg PB in lotv is intended to be an AIR COUNTER similar to how Dev/Scourge was in BW. A very strong air counter. Which, I believe is how it should be, not just for Zerg. All races should be able to reasonably defend against air. IMO, air should only have a huge advantage against unprepared/undefended locations.
In this case, I believe the problem for Zerg is not parasitic bomb directly, as it only kills OTHER AIR UNITS, rather it is the power of Broodlords alongside PB that is the problem, as BL allows the Zerg air army to turn from a harrassment/anti air force, to a complete offensive powerhouse.
If the developers insist on air units being as strong as they are in this game, I believe all races should have strong anti air such as PB.
With so many air units, especially super powerful air units that many are stronger than ground units, anti air should be a more reasonable option.
They shouldve taken the opportunity to remove some of the air units in the game and nerf some aswel at the start of LoTV. Air units are the reason for the existence of turtle games and the worst part of sc2.
|
On October 17 2015 08:07 Spyridon wrote:
If the developers insist on air units being as strong as they are in this game, I believe all races should have strong anti air such as PB.
On October 17 2015 04:00 RoomOfMush wrote:
I dont like the design of air units in SC2 in general. Air units in SC2 seem to be core units (Void Ray, Banshee, Viking, Corrupter) in comparison to broodwars air units which were support or harassment. But air units make horrible core units because they dont care at all about terrain, walls or chokes.
These two posts sum up my thought on the matter.
Although I don't necessarily agree on the particular air units cited in RoomOfMush's post. Only the Void Ray attempts to be a true core unit.
|
On October 17 2015 08:18 91matt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 08:07 Spyridon wrote:
On the topic of air units in general being too strong, I agree. I also think there are far TOO MANY air units in SC2.
With that said, as a Zerg player since BW, honestly I felt air was too strong ever since this beginning of SC2. This was a much bigger issue than it needed to be as a Zerg player, as with no true T1 anti air units, Zerg has always been a lil weaker to air units than the other races.
I feel that Zerg PB in lotv is intended to be an AIR COUNTER similar to how Dev/Scourge was in BW. A very strong air counter. Which, I believe is how it should be, not just for Zerg. All races should be able to reasonably defend against air. IMO, air should only have a huge advantage against unprepared/undefended locations.
In this case, I believe the problem for Zerg is not parasitic bomb directly, as it only kills OTHER AIR UNITS, rather it is the power of Broodlords alongside PB that is the problem, as BL allows the Zerg air army to turn from a harrassment/anti air force, to a complete offensive powerhouse.
If the developers insist on air units being as strong as they are in this game, I believe all races should have strong anti air such as PB.
With so many air units, especially super powerful air units that many are stronger than ground units, anti air should be a more reasonable option. They shouldve taken the opportunity to remove some of the air units in the game and nerf some aswel at the start of LoTV. Air units are the reason for the existence of turtle games and the worst part of sc2.
They really just need to make some of the super powerful units cost more supply, especially the ones that are very strong when massed such as carriers and ravens. With parasitic bomb the way it is now I could see viper's supply being increased too.
|
4713 Posts
I think the problem lies in the fact that Blizzard made way too many siege range air units. A part of what balanced air in BW is that most of the units were fast, nimble, but low range. The low range is important because it meant the units had to take on certain risks to do damage, keeping the riks/reward ratio alive and making air units overall very skillful to use and very interesting overall.
From what I know, there were only 2 exceptions to that rule, guardians and carriers. However, despite being the same range as goliaths, the trusty mech were still generally cheaper, more mobile and easier to produce, and on open ground would still annihilate air. Air only really shined on maps were you could abuse cliffs, otherwise your units got shredded.
SC2 air units however don't share those characteristics, BLs have a frigging 225 health, and in HotS 9.5 range, more then a Thor.
As for Thor vs Carrier, well Thors just suck against capital ships even with high impact payload.
|
unfortunately i think it's too late to see blizzard fix the design of air units in sc2. the best i think we can hope for is that as lotv goes forward if mass air is clearly dominating fans will show their displeasure and we'll see mass air nerfed out of the meta. this probably means units like carriers, broods and BCs could slip back toward irrelevancy, but i think that's genuinely preferable to a bunch of mass air turtle garbage being legit top level play, which we saw hints of in tvz at the end of hots meta
|
On October 17 2015 09:03 Destructicon wrote:
I think the problem lies in the fact that Blizzard made way too many siege range air units. A part of what balanced air in BW is that most of the units were fast, nimble, but low range. The low range is important because it meant the units had to take on certain risks to do damage, keeping the riks/reward ratio alive and making air units overall very skillful to use and very interesting overall.
From what I know, there were only 2 exceptions to that rule, guardians and carriers. However, despite being the same range as goliaths, the trusty mech were still generally cheaper, more mobile and easier to produce, and on open ground would still annihilate air. Air only really shined on maps were you could abuse cliffs, otherwise your units got shredded.
SC2 air units however don't share those characteristics, BLs have a frigging 225 health, and in HotS 9.5 range, more then a Thor.
