EPTThe state of the Hydralisk in ZvP - Page 8
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
ibreakurface
United States664 Posts
| ||
|
Synk
United States297 Posts
Also in ZvT I've been able to lure an army out of position with roaches and drop my hydras on-top of his tanks a few times. In ZvP even if I don't drop it gives me a quick and deadly response to 4 gate attacks because I can load every unit I have, hydras included quickly move across the map before he can rebuild and do real damage while still having the option of retreating with my slow ass hydras( yes drop tech usually isn't ready until 2 minutes~ after the 4 gate has stopped but the timing is still very potent ). Moral of the story is, hydralisk drops can work almost just like MM drops and are very deadly. The more you think about how the hydralisk works and its fragile nature with high dmg the more it starts to become clear it was meant to be used in drops and in quick hit and runs like the OP states, not in super high numbers. It's really spiced my game up a lot in ZvT and ZvP now, seems to be very viable at mid masters anyways, plus its really fun to wreck a terrans svc line for once after this early harassment fails and not just have to sit there like a fucking punching bag for 20 minutes + until he just mines out and throws in the towel. | ||
|
DarkOmen
Canada72 Posts
What I've been playing with a bit is hit and run attacks with hydra and nydus in ZvP. I found that even though my play was a little awkward due to the vastly different style, it was quite effective. Against a 3-4 base protoss, I could bounce back and forth between his bases with nydus, and when he moved to defend with his death ball, I would simultaneously run the hydras back into the nydus while attacking a different front with my speed roaches. This was at ~2800 diamond level, and I suspect it would be even more effective in better hands. edit - it really allowed me to take as many expos as I wanted, because he was constantly running back and forth to defend and never had an opportunity to attack. Even trying an all-in base trade, he would likely lose due to my spread out multiple bases and the fact that I could either kill his bases faster, or just hop in the nydus and still defend. | ||
|
UruzuNine
Canada162 Posts
Hydralisk would equalize the sheer strength of baneling purely due to DPS and range. Just imagine how many more ZvZ games would go to lair and beyond because of the reduced number of "oh a baneling got all my zerglings, GG." Currently, roaches don't cut it nearly as well because lings can overwhelm them, and it's a lot easier/natural to get a lot of lings when making banes. It's a lot more volatile as you cross your fingers and hope you can reach that critical mass of roaches needed to hold. Slow hydras off of creep also means a low chance of aggressive hydra play in the early game, which makes them a defensive choice to safely get you to lair-tech and beyond. Ling/bane would be the aggressive (and possibly risky) choice for a Zerg wanting to apply early game pressure against a defensive hydra player. But yeah, having the hydralisk back to T1 with something like its BW stats back feels better to me -- and not because of BW nostalgia or anything. It (subjectively) fits better in the SC2 Zerg tech tree that way, even when comparing against the new tech trees of Terran and Protoss. Lower-DPS T1 hydralisk vs. 4-gate, for example. Or against 2-rax timing pushes. Having difficulty with Sky Protoss? No problem, we got T1 hydras. It would take some testing to see if T1 hydra would actually be better in the long run, but I'd love to see some testing.  Maybe I (or someone else who wants to take up the endeavour) should make a custom map that just modifies the Zerg tech tree like this... would make for a good TL experiment.  | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:17 UruzuNine wrote: I have to admit, I'd love to see the hydralisk returned to T1 and the roach returned to T2, like it used to be long before release. Just focusing on ZvZ alone: Hydralisk would equalize the sheer strength of baneling purely due to DPS and range. Just imagine how many more ZvZ games would go to lair and beyond because of the reduced number of "oh a baneling got all my zerglings, GG." Currently, roaches don't cut it nearly as well because lings can overwhelm them, and it's a lot easier/natural to get a lot of lings when making banes. It's a lot more volatile as you cross your fingers and hope you can reach that critical mass of roaches needed to hold. Slow hydras off of creep also means a low chance of aggressive hydra play in the early game, which makes them a defensive choice to safely get you to lair-tech and beyond. Ling/bane would be the aggressive (and possibly risky) choice for a Zerg wanting to apply early game pressure against a defensive hydra player. But yeah, having the hydralisk back to T1 with something like its BW stats back feels better to me -- and not because of BW nostalgia or anything. It (subjectively) fits better in the SC2 Zerg tech tree that way, even when comparing against the new tech trees of Terran and Protoss. Lower-DPS T1 hydralisk vs. 4-gate, for example. Or against 2-rax timing pushes. Having difficulty with Sky Protoss? No problem, we got T1 hydras. It would take some testing to see if T1 hydra would actually be better in the long run, but I'd love to see some testing. Maybe I (or someone else who wants to take up the endeavour) should make a custom map that just modifies the Zerg tech tree like this... would make for a good TL experiment. Sadly i highly doubt Blizzard will do such a radical change. Note the amount of Love they give their New Units. Also note how its their new Units that have always been on the top list for discussion about imbalance. I think Blizz was so occupied in making "Interesting" units that they didn't really consider the long term implications of their units. | ||
