The widow mine is a unit that a lot of Terran players, and blizzard themselves were probably hopeing would help positional Terran play, maybe even bring back tank/mine pushes, along with things "away from the deathball" or that would "help break up deathballs."
The problem? Widow mines have been nerfed before being allowed to be tested in beta.
The quintuple nerf to the widow mine and why it's currently not good:
Keep in mind all of these nerfs were before the beta went live: 1) The widow mine requires an armory to build now 2) The widow mine damage was nerfed. 3) The widow mine's splash damage was nerfed. 4) The widow mine can no longer detect/kill cloaked/burrowed units. 5) The widow mine's supply was nerfed - it now costs 2 supply.
The reason this is not good? Well, first of all, in it's current form with these nerfs the widow mine is never worth building over a raw material army unit such as another warhound, another hellion, another tank, another raven, etc.
The widow mine does not kill cost efficiently vs really anything in the game. It's splash damage has been severely nerfed so even against Zerglings it's not something you would want say over a battle hellion.
The armory prerequisite is a nerf that makes it so mines come into the game at a point where all-ins, or other things could simply kill you or power through mines. You need the raw units.
The damage also is quite abysmal. I have seen and played with these against roaches some and the roaches laugh it off as if it's nothing. The splash is not enough, nor is the current damage to put in that "fear factor" that the opponent should NOT GO HERE. The opponent simply does not care the mines are there, and will plow through with their normal units.
The biggest reason why the widow mine is currently useless is the last pre-live beta nerf I mentioned - the 2 supply. Imagine building 16 widow mines, and placing them on the map...that is 32 supply no longer in your own army aka "deathball" that your opponent simply does not care about because now he can just be on his 3-4 bases and go kill you.
With a supply cost on the mine...simply put, you are punished for building them, and you are punished if you have them on the map essentially doing "nothing."
The other slight nerf I believe is the mine does not detect cloaked units such as DTS or burrowed roaches, meaning it's utility is even worse in the situations you would want it to detonate - it simply wont' unless you happened to insta-scan that area which defeats the purpose of having pre-placed mines to deal with threats.
The mine will have to be looked at imo, perhaps buffed back to pre-live beta status in some way in terms of splash/detection/damage/supply. I would argue the only attribute of the mine that will allow it to ever see the light of day in HOTS is removing the supply so that Terran has something they can control the map with that the opponent does have to fear (like spider mines).
Conclusion: With it's current stats/balance, the widow mine will not be used in the majority of competitive play because you are punished for building it over raw material army units, and it does not do what it's supposed to do for the costs associated with it.
edit: Also, if blizzard wants to make this unit work, than they are going to have to take a risk, and make it as strong as a spider mine in terms of damage output/no supply. Otherwise, just scrap it imo. Seeing as this is their beta, it would be awesome if they implemented a build with the mine actually being good, and if it's too good or doesn't work they could easily roll back the change / get rid of the unit.
i was actualy hoping the widow mine would be useful against swarm hosts, but then they removed it affecting burrowed/cloaked.
maybe just burrowed units only in addition to the other stuff it currently detects right now?
i can understand not going after cloaked units, but from a "make sense " stance it would make sense if it can detect burrowed unit since its underground as well.
anyway i agree with this post, the mine is just bad in its current form . When you build them its more of a feeling of "hey i wonder how these will do into a meh what a waste", rather than, "fuck i really need these right now! "
In broodwar this was definately not the case, there was a reason to build the mines. To protect tanks, to cover flanks, to help against Recall . In sc2? these mines just seem like "hey you wanted a mine unit for HOTS?, take a mine with hardly any thought put into it.
and i think the reason it requires armory is because blizzard was scared of Really early mines going out on the field popping creep spreading queens.
As for the other parts, I would say that you could revert all of it, as long as you change mines to only hit ground. That's basically what they did with the swarmhost. They made locusts only ground attack and super buffed them. They should do the same with mines.
wow, they really fucked up the widow mine. I knew that nerfed the damage a bit but I never knew about the supply nerf and armory. Blizzard seems to be fucking up considering the nerfed this into the ground but havent done anything to the warhound.