As for Thor vs Carrier, well Thors just suck against capital ships even with high impact payload.
Most air units in BW were also incredibly fragile for their cost and didnt do much damage against ground. Wraiths, Scouts and Mutalisks all had pitiful anti-ground DPS. Valkyries, Corsairs and Devourers did not have any secondary anti-ground attacks, and BC's, Guardians and Carriers, although powerful, still lost in an even engagement against g2a units.
In SC2 Banshees, Liberators, Void Rays and more are pretty powerful against ground. G2a also suffered pretty bad in SC2 compared to BW. No goliath, no Dragoons, no Hydras with explosive damage. All these units were very effective (in terms of damage type and attack range, note that all 3 of these units had attack range upgrades!) against most air units.
As I said earlier, Blizzard seems to try to make air units into core units but that simply doesnt work. Air units are boring when they become core.
|
On October 17 2015 08:31 oOOoOphidian wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 08:18 91matt wrote:On October 17 2015 08:07 Spyridon wrote:
On the topic of air units in general being too strong, I agree. I also think there are far TOO MANY air units in SC2.
With that said, as a Zerg player since BW, honestly I felt air was too strong ever since this beginning of SC2. This was a much bigger issue than it needed to be as a Zerg player, as with no true T1 anti air units, Zerg has always been a lil weaker to air units than the other races.
I feel that Zerg PB in lotv is intended to be an AIR COUNTER similar to how Dev/Scourge was in BW. A very strong air counter. Which, I believe is how it should be, not just for Zerg. All races should be able to reasonably defend against air. IMO, air should only have a huge advantage against unprepared/undefended locations.
In this case, I believe the problem for Zerg is not parasitic bomb directly, as it only kills OTHER AIR UNITS, rather it is the power of Broodlords alongside PB that is the problem, as BL allows the Zerg air army to turn from a harrassment/anti air force, to a complete offensive powerhouse.
If the developers insist on air units being as strong as they are in this game, I believe all races should have strong anti air such as PB.
With so many air units, especially super powerful air units that many are stronger than ground units, anti air should be a more reasonable option. They shouldve taken the opportunity to remove some of the air units in the game and nerf some aswel at the start of LoTV. Air units are the reason for the existence of turtle games and the worst part of sc2. They really just need to make some of the super powerful units cost more supply, especially the ones that are very strong when massed such as carriers and ravens. With parasitic bomb the way it is now I could see viper's supply being increased too.
i think a more elegant solution is separate air supply. supply nerfs won't ultimately fix the dichotomy between "good enough to make/too strong when massed" vs "not overpowered but also not worth making". it's like the new swarm host - they're theoretically useful, but the supply nerf, which was intended to end massing, also made them not really worth having
separate air supply will never actually happen, but i truly think it should happen
|
4713 Posts
Yep, I agree air units are boring when they become core units, and the only reason carriers became a honorable mention is because of how much micro one had to put into them to get the most out of them.
|
i agree something needs to be done but as a zerg we have few options to deal with air units. hope see some better changes to air battles.
|
1, Fully agree.
2, I prefer air units untouched, and i want to increase the anti-air power. However, Pararistic bomb needs a nerf: make it unstackable, decrease its effect range and its DPS.
|
For once, I agree with you. All 3 races need their air toned down a LOT.
P Carriers
T Liberators
Z - meh. Maybe a slight slight decrease to Parasitic Bomb damage, but it can be easily mitigated and isn't A-move. The other two are literally A-move.
PvP - You have no good options if the other person goes air and you went Robo. Also reduces value on Robo significantly. The reason why Hots worked out with robo is that massing tempests or carriers wasn't possible. Now, carriers are very massable, and once again, really annoying in mass.
ZvT - Mass liberators is freaking annoying. FREAKING.
ZvP - With HT and Carriers, you really don't have good options for killing mass Carriers.
How about give Corrupters more armor so they can tank and focus fire better?
|
On October 17 2015 11:02 Isarios wrote:
ZvP - With HT and Carriers, you really don't have good options for killing mass Carriers.
How about give Corrupters more armor so they can tank and focus fire better?
The two units that kill mass corruptors quickly for protoss are high templar and archons.
Considering storm damage goes through armor and armor doesn't do much against archon's high damage, I think there needs to be an alternative.
|
On October 17 2015 09:29 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 08:31 oOOoOphidian wrote:On October 17 2015 08:18 91matt wrote:On October 17 2015 08:07 Spyridon wrote:
On the topic of air units in general being too strong, I agree. I also think there are far TOO MANY air units in SC2.
With that said, as a Zerg player since BW, honestly I felt air was too strong ever since this beginning of SC2. This was a much bigger issue than it needed to be as a Zerg player, as with no true T1 anti air units, Zerg has always been a lil weaker to air units than the other races.
I feel that Zerg PB in lotv is intended to be an AIR COUNTER similar to how Dev/Scourge was in BW. A very strong air counter. Which, I believe is how it should be, not just for Zerg. All races should be able to reasonably defend against air. IMO, air should only have a huge advantage against unprepared/undefended locations.