|
Mikelius
Germany517 Posts
On March 01 2011 00:35 flodeskum wrote: Thing is, hydras don't just kill gateway units, they shit on the entire protoss arsenal from great height - the collusus and templar excluded of course. So we basically have the same problem as in tvp, gateway units are too weak and the colossus is way to strong. ... anyway, clearly the best solution would be some sort of bunker build time increase... Why thank you, I just snorted my coffee... LOL The thing about protoss is that the gateway units are balanced around the forcefields, make them stronger and with good forcefield placement and you get an unstoppable T1 army. So they are only good once the late game units start appearing and they lose their dependencies on forcefields. As a protoss player I hate that, and I despise Colossi in general. | ||
|
UruzuNine
Canada162 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:23 GinDo wrote: Sadly i highly doubt Blizzard will do such a radical change. Note the amount of Love they give their New Units. Also note how its their new Units that have always been on the top list for discussion about imbalance. I think Blizz was so occupied in making "Interesting" units that they didn't really consider the long term implications of their units. I personally love the new units in SC2. I also don't really think there's anything wrong with them. I also don't agree with the thing about new units being the focus of balance. High Templar is getting a nerf in 1.3, the but HT isn't a "new unit," for example. Bunkers have gotten both build time buffs and nerfs, as well. The list goes on. I further think that Blizzard is more than capable of such "radical" changes; after all, they swapped the tier levels of the roach and hydra in the first place. It used to be hydra T1 and roach T2 waayyy waaayyy back. For example, a discussion: http://sc2armory.com/forums/topic/8904 Interestingly, there were people advocating roach to be moved to T1 and hydra moved up to T2. | ||
|
gavinashun
101 Posts
I think it would be a cool unit that would "lurk" around the map, opening up interesting new strategies. | ||
|
Rhythm.102
United States56 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:17 UruzuNine wrote: I have to admit, I'd love to see the hydralisk returned to T1 and the roach returned to T2, like it used to be long before release. Just focusing on ZvZ alone: Hydralisk would equalize the sheer strength of baneling purely due to DPS and range. Just imagine how many more ZvZ games would go to lair and beyond because of the reduced number of "oh a baneling got all my zerglings, GG." Currently, roaches don't cut it nearly as well because lings can overwhelm them, and it's a lot easier/natural to get a lot of lings when making banes. It's a lot more volatile as you cross your fingers and hope you can reach that critical mass of roaches needed to hold. Slow hydras off of creep also means a low chance of aggressive hydra play in the early game, which makes them a defensive choice to safely get you to lair-tech and beyond. Ling/bane would be the aggressive (and possibly risky) choice for a Zerg wanting to apply early game pressure against a defensive hydra player. But yeah, having the hydralisk back to T1 with something like its BW stats back feels better to me -- and not because of BW nostalgia or anything. It (subjectively) fits better in the SC2 Zerg tech tree that way, even when comparing against the new tech trees of Terran and Protoss. Lower-DPS T1 hydralisk vs. 4-gate, for example. Or against 2-rax timing pushes. Having difficulty with Sky Protoss? No problem, we got T1 hydras. It would take some testing to see if T1 hydra would actually be better in the long run, but I'd love to see some testing. Maybe I (or someone else who wants to take up the endeavour) should make a custom map that just modifies the Zerg tech tree like this... would make for a good TL experiment. back in bw your best chance of holding off hydras was with zealots, that would be a joke now with their dps buff. even in bw zvz was entirely muta / ling, just like tvt was mech and pvp was dragoon / reaver. I dont think substituting baneling micro for 'attack click hydras' is an answer to you dilemma . IMO if you want balance you would have mentioned something about the queens, making t2 units t1 is like asking blizzard to give zerglings range attacks and stim while they are at it. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:25 Mikelius wrote: Why thank you, I just snorted my coffee... LOL The thing about protoss is that the gateway units are balanced around the forcefields, make them stronger and with good forcefield placement and you get an unstoppable T1 army. So they are only good once the late game units start appearing and they lose their dependencies on forcefields. As a protoss player I hate that, and I despise Colossi in general. Note how alot of complaints revolve around alot of the new features Blizzard added like Forcefields and Collosi. I seriously miss BW Protoss play with mass Gateways with spritz' of support units. But Note how every Protoss match up is 1) GateWay All-in 2) Collosi. The Collosi is a broken unit in my opinion. If it weren't for the fact that they are vulnerable to air(Something i find very gimmicky) they would be practically unbeatable. Collosi are fast, have excellent range and attack, and have splash(with no friendly splash). Its the ultimate ground unit. Its inly weakeness is Air. The Reaver on the other hand though strong(redicoulouly strong) was balanced because of its mobility, friendly splash, and normal range. ForceFields also make for very stupid battles. | ||
|
maize
United States38 Posts
or make it weaker like the guardian and cheaper, 100/150 but with less health | ||
|
Ridiculisk
Australia191 Posts
On February 26 2011 14:04 dark fury wrote: Entropius: Roach corruptor can deal with gateway units+colossus quite efficiently so i dont see any reason for complaining, if the protoss has voidrays to counter corruptor, you should have been able to tech up as well and get the appropriate counter. Also, in the next patch fungal growth will deal 30% more damage against air units (void ray stalker colossus) wich will make this composition even more reasonable to deal with. Pray tell then what is the Zerg counter to a few charged VR's? Corruptors don't work that's for sure. Hydra's won't work if he's got the Collossi to back his ground forces, and Muta's arn't cost effective enough to work. Not to mention a Stalker based Gateway force (especially with Blink) eat Muta's for breakfast. deal 30% more damage against air units I thought it was +damage Vs Armored? Or have they changed their minds? I'm interested to see Zerg come up with some new tactics to deal with the P deathball. I think Infestor/Roach might be the way to go. Heavy on upgrades and just NP as many of the Collossi as possible. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:38 UruzuNine wrote: I personally love the new units in SC2. I also don't really think there's anything wrong with them. I also don't agree with the thing about new units being the focus of balance. High Templar is getting a nerf in 1.3, the but HT isn't a "new unit," for example. Bunkers have gotten both build time buffs and nerfs, as well. The list goes on. I further think that Blizzard is more than capable of such "radical" changes; after all, they swapped the tier levels of the roach and hydra in the first place. It used to be hydra T1 and roach T2 waayyy waaayyy back. For example, a discussion: http://sc2armory.com/forums/topic/8904 Interestingly, there were people advocating roach to be moved to T1 and hydra moved up to T2. That was a pre-beta discussion(alpha). But interesting find none the less. Problem is that people simply didn't understand how the units would play out. | ||
|
UruzuNine
Canada162 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:39 Rhythm.102 wrote: back in bw your best chance of holding off hydras was with zealots, that would be a joke now with their dps buff. even in bw zvz was entirely muta / ling, just like tvt was mech and pvp was dragoon / reaver. I dont think substituting baneling micro for 'attack click hydras' is an answer to you dilemma . IMO if you want balance you would have mentioned something about the queens, making t2 units t1 is like asking blizzard to give zerglings range attacks and stim while they are at it. A few things: First, BW didn't have sentries and stalkers are much different from dragoons, so there's no point to trying to compare the two scenarios. Second, nobody said anything about keeping the DPS buff that hydralisks currently have; it could be possible that the unit's stats would require some re-tweaking to accommodate T1, and the same is true for the roach moving to T2. Third, how would (potentially) weaker, T1 hydras remove all use of banelings, given how banelings are currently used in every matchup? Finally, exactly what does any of this have to do with balance and how does changing queens affect that? My post wasn't a balance discussion, as Zergs have access to both roaches and hydras regardless. It was more about how the Zerg tech tree tends to flow, and how I feel swapping hydra and roach back to their original tech levels makes more sense, especially given that Zerg tends to make heavy use of roach in the T2-dominated mid-game if they go ground army instead of air. It's more about how the race plays through the game than about giving buffs or nerfs. I won't comment in depth on your nonsensical zergling remark, other than to say it's ridiculous. | ||
|
Rhythm.102