On September 08 2012 13:02 Robotix wrote: I think 2 supply is overkill. One supply is a good number.
Everything else about the Widow Mine is fine in my opinion.
I dont think 2 supply or the armory nerf was good either way. Think about if you are not going mech and want to incorporate widow mines + mmm. Around 13 minutes will probably be the time you get a armory and by that time you'd be better off getting ghosts with the resources rather than widow mines vs either zerg or protoss. And if you are going mech why not just make the warhound instead considering the supply inefficency of the mine. Not even considering the lackluster damage with these two points. It was a flawed concept from the beginning. Massive damage with 10 second detonation time? Anyone with above 150 apm would be able to seperate it from their army in that time. So they proceeded to change it to instant detonation but lower the damage so that one cant even oneshot a queen. Essentially making it a unit you wouldnt make into ANOTHER unit you wouldnt make.
I actually disagree with this post for a few reasons that I think the op didn't take into consideration.
1) The damage nerf was because they got rid of the 10 second timer and made it an instant attack. However it still kills units in one shot except units that shouldn't die with one shot like Thor's and brood lords, its cost effective against most of those units as well like the roach, stoker, marauder, spell casters and flying units.
2) The splash damage was actually buffed if you think about it because on the custom hots map most people would pull the unit away before it detonated and any splash is better then none. Also 35 splash damage is close to as much as a baneling and two shots marines and lings but maby the radius could use a buff I don't know enough about that.
3) As Johnny123 said the armoury requirement is probably because of creep spread and queens early game, as well as the fact that zerg dose not really have any way of killing a borrowed mine before lair as it has more range then all hatchery tech units. So basically completely imba.
4) As far as killing clocked units goes, well why should it. Bunkers, spines and auto cast burrowed banlings don't just magically kill clocked/burrowed units, detectors spot invisible units and non-detectors don't that is the game mechanic and it adds skill to the game so if you don't like it don't play.
5) I also think you missed the main point of the widow mine because you keep mentioning how core army units would be better to build because their stronger in fights. warhounds and helions and stuff just add to the death ball and wants units that are more effective outside the death ball. The widow mine is supposed to be used as a defensive unit against drops or behind your tanks while you make a push with your slow immobile mech army, and considering it kills medivacs, overlords and warp prisms instantly I would say it pretty effective (75 min and 25 gas for a 700 min and 100 gas more if marauders were in their). Plus if the units did drop the splash would make it much easier for your only mobile unit the helion to clean it up and also for spawning units to clean it up. So ya you could make army units instead but at a high level I hope you like to lose everything to drops because no one will want to engage your mech army.
6) The two supply might be overkill but I don't think we have enough data to determine that and will have to wait till the beta styles and balance develop.
Thanks for reading guys I know it was a long post but I had to get it out.
Edit: Oops forgot to mention only reason I think two supply might work is because of the efficiency of the mech army.
So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
On September 08 2012 13:36 Zombo Joe wrote: So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
Edited my post to say that 2 supply might (and notice I say might) work due to mech efficiency. Also I said it could be used behind your tank line while pushing to stop tank snipes or the enemy army going around yours and getting a better engagement.
Yeah...this is disconcerting. They tried to make the spider mine, but then decided not to make the spider mine. It's really dumb that they can't seem to find the place to balance these things out. I feel like all widow mines need is everything spider mines had in BW. Even with 2 supply, if they just worked like spider mines, I think they'd be worth it.
Hell, nerf their HP or increase their burrow time if you're worried about early game abuse.... Don't just delay them to the point where they're useless.
On September 08 2012 13:36 Zombo Joe wrote: So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
Edited my post to say that 2 supply might (and notice I say might) work due to mech efficiency. Also I said it could be used behind your tank line while pushing to stop tank snipes or the enemy army going around yours and getting a better engagement.
On September 08 2012 13:36 Zombo Joe wrote: So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
Exactly. Let's say you build 10 widow mines for whatever reason. What would you rather have?
Another 5 ravens? Another 5 warhounds? Another 3 tanks? 1 thor and some vikings?