In this case, I believe the problem for Zerg is not parasitic bomb directly, as it only kills OTHER AIR UNITS, rather it is the power of Broodlords alongside PB that is the problem, as BL allows the Zerg air army to turn from a harrassment/anti air force, to a complete offensive powerhouse.
If the developers insist on air units being as strong as they are in this game, I believe all races should have strong anti air such as PB.
With so many air units, especially super powerful air units that many are stronger than ground units, anti air should be a more reasonable option. They shouldve taken the opportunity to remove some of the air units in the game and nerf some aswel at the start of LoTV. Air units are the reason for the existence of turtle games and the worst part of sc2. They really just need to make some of the super powerful units cost more supply, especially the ones that are very strong when massed such as carriers and ravens. With parasitic bomb the way it is now I could see viper's supply being increased too. i think a more elegant solution is separate air supply. supply nerfs won't ultimately fix the dichotomy between "good enough to make/too strong when massed" vs "not overpowered but also not worth making". it's like the new swarm host - they're theoretically useful, but the supply nerf, which was intended to end massing, also made them not really worth having separate air supply will never actually happen, but i truly think it should happen
The current swarm host would be fine to make if it cost a lot less. At the moment it's just a combination of many weaknesses in the unit that make it not viable. Relative to their power, they feel like they take up a fairly reasonable amount of supply for a harass squad, but they are just overpriced given that is their only use.
The supply nerf to swarm hosts along with the cooldown forcing them to be useless in typical engagements makes massing them a bad choice. They can easily accomplish similar nerfs with other units that they want to avoid people turtling to and massing.
|
Another reason to why the game is so volatile because the interaction between air and ground units is so lopsided to the former. Never understood this design philosophy because ground vs ground or ground vs air is alot more interesting than the inevitable air to air.
|
The only dominant air units in 4+ years of SC2 gameplay were - for a time - Broodlords. Anything else was reactive - Viking vs P, Phoenix vs Z - gimmicky or outright useless. I lack the LOTV beta experience some people in this thread possess; but I'd really like to give it some time and wait, if air units really become relevant in code A/code S gameplay.
|
yeah, but that's an inherent design issue when you put powerful AtG units into an RTS game. If such units are to be viable then there cannot be an easy solution to them. It also has massive balance implications. Say the broodlord is counterable by a "goliath". well then Im not going to make costly T3 unupgraded broodlords when you have factories. the way to kill your tankline then has to be frontal attacking, the very thing we dont want with positional units.
avilo is right on the issue, but it's deeply rooted in the game and given the economy the focus is always on unitcounters, thereby forcing you to have viable AtG to counter dominant GtG.
|
On October 17 2015 17:24 Big J wrote:
yeah, but that's an inherent design issue when you put powerful AtG units into an RTS game. If such units are to be viable then there cannot be an easy solution to them. It also has massive balance implications. Say the broodlord is counterable by a "goliath". well then Im not going to make costly T3 unupgraded broodlords when you have factories. the way to kill your tankline then has to be frontal attacking, the very thing we dont want with positional units.
avilo is right on the issue, but it's deeply rooted in the game and given the economy the focus is always on unitcounters, thereby forcing you to have viable AtG to counter dominant GtG.
It doesnt have to be hard counters. BW has proven that A2G and G2A can be balanced with the goliaths and carriers. Sometimes the Carriers won and sometimes it was the Goliaths. It came down to skill. But in the open ground with even footing the G2A always had the upper hand and that is how it should be. Air units should be strong for abusing the terrain not because they are simply strong in general.
Furthermore, carriers were a really good air unit because you didnt need to actually kill the carrier itself, you could kill the interceptors. Killing interceptors cost protoss money and makes the carriers weaker to the point of being useless. This is not possible with broodlords or liberators. You HAVE to get up close and personal with these guys.
|
On October 17 2015 18:09 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 17:24 Big J wrote:
yeah, but that's an inherent design issue when you put powerful AtG units into an RTS game. If such units are to be viable then there cannot be an easy solution to them. It also has massive balance implications. Say the broodlord is counterable by a "goliath". well then Im not going to make costly T3 unupgraded broodlords when you have factories. the way to kill your tankline then has to be frontal attacking, the very thing we dont want with positional units.
avilo is right on the issue, but it's deeply rooted in the game and given the economy the focus is always on unitcounters, thereby forcing you to have viable AtG to counter dominant GtG. It doesnt have to be hard counters. BW has proven that A2G and G2A can be balanced with the goliaths and carriers. Sometimes the Carriers won and sometimes it was the Goliaths. It came down to skill. But in the open ground with even footing the G2A always had the upper hand and that is how it should be. Air units should be strong for abusing the terrain not because they are simply strong in general. Furthermore, carriers were a really good air unit because you didnt need to actually kill the carrier itself, you could kill the interceptors. Killing interceptors cost protoss money and makes the carriers weaker to the point of being useless. This is not possible with broodlords or liberators. You HAVE to get up close and personal with these guys.