United States56 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:49 Ridiculisk wrote: Pray tell then what is the Zerg counter to a few charged VR's? Corruptors don't work that's for sure. Hydra's won't work if he's got the Collossi to back his ground forces, and Muta's arn't cost effective enough to work. Not to mention a Stalker based Gateway force (especially with Blink) eat Muta's for breakfast. I thought it was +damage Vs Armored? Or have they changed their minds? I'm interested to see Zerg come up with some new tactics to deal with the P deathball. I think Infestor/Roach might be the way to go. Heavy on upgrades and just NP as many of the Collossi as possible. Broodlord + hydra + infestor, queens move around the same speed as broodlords, if you wish to include them in your army to heal them | ||
|
UruzuNine
Canada162 Posts
On March 02 2011 08:54 GinDo wrote: That was a pre-beta discussion(alpha). But interesting find none the less. Problem is that people simply didn't understand how the units would play out. Yes indeed it was, hence why I said "waaaay waaay back." I think it's important to note, however, as Blizzard was originally designing the Zerg race around hydra being T1 like in BW, and the roach being a new T2 unit. I'm sure some people will recall that the roach got huuuge nerfs back in the beta, partly because some things were imbalanced (Only 1 food? Really?) but also partly because they were originally designed as a T2 unit and got dropped down to T1. Consequently, Zergs feel the hydralisk is kind of weak because it was originally a T1 unit that got pushed up to T2, got some damage buffs, increased cost, but now comes out at a time that T and P are starting (and/or considering) to make units that really put the pain on them. For example: siege tanks, hellions (this one's kinda 50/50), colossi, high templar.IMO the hydralisk is a good unit, it just comes out at a time where many Zergs end up asking, "why go hydra when I can get either spire tech or infestors to support my roach army?" | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On March 02 2011 09:09 UruzuNine wrote: Yes indeed it was, hence why I said "waaaay waaay back." I think it's important to note, however, as Blizzard was originally designing the Zerg race around hydra being T1 like in BW, and the roach being a new T2 unit. I'm sure some people will recall that the roach got huuuge nerfs back in the beta, partly because some things were imbalanced (Only 1 food? Really?) but also partly because they were originally designed as a T2 unit and got dropped down to T1. Consequently, Zergs feel the hydralisk is kind of weak because it was originally a T1 unit that got pushed up to T2, got some damage buffs, increased cost, but now comes out at a time that T and P are starting (and/or considering) to make units that really put the pain on them. For example: siege tanks, hellions (this one's kinda 50/50), colossi, high templar.IMO the hydralisk is a good unit, it just comes out at a time where many Zergs end up asking, "why go hydra when I can get either spire tech or infestors to support my roach army?" That explains why Roaches and Hydras just seem to overlap in roles. If people remember in BW Hydras were also very fragile units. The difference was they were 1 food and cheap as hell and fast. So you could spam Hydras lose a ton of hydras and still be well off. Zerg needs that type of unit. Kind of funny that the response to Tanks in BW was Hydra  .Personally i feel Hydras should be T1 with all their BW specs and Roaches out of the game. | ||
|
UruzuNine
Canada162 Posts
On March 02 2011 09:29 GinDo wrote: That explains why Roaches and Hydras just seem to overlap in roles. If people remember in BW Hydras were also very fragile units. The difference was they were 1 food and cheap as hell and fast. So you could spam Hydras lose a ton of hydras and still be well off. Zerg needs that type of unit. Kind of funny that the response to Tanks in BW was Hydra .Personally i feel Hydras should be T1 with all their BW specs and Roaches out of the game. Noooooo, I love the roach. I think it fits perfectly in a mid-game composition, as it's currently used for. If you notice, though, a lot of high-level Zerg players won't get their roach warren until they're either morphing or already have lair tech -- with the exception of ZvZ, just because they don't want to die in 5-6 minutes. IMO the unit just makes more sense in that capacity. | ||
|
aneruok
Canada122 Posts
pretty much the strategy from idra on his steppes of war match. other than that they are pretty bad. mass voidray, a few colossus and high templars kill em pretty effectively. its like if protoss gets anything pass stalker, zealot sentry. but even mass zealot stalker sentry can kill mass hydras off creep. its pretty hard to use em effectively against protoss. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On February 26 2011 13:05 DoubleReed wrote: Both are glass cannon units. Fragile, extreme damage, and slow. When you grab hydras you are sacrificing mobility for power, much like the colossus. I take serious issue with you calling collossus a "glass cannon". They're not particularly fragile, they're a lot easier to protect since they can just walk over stuff, including forcefields, they can easily outrun hydras off creep, and they can walk up and down cliffs. | ||
| ||