The list goes on. If you are beta testing Terran right now in HOTS and using the mines you are putting yourself at a disadvantage vs every race, including in TvT.
They need to re-buff it so it can kill units. I just played trump and saw him trying to use the mines (oh how naive trump :D lol) and i walked like 3 warhounds and some hellions onto the mines and my warhounds were still in the high green health @_@.
Imo, why not give the mine to the warhound and make it not cost supply/stronger? That would add a bit more depth to the warhound and you'd see them going around the map laying mines.
As is, it's way too weak, and it's always worth it to build a raven/viking/warhound/tank/thor/hellion/marauder/marine/medivac (any other unit) over the widow mine. If you're looking to stop drop harrass, turrets are already more than enough and more effective than widow mines.
On September 08 2012 13:36 Zombo Joe wrote: So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
Edited my post to say that 2 supply might (and notice I say might) work due to mech efficiency. Also I said it could be used behind your tank line while pushing to stop tank snipes or the enemy army going around yours and getting a better engagement.
Meh, circumstantial.
Maybe they'll be good in tvt vs marines.
They are not good at that or anything else. If you want to stop drops, build a permanent missile turret for zero gas cost with more range instead.
Remove the warhounds haywire missles since they are borderline OP, and give the warhound the ability to lay -two- widow mines, elaving the mines as they are currently, minus supply.
2 supply is rough, but it really shouldn't be a detector. Let us be honest here, if it could detect and kill it would be a little much. It shouldnt replace a tank line or a defensive army, it should force someone to take their time giving you time to reposition mech. IMO, thats what the mine should really be used for in a defensive sense. Not as a widow mine at choke and now nothing cloaked on the ground will kill me
Lol they cost the same supply as a warhound? Is this serious? I wonder how blizzard is justifying supply costs at the moment. With how shitty the damage is they shouldn't be any supply honestly. "oh but then you'll just cover the map in them." Uh, remember bw TvP? Fucking millions of spider mines. Made for good games. I'm still lol'ing at 2 supply. I'd much rather have an OPhound.
The fact that it costs supply just seems so stupid. Sure it gives you map control, but the fact that it takes up supply means that you could just have units there, which seems to defeat the point of the whole thing.
It seems like it could be difficult to balance what tier the unit is at due to the lack of zerg detection in the early game unlike in brood war, which would allow terran to be incredibly abusive with rushing the mines.
1) dont remove the requirement for armory. It needs to stay that way to prevent abuse
2) 1 supply instead of 2, maybe even .5 supply just like zerglings. If it costed 0 supply it would be a big issue very late game, with the entire battlefield filled with these guys. At least in broodwar you were limited to 3 mines per vulture. So i think supply cost is justified, just needs to be way less food.
3) gets the ability to detect burrowed units as well. Not cloak.
4) a further price tweak . Basically it costs the same as a roach but only has the potential to kill a roach. With a unit that is risk to reward, its cost need to be favored towards the risk, because there is potential for zero damage or bigger units absorbing it instead thus resulting in waste. i'd say 50/25 instead of 75/25 . In broodwar you got the vulture for 75 minerals only + 3 mines. Thats basically 4 fucking units for 75 minerals....................
this mine is bad, really bad. expect blizzard to patch it really soon.
I feel like the widow mine shouldn't be created at the factory. Instead it should require the factory tech but at the same time, it should be constructed by SCVs as if they were mobile buildings. This way, it doesn't clutter factory units while at the same time provides the map control that mech play needs.
I kind of expected this, as I don't think the widow mine is not really a very good idea for a unit in the first place. It is just a symptom of Blizzard trying to fix mistakes they made in some of the changes from Brood War to StarCraft 2, but being too proud to just come out and say "Yup, we messed up. The vulture/goliath really played a necessary role that our new units have failed to fill. Here are the old units back".