economy, economy, economy
|
I agree, air is too strong. There are too many air units to begin with.
|
On October 17 2015 06:17 cactus555 wrote:i agree that air units are too strong but some of the points you make are straight up silly, for example Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 03:23 avilo wrote:
(i played a PvZ game in beta and killed 55 hydras with 8 carriers and 8 high templar with no economy off 2 base and won the game -_-).
hydras arent supposed to counter storm, and that toss army is way more expensive than 55 hydras so its rly dumb to say this to make a point about air being too strong
His point is that Hydras are meant to be Anti-Air in a zerg ground army. Not sure why the Zerg didn't build corrupters but, but I guess that furthers his point as to the only counter to air units in the game is other air units.
|
4713 Posts
I'm surprised this hasn't been suggested yet, but perhaps Hydra and Archon attacks should be split into two attacks, a ground to ground and a ground to air. That way you can leave archon and hydra ground range the same but you could buff the hydra's and archon anti-air range to the point where they become viable threats against air units, it would help tremendously against mass mutas and even in the late game scenarios against BL, Tempests, etc.
You could even experiment with hydras having a small aoe on their anti-air attack, that way they could be a significant threat to muta balls and might be able to kill interceptors faster. You could even buff the anti-air damage of both units if its needed. The change just has so much potential.
|
Great post, great step forward in generating discussion.
From a terran perspective, I think there should be consistency in design - parasitic bomb should work like HSM, where you have the opportunity to micro and mitigate/negate the damage completely. Vipers trivialise sky armies.
Protoss air is problematic as well, carriers counter the units that should theoretically counter them and tempests feel like they're purely in the game to ensure that BC's aren't viable.
|
Are people really OK with LOTV essentially boiling down to "whoever spams their OP air units?"
Just bumping this thread again for serious discussion. A lot of people might not be aware the game is like this, or might not believe that it is.
Imo blizzard needs to make ground anti-air units stronger and perhaps nerf the health of things like carriers/tempests/broods/liberators or something.
|
On October 17 2015 19:31 Steelo_Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2015 06:17 cactus555 wrote:i agree that air units are too strong but some of the points you make are straight up silly, for example On October 17 2015 03:23 avilo wrote:
(i played a PvZ game in beta and killed 55 hydras with 8 carriers and 8 high templar with no economy off 2 base and won the game -_-).
hydras arent supposed to counter storm, and that toss army is way more expensive than 55 hydras so its rly dumb to say this to make a point about air being too strong His point is that Hydras are meant to be Anti-Air in a zerg ground army. Not sure why the Zerg didn't build corrupters but, but I guess that furthers his point as to the only counter to air units in the game is other air units.
Hydras isn't the only, nor the most effective Z G2A unit.
There's the Queen, that while have lower DPS can still pack quite a punch with upgrades, has long range, good mobility (for defencive purposes) and very good standing value with injects, they also can boost with said injects your other AA like corruptors, hydras or spores. Seriously do not underestimate mass Queen.
There's the infestor, fungal is quite strong vs clump of air, more so when combined with other AA (remember queen's range nad the fact fungal stops units?). Yes the DPs of fungal isn't the biggest one, but it has AoE which can work very well vs air units since they stack so much in SC2, or at least force 'em to split and lose a lot of alpha dmg. The infested Terran isn't worth much since WoL though.
There's the spore crawler, one of the highest g2a DPS, it has it's issues of course but can greatly complement a ground Z army since it's basically free on supply, can relocate and cost no gas. They're a good deterent and even a good offencive unit if you have creep spread.
And finally there's the ravager ability, but I don't think it could be considered more than a stop-gap or a lucky hit vs small amount of air units.
And finally there's the lings, most unit composition people listed here lack in mobility, mass ling multi-prongs harassment can buy you enough time to tune up your own composition. Or heck even win you the game...
Quite frankly if your answer to any "late game mass air" is pure hydras, unless you have 90 drones to back it up go back to bronze.
|
On October 21 2015 22:45 avilo wrote:
Are people really OK with LOTV essentially boiling down to "whoever spams their OP air units?"
Just bumping this thread again for serious discussion. A lot of people might not be aware the game is like this, or might not believe that it is.
Imo blizzard needs to make ground anti-air units stronger and perhaps nerf the health of things like carriers/tempests/broods/liberators or something.
I personally am not okay with it. I didn't like it in super late-game TvT in WoL and HotS and I don't like it now in all three matchups.
TvT - mass air battles are boring, and essentially come down to composition. If someone builds too many vikings and not enough liberators, or someone gets a luck HSM, or someone builds too many battlecruisers, etc ... It then almost always tech switches back into a ground battle. It's a little too difficult to split vikings effectively against mass liberator, and liberator crushes Thors pretty hard.