Now, personally, I kind of like the hellion; so, I think they should add a caster to the factory at a Tier 2.5, similar to the relationship between the barracks and the ghost, maybe even still using the Ghost Academy. Make it a vulture bike with spider mines and some other spells to help mech play and balance the base stats around being a support unit. I figure it could even just be a ghost who has traded his cloaking field for the added mobility of a hover bike and traded his EMP round for spider mines. A vulture at tier 2.5 that costs similar to a ghost and comes with Snipe, Spider Mines, and Nuke. Probably no speed upgrade, though, hahaha - that might be overkill. Maybe give the Thor a researchable speed upgrade and decrease it's size a smidge. Boom, no need for that ridiculous warhound, either, haha.
Anyway, those are just ideas. Mainly, I just don't think that widow mine will ever be made into a standalone unit that is both effective and balanced, but I also don't generally have any idea what I am talking about; so, we'll see.
The mine actually halt the factory production, its so bad, people dont want to stop the ground army production for side-units. Give them to the raven in change of autoturrets, the timing problem will be resolved, no more supply cost, no more production halted and of course no more bw-like so browder can fapfap his gamedesigner ego like a boss.
Their ridicules supply is their biggest weakness right now. But not the only one. burrowed/cloak attacks are also sorely needed for a map controlling late game unit..
On September 08 2012 13:28 xyres wrote: I actually disagree with this post for a few reasons that I think the op didn't take into consideration.
1) The damage nerf was because they got rid of the 10 second timer and made it an instant attack. However it still kills units in one shot except units that shouldn't die with one shot like Thor's and brood lords, its cost effective against most of those units as well like the roach, stoker, marauder, spell casters and flying units.
2) The splash damage was actually buffed if you think about it because on the custom hots map most people would pull the unit away before it detonated and any splash is better then none. Also 35 splash damage is close to as much as a baneling and two shots marines and lings but maby the radius could use a buff I don't know enough about that.
3) As Johnny123 said the armoury requirement is probably because of creep spread and queens early game, as well as the fact that zerg dose not really have any way of killing a borrowed mine before lair as it has more range then all hatchery tech units. So basically completely imba.
4) As far as killing clocked units goes, well why should it. Bunkers, spines and auto cast burrowed banlings don't just magically kill clocked/burrowed units, detectors spot invisible units and non-detectors don't that is the game mechanic and it adds skill to the game so if you don't like it don't play.
5) I also think you missed the main point of the widow mine because you keep mentioning how core army units would be better to build because their stronger in fights. warhounds and helions and stuff just add to the death ball and wants units that are more effective outside the death ball. The widow mine is supposed to be used as a defensive unit against drops or behind your tanks while you make a push with your slow immobile mech army, and considering it kills medivacs, overlords and warp prisms instantly I would say it pretty effective (75 min and 25 gas for a 700 min and 100 gas more if marauders were in their). Plus if the units did drop the splash would make it much easier for your only mobile unit the helion to clean it up and also for spawning units to clean it up. So ya you could make army units instead but at a high level I hope you like to lose everything to drops because no one will want to engage your mech army.
6) The two supply might be overkill but I don't think we have enough data to determine that and will have to wait till the beta styles and balance develop.
Thanks for reading guys I know it was a long post but I had to get it out.
Edit: Oops forgot to mention only reason I think two supply might work is because of the efficiency of the mech army.
best post so far. just make it 1 supply (or 0.5 with a damage nerf). minefields would be really nice for spacecontrol so buff the supplycost and if they are too strong just nerf the damage. 2 supply is way too much since it cuts too hard in the army of T and lategame a PF is just better for space control right now since it is no supply and can even be repaired.
as for the people who say it should detect cloaked/burrowed: that would just be retarded since it would shut down ALL harrass by air and ground without needing detection. and theres no big deal in building some turrets lategame with the mines.
They need to re-buff it so it can kill units. I just played trump and saw him trying to use the mines (oh how naive trump :D lol) and i walked like 3 warhounds and some hellions onto the mines and my warhounds were still in the high green health @_@.
Imo, why not give the mine to the warhound and make it not cost supply/stronger? That would add a bit more depth to the warhound and you'd see them going around the map laying mines.
i actually really like this idea. Make widow mines warhound poop. obviously whilst simultaneously nerfing the warhound substantially to make up for it.
I feel as said if widow mines cost supply, it's usually a better idea to build army, considering youll start to see players always sacrificing one ling or one zealot to take out a 75/25 unit just isnt cost efficient for terran. However you can't make the zero supply or upon maxing out the terran just makes hundreds of them.
I feel as said if widow mines cost supply, it's usually a better idea to build army, considering youll start to see players always sacrificing one ling or one zealot to take out a 75/25 unit just isnt cost efficient for terran. However you can't make the zero supply or upon maxing out the terran just makes hundreds of them.
Lol? You can cancel auto-casting mine and manually target it.
I feel as said if widow mines cost supply, it's usually a better idea to build army, considering youll start to see players always sacrificing one ling or one zealot to take out a 75/25 unit just isnt cost efficient for terran. However you can't make the zero supply or upon maxing out the terran just makes hundreds of them.
Lol? You can cancel auto-casting mine and manually target it.
Can you? I thought you can't control the mine when it's burrowed. It will hit the first unit passing it, no?
Avilo have you posted this on the HoTS beta forum? if you haven't, go post it.
I like how terrans suddenly discover that they need to sacrifice supply for map control.
That said, 2 supply is actually stupid
The main issue is no other race has to sacrifice supply for map control as they do it with their units.
If you have a smaller mech army, it will not win in it's current form against any ground/air army that comes at it, trust me. I play mech every matchup in WoL and unless you pretty much max out completely on mech it gets destroyed by everything.
To have mines be effective you need atleast 10 per area and that's 20 supply per field which is dumb as hell.
On September 08 2012 18:36 Fluffboll wrote: Give the mines to the Reaper, make it zero supply but limit it to 2 with an upgrade to make the Reapers carry 4 mines.
Why the reaper? It needs to badly be on a factory unit as having to make extra barracks as mech would be really annoying.
If anything make it a warhound ability allowing them to keep their speed and be basically mine layers.
On September 08 2012 18:42 NATO wrote: Widow mines had the potential to add interesting gameplay to the game, but they are more worthless than a Raven in current form.
Ravens kick ass. Increased movement speed + 100energy hunter seeker is soooo good.
Regarding the widow mine: design wise they are fine, unlike the warhound. So as long as blizzard gets the numbers right, we will see them as a part of every mech army. This is not the case right now but it will be eventually, i am sure.
OP's point is spot on.. it's so weird that they changed the mine so much before beta, because it's not like they had a good grasp on how thing would actually function when the beta went live anyway. Their surprise at the overall strength of the Warhound is an example of that. They should've been more willing to experiment with it along the way, instead of launching with a unit there's no good reason to make
Also, Avilo please don't take this the wrong way but this has been bothering me with your posts for a while + Show Spoiler +
It's
It's is a contraction of "it is" or "it has."
It's time to go.
Do you think it's ready?
I read your article - it's very good.
Do you know where my purse is? It's on the table.
It's been a long time.
Its
Its is the possessive form of "it."
That's an interesting device - what is its purpose?
I saw Les Misérables during its initial run.
This stove has its own timer.
The bird lost some of its feathers.
Where is its head office?
On September 08 2012 16:23 Alexj wrote: I like how terrans suddenly discover that they need to sacrifice supply for map control.
That said, 2 supply is actually stupid
there's nothing "sudden" about it. Terrans have been building bunkers with marines at distant expansion to control areas of the map since forever.
On September 08 2012 19:24 Quotidian wrote: OP's point is spot on.. it's so weird that they changed the mine so much before beta, because it's not like they had a good grasp on how thing would actually function when the beta went live anyway. Their surprise at the overall strength of the Warhound is an example of that. They should've been more willing to experiment with it along the way, instead of launching with a unit there's no good reason to make
Also, Avilo please don't take this the wrong way but this has been bothering me with your posts for a while + Show Spoiler +
It's
It's is a contraction of "it is" or "it has."
It's time to go.
Do you think it's ready?
I read your article - it's very good.
Do you know where my purse is? It's on the table.
It's been a long time.