TvZ - Parasitic Bomb is absolutely devastating. It essentially requires you to get lucky with EMP, or catch them out of position with an air flank or something like that. It is also extremely difficult to deal with the tech switch when mass air is such a threat. The amount of Starports needed to deal with Zerg's mass air becomes a huge issue if you trade in the air, or maybe even take a small air victory, but take heavy losses. The tech switch is too punishing, because you have no idea what it will be. If it's mass Ling Ultra and you have a crippled air army and some ground support, you just die. If you heavily prepare for a ground tech switch and they fake you out and just mass air again, you just die. I get that the tech switch is part of Zerg--and I like that--but with the utter dominance of mass air, combined with Ultra's strength against bio, it just makes the situation feel impossible.
TvP - Carriers wreck everything. I mean, there is no more explanation needed. I tried to start a thread about this, but the mods shut it down for balance whine. I'm glad it's now seemingly on the radar anyway, and Blizzard is talking about and so are all the high level streamers, and this OP. Carriers are too strong.
I don't know the other matchups well enough to comment on them.
SOLUTIONS BRAINSTORM
I'm just brainstorming here. I don't portend to know how to balance this out. And keep in mind, no major design changes are going to be made, so any solutions has to be tweaks at this point.
Terran - Liberators - Nerf their damage to armored air units.
Zerg - Viper - Remove consume. Make it more costly to cast their extremely powerful spells.
Protoss - Carrier - Remove the "release interceptors" ability. It's wildly OP. The interceptors absolutely melt everything, and finally clearing them up actually means nothing, because the Carriers were nowhere to be seen, and have a full fleet of instant death machines ready to go again.
These are things that can be easily and quickly changed, and tested.
|
Air unit movement changed to regular movement without overlap. Problem solved 
|
On October 22 2015 00:11 Big J wrote:Air unit movement changed to regular movement without overlap. Problem solved
Maybe. Might make it mush worse. Imagine vikings that automatically formed an enormous concave? Imagine how much more difficult it would be to kill air units from the ground if splash was essentially useless because the units pre-split? I like the idea. It sounds simple, and elegant, but I'm just trying to work out unintended consequences.
|
4713 Posts
On October 21 2015 22:45 avilo wrote:
Are people really OK with LOTV essentially boiling down to "whoever spams their OP air units?"
Just bumping this thread again for serious discussion. A lot of people might not be aware the game is like this, or might not believe that it is.
Imo blizzard needs to make ground anti-air units stronger and perhaps nerf the health of things like carriers/tempests/broods/liberators or something.
No, of course I'm not ok with it. I already posted a small suggestion above regarding Hydras and Archons. I think they should switch some of the anti-air power away from vikings and corrupters into Thors, Archons and Hydras. I'd even go as far as suggest some HP nerfs to all the capital ships like -50 HP to BLs, Carriers and BCs (maybe even more for Carriers and BCs).
Of course that can't happen in a vacuum because the Colossus would possibly become to good again, so I'd also suggest removing that while we are at it.
|
The 50hp nerf on carrier HP did absolutely nothing to fix the difficulty Zerg has to engaging them, therefore it has made no difference whether or not Zerg wins out once they are there and the problem remains. Zerg can attack with a max army and have done so little damage that they get steamrolled over and die.
This is assuming you try something like droning up your 4 bases and then trying to max on corruptor / queen once you see toss rushing to 3 stargates behind 4 cannons at every choke because you know with photon overcharge and smart positioning pressure usually does jack all and you just go up against pure carriers (ignoring voids sans the initial safety one, if they make too many voids they delay Critical Mass on carriers severely they are harming themselves).
Storm absolutely rekts everything Zerg (Mass festors/queen/viper) with feedback and obs and splash. Once they get this out in tandem it becomes even more difficult to engage in to it.
So how do you beat Toss once they have carriers? Let's assume you're in a position to take engagements, In HOTS economy, Zerg would easily have 2-4k bank to remax on corruptors after trades, in LOTV if you're floating 2k you're doing something wrong. Since Twitch vods basically don't exist, it's hard to link good examples but I just saw Harstem's game on "the New Scrap Station" today where he lost his 2 new mining bases and his ground army (sans a warp in of 12 stalkers after) from a broodlord timing, but Z had NOTHING to beat back the 4 carriers that came out to save Toss after the dmg was done, and he was able to remake his 2 nexus with 0 risk and go on to win easily.
For sake of the rest of my examples though, I'm going to only imagine games where toss turtles straight to carriers in the safest most abusive way possible (which many Protoss are doing on ladder), not epic long games with multiple tech switches and windows where carriers aren't a threat or aren't in critical mass.
So what's the OPTIMAL way for Z to deal with them in LOTV? Is anyone actually thinking about this stuff? "Wait for Korea" is the worst possible answer here and I'm sick of hearing that.
You need something like 4 consecutive AoE viper hits (someone confirm?) in order to put a carrier in the red or kill it, but leash range alpha hits EVERY viper after casting if toss doesn't mismicro his units, and this doesn't take in to account feedback denial either when considering your chance of connecting.
Then there's also the fact it takes time to consume and carriers are so big (unlike voidrays) their tendency to declump and ease in selecting and spreading them once you see vipers cast, it's not consistent at all. Even if you had 100% chance connecting, spreading carriers during an engagements unlike other units in the game don't involve a DPS reduction dynamic from move attacking. Just another thing that makes carriers brain dead A-Move.
Let's just assume that sitting under your spores with queens and what not is the only safe position to be in once Toss is moving about (and they don't just go fuck that I'll go in to your main over deadspace, kill all your tech and recall when I'm scared of your army moving). Does this mean that you need to hit carriers clumped THREE TIMES during an engagement without fail? How many times are you going to get close to his army in that span of time, assuming you immediately engage to recast before shields have regen'd and his army hasn't fallen back or not?
And when you say fuck that, I'll just abduct 1 or 2 at a time, how do you deal with the fact interceptors can not sit over an area indefinitely at huge ranges, that vipers die basically instantly after casting almost every time, that feedback and obs and positioning smartly can reliably guarantee the worst options for the Zerg player, that storm deals with mass Hydra, infestor and queen and muta and clumped corruptors...there's just nothing that stays alive long enough against alpha shot carriers with respawning interceptors between AND during engagements.
|
On October 21 2015 22:45 avilo wrote:
Are people really OK with LOTV essentially boiling down to "whoever spams their OP air units?"
Just bumping this thread again for serious discussion. A lot of people might not be aware the game is like this, or might not believe that it is.
Imo blizzard needs to make ground anti-air units stronger and perhaps nerf the health of things like carriers/tempests/broods/liberators or something.
Liberator and Carrier nerfed this latest patch with a message from DK about wanting to change ( a nerf is a very specific type of change) things incrementally over time rather than a sudden giant change which results in an over-nerf.
Also, Siege Tank firing time increased after being dropped by a Medivac effectively weakens the versatility of the Medivac.
So 3 flying units got hit by the nerf stick on this patch... i think your message got through and i think others agreed with you who don't go on TL.Net.
i think your basic message is correct and i think DK and the team have responded in a correct fashion
good work sir.
|
Air units may be getting hit a little bit with this patch, but they're still too strong as a whole. Look at the air units in BW. They either wrecked other air units, or they had pea-shooters against ground units. It's not until you reach the top of the tech tree do you get air units that can do some proper damage. When your air units get too strong and they're able to assert dominance over ground units, you have a very fundamental problem. Ground units are supposed to be more powerful by design, because they have to obey the terrain. Air units do not, they can move however they please, so in exchange the designers of BW made them weak against ground to compensate. When you look at the Banshee, and the Oracle and the Liberator, you see air units doing things ground units should be doing, it completely violates that sacred design axiom air units had in BW. What we've been seeing is that finally reaching an extreme.
|
Brood Lords have been buffed in so many ways since HotS, they have a faster attack speed, a faster movement speed, longer range, and a better build time. With how well Zerg has been doing it doesn't seem like they need all of these improvements.
|
On October 25 2015 10:09 jalstar wrote:
Brood Lords have been buffed in so many ways since HotS, they have a faster attack speed, a faster movement speed, longer range, and a better build time. With how well Zerg has been doing it doesn't seem like they need all of these improvements.
???
they got 1.5extra range, non of the other things is true! The game time has been set to real time, thus the movement speed, attack speed and build time values seem to be better for all units, but they are actually just converted by a factor ~1.38.
|
On October 25 2015 11:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2015 10:09 jalstar wrote:
Brood Lords have been buffed in so many ways since HotS, they have a faster attack speed, a faster movement speed, longer range, and a better build time. With how well Zerg has been doing it doesn't seem like they need all of these improvements. ??? they got 1.5extra range, non of the other things is true! The game time has been set to real time, thus the movement speed, attack speed and build time values seem to be better for all units, but they are actually just converted by a factor ~1.38.
Oh I forgot, range still seems really strong though.
|
The range should have stayed 9.5, and channel the power of ass. Blizzard fucked up.
|
one of two things will happen. 1. nothing gets changed and the game remains broken 2. something gets changed and the game remains broken. the game has spiraled out of control with OP units since HOTS with Terran getting huge buffs to three units they use all the time, widow mines hellbats and medivacs while zerg plays against this basically same as they do in WoL because they were given nothing of value to help them in HOTS. Destroying swarm hosts and rendering Terran turtle mech an auto - win against zerg to finish off HOTS is just the beginning of the wreckage of the game, as will be seen once LoTV comes out... but never fixed.
|
Well ofc sky army should stomp ground one, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
I think the catch was, that this sky army is much much harder to get and such strategies are fairly easy to be shut down in the middle.
If that wasn't the case, every GSL would be 200/200 BC & carriers
I am afraid however that this "catch" is removed in LOTV, with the forced expanding and reduced build time of massive flyers...
I think the solution always been the same - hard/very risky to get but worth when having.
|
On October 26 2015 05:15 Gasi wrote:
Well ofc sky army should stomp ground one, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
Why would that not make sense? Of course it makes sense.
The air units have better mobility. They can ignore terrain and are usually faster. This allows them to outmaneuver the enemy and harass the opponents bases without having to engage their army head on. This is how it was in BW and it worked very well. What reason is there to not make it work in SC2?
|
On October 26 2015 05:25 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 05:15 Gasi wrote:
Well ofc sky army should stomp ground one, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. Why would that not make sense? Of course it makes sense. The air units have better mobility. They can ignore terrain and are usually faster. This allows them to outmaneuver the enemy and harass the opponents bases without having to engage their army head on. This is how it was in BW and it worked very well. What reason is there to not make it work in SC2?
And I'm calling bullshit that the Broodlord is more mobile than the marine/medivac combo, the blink stalker or anything else protoss as long as recall and warpins exists*.
The only GtA unit with a low enough mobility to varant countering the broodlord is the Thor (discussable to begin with due to medivac boost pickups), and the Thor has a very strong antiground attack, so it would still be unreasonable if such a universal combat unit could counter an AtG-specialist.
Sure if you create a Goliath that can't shoot ground and moves at Broodlord speed you have a sure point, but no such unit design is present in SC2. The closest to that is a unit that can lift/land to switch between only AtA and only GtG mode, the viking, which consequently is the unit of choice against Broodlords. Similar arguments can be made for the BC. That's why such units like the broodlord/BC are bad design to begin with, they are either underpowered (the HotS scenario) or force air to air combat (the LotV and WoL scenario with BLs) or megaspecialized combat GtA units (which there aren't any) to exist.
*maybe if you cut one of them, but as it stands many units can be created in 5seconds on the frontlines and any army can retreat to a nexus from anywhere in 2seconds. Warp Prisms and mobile play has been figured out as one of the best methods to counter broodlords, the Protoss ground army takes the initiative with superior mobility when fighting broodlords. No mobility disadvantage to be seen, rather the opposite.
|
fml 
|
What are you trying to say? That it is correct that air units beat ground units in a straight up fight? That this is how it should be?
|
On October 26 2015 07:47 RoomOfMush wrote:
What are you trying to say? That it is correct that air units beat ground units in a straight up fight? That this is how it should be?
The rule you are making that air units have to lose to ground units because of mobility advantages is not true for many air units that just don't have the movement speed to actually make them mobile.
|
On October 26 2015 09:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 07:47 RoomOfMush wrote:
What are you trying to say? That it is correct that air units beat ground units in a straight up fight? That this is how it should be? The rule you are making that air units have to lose to ground units because of mobility advantages is not true for many air units that just don't have the movement speed to actually make them mobile.
It's true for most air units. Get a marine based army directly under your air units like carriers and battlecruisers? They generally die. That's why you have to abuse the mobility of air units and position them properly. Here mobility is about how they move around the map, ignoring terrain. The problem with broodlords is an issue of pathing and range. This makes the only reasonable response to them air based. This inevitably leads to design that strengthens air and proposals to strengthen air which would be bad for the game.
|
On October 26 2015 09:53 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2015 09:42 Big J wrote:On October 26 2015 07:47 RoomOfMush wrote:
What are you trying to say? That it is correct that air units beat ground units in a straight up fight? That this is how it should be? The rule you are making that air units have to lose to ground units because of mobility advantages is not true for many air units that just don't have the movement speed to actually make them mobile. It's true for most air units. Get a marine based army directly under your air units like carriers and battlecruisers? They generally die. That's why you have to abuse the mobility of air units and position them properly. Here mobility is about how they move around the map, ignoring terrain. The problem with broodlords is an issue of pathing and range. This makes the only reasonable response to them air based. This inevitably leads to design that strengthens air and proposals to strengthen air which would be bad for the game.
So the statement about Marines and BCs is not really true. In a supply for supply scenario (6:1) BCs win pretty hardcore, even in somewhat higher ratios (like 8:1, 9:1 or 10:1) BCs still win. You need like 11:1 or 12:1 to beat BCs.
The Broodlord is an even more focused antiground unit, because the BC still has a decent antiair attack and at least one strong combat spell that also targets air. The way the broodlord kills ground units so efficiently (range, broodlings) is only the symptome, the reason why it has to do that is that it can't shoot air and is slow and not a "counterunit" (like if it had increased damage vs armored, but less vs light) which would make it easier to counter them with specific ground units at least.
So in short, the broodlord and to a lesser extend the BC are designed to fuck over ground units in combat. If you want to counter them, just by design you are forced into either air units, or specific counters with vast amounts of bonus damage specifically designed to beat such units. The latter one simply doesn't exist on the ground in SC2. A cyclone or goliath with vast amounts of extra vs armored and enough range would be a theoretical possibility, but then those units would be kind of bad vs most other units, including other air units like light air.
|
zzz... what I get for correcting the wrong ratios
Edit: I'm not saying I'm a fan of all of this, but that's just how I see it. Viable Broodlords/BCs means you have to counter it with air, because there is no +50% vs armored 10range, can't shoot ground GtA unit in the game.
|
United Kingdom20278 Posts
I think both protoss and terran could use better G2A - maybe in the form of buffed stalker. Cyclone is.. interesting at the moment, very strong air to air sometimes. Since fairly standard PvT is 1gate nexus phoenix, a guy went rax-gas-factory-cc-cc and built cyclones and actually denied phoenix/wp really hard against me, i've seen them do quite a lot of damage in fights vs air too in their current state so maybe it's a bit soon to say "remove cyclone, add goliath". I have no idea if that kind of opening is any good but he was one of the very few guys getting them out on the field so that i could see them.
So the statement about Marines and BCs is not really true. In a supply for supply scenario (6:1) BCs win pretty hardcore, even in somewhat higher ratios (like 8:1, 9:1 or 10:1) BCs still win. You need like 11:1 or 12:1 to beat BCs.
That sounds like a pretty bad ratio - 2x supply required - until you realize that it takes a hell of a lot more than 30 marines to kill 15 liberators :D
Honestly the gas cost is the main thing stopping terrans doing crazy stuff every game with them. A guy recently dropped three extra starports on reactors at 9 minutes and i was very very worried that he would produce 24 liberators in barely over 2 minutes, but he didn't have the gas to do so. He went viking instead which is way worse against carriers.
|
On October 26 2015 11:23 Cyro wrote:I think both protoss and terran could use better G2A - maybe in the form of buffed stalker. Cyclone is.. interesting at the moment, very strong air to air sometimes. Since fairly standard PvT is 1gate nexus phoenix, a guy went rax-gas-factory-cc-cc and built cyclones and actually denied phoenix/wp really hard against me, i've seen them do quite a lot of damage in fights vs air too in their current state so maybe it's a bit soon to say "remove cyclone, add goliath". I have no idea if that kind of opening is any good but he was one of the very few guys getting them out on the field so that i could see them. Show nested quote +So the statement about Marines and BCs is not really true. In a supply for supply scenario (6:1) BCs win pretty hardcore, even in somewhat higher ratios (like 8:1, 9:1 or 10:1) BCs still win. You need like 11:1 or 12:1 to beat BCs. That sounds like a pretty bad ratio - 2x supply required - until you realize that it takes a hell of a lot more than 30 marines to kill 15 liberators :D Honestly the gas cost is the main thing stopping terrans doing crazy stuff every game with them. A guy recently dropped three extra starports on reactors at 9 minutes and i was very very worried that he would produce 24 liberators in barely over 2 minutes, but he didn't have the gas to do so. He went viking instead which is way worse against carriers.
Oh well, that ratio is what you get when the marines "blink" under the BCs. In general you would need quite more as well against BCs. 
|
This is what Blizzard does, and has always done in expansions... add air units. From Brood War to Frozen Throne to HOTS now to LOTV, most of the new units are air units.
They just add more air units and make the dynamics between them increasingly important at the expense of other interactions.
Blizzard knows you need more air units!
The proper dynamic between air and ground units is exemplified with Mutalisks and Marines. Marines win the straight up fight, but Mutalisks enjoy the mobility advantage.
Though they ignore terrain, "Capital Ships" aren't mobile, but are super strong and worse they can stack all over each other which makes them incredibly overpowered. That and some of them are "siege units" which just gives them another ridiculous advantage. It is a terrible game design dynamic.
And worst of all, their counters are air based... terrain and positional play are replaced with slow A-move flying units.
|
I think its only meh, that they give every race an aerial siege unit. BW also had air units being the omega of everything, but the lower air tech, was just insane against air while only doing little damage to ground. And Air had to fight directly with the ground units, because ground usually had the higher range. That made sure you can't just slowly produce your lategame air, since the enemy will trade really well against it, but the moment air is massed, they swoop in over a cliff unload their damage and be gone again. Which wouldn't be possible now, since Battlecruiser can't hit and run anymore.
In short, BW air had holes in their composition, not so in Sc2, because they want every race to be able to do every strategy. Which in the end makes the game really one dimensional, since one thing works the best from start to finish everywhere. But ground has the same issue in Sc2.
The game is still asymmetrical designed, as in the unit types work differently, but every race has everything.
And well static air actually traded extremely well against air units.
The game is still assymetrical designed as to the unit types work differently. But every race has all unit types.
|
I'd get started with the "I told you so's" about AtG and other topic's I've brought up consistently... but honestly, my passion for the game has dropped to such a low that I really, really, really, really don't care anymore.
|
Agreed. I think most of the end game attack move units are in the air with no real ground counterparts. For Terran, what I would like to see is simply the Goliath replacing the Cyclone, but more realistically I think the Thor could use some work (cheaper, better against single target)
|
This is my first post to TL, but I just had to sign up and comment on this post and bump this thread, because I agree wholeheartedly that air units are just too powerful. There are virtually no GtA counters that work reliably, as their attacks are just not powerful enough.
I hope either the GtA attacks gets a boost, or the AtG attacks get nerfed.
|
I've switched to toss in legacy and I avoid the 'Core AIR' strats, but it feels like I'm doing myself a disservice when the BL / corruptor comes into play (or air vs robo in pvp)
I'll totally agree that air units are too strong. Not in a specific "it makes matchup imba" way, but in a "this is boring" way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