Its
Its is the possessive form of "it."
That's an interesting device - what is its purpose?
On September 08 2012 16:23 Alexj wrote: I like how terrans suddenly discover that they need to sacrifice supply for map control.
That said, 2 supply is actually stupid
there's nothing "sudden" about it. Terrans have been building bunkers with marines at distant expansion to control areas of the map since forever.
Ah, those are typos/grammar errors yep.
Anyways, for people arguing the "Terran will just make infinite of these when maxed" that would be impossible if it's tied to a unit like the warhound like it is with the vulture. You make the unit, it gets the 3 mines, then you have the unit itself leftover. You would have to purposely kill your own units just for the sake of making more mines in that case which with a unit that costs gas such as the warhound would be bad.
I honestly can't see 1-2 supply mines making it into the final version of this game. I'm just callling it now. Either way they need to be looked at.
they really should be 1 suply and also detect cloak and armory req is pretty bad too, better if it would need engibay, otherwise damage we should probably wait and see, right now problems is how hard it is to make them. as for cloak detect, compared to baneling, this is a defensive/area denial unit, and banelings is atack splash unit, which have way more uses because they can defend with burrow and creep speed too, not to mention drops into army or mineral line. so yea mines suck, buff it!
On September 08 2012 19:24 Quotidian wrote: OP's point is spot on.. it's so weird that they changed the mine so much before beta, because it's not like they had a good grasp on how thing would actually function when the beta went live anyway. Their surprise at the overall strength of the Warhound is an example of that. They should've been more willing to experiment with it along the way, instead of launching with a unit there's no good reason to make
Also, Avilo please don't take this the wrong way but this has been bothering me with your posts for a while + Show Spoiler +
It's
It's is a contraction of "it is" or "it has."
It's time to go.
Do you think it's ready?
I read your article - it's very good.
Do you know where my purse is? It's on the table.
It's been a long time.
Its
Its is the possessive form of "it."
That's an interesting device - what is its purpose?
On September 08 2012 16:23 Alexj wrote: I like how terrans suddenly discover that they need to sacrifice supply for map control.
That said, 2 supply is actually stupid
there's nothing "sudden" about it. Terrans have been building bunkers with marines at distant expansion to control areas of the map since forever.
Woooow what? Wtf? It is such a rare occasion that u place random bunkers as Terran. And yes, terran never before needed to invest supply into mapcontrol. Protoss? Observer. Zerg? Lings, burrowed blings, mutas.
Oh lol just noticed it's an Avilo thread so ... yea, guess it doesn't help what useful arugments you bring up
or maybe mines should come in pairs like zerglings - 1 mine 0.5 supply and yes i agree it should detect invis/burrowed units
EDIT: the idea with warhounds with minds is also interesting, basically volture from bw, they should make appropriate changes to dmg and so on, and that would make warhounds a good unit for being a support to a tank, and not a main unit
On September 08 2012 19:57 thOr6136 wrote: or maybe mines should come in pairs like zerglings - 1 mine 0.5 supply and yes i agree it should detect invis/burrowed units
Why in the name of god should it detect ANYTHING? Do burrowed banes detect stuff? No! Is it somewhere written on the mine "Detetector". No! Do Zergs need to manually detonate to kill ghosts/DTs? Yes!
On September 08 2012 19:24 Quotidian wrote: OP's point is spot on.. it's so weird that they changed the mine so much before beta, because it's not like they had a good grasp on how thing would actually function when the beta went live anyway. Their surprise at the overall strength of the Warhound is an example of that. They should've been more willing to experiment with it along the way, instead of launching with a unit there's no good reason to make
Also, Avilo please don't take this the wrong way but this has been bothering me with your posts for a while + Show Spoiler +
It's
It's is a contraction of "it is" or "it has."
It's time to go.
Do you think it's ready?
I read your article - it's very good.
Do you know where my purse is? It's on the table.
It's been a long time.
Its
Its is the possessive form of "it."
That's an interesting device - what is its purpose?
I saw Les Misérables during its initial run.
This stove has its own timer.
The bird lost some of its feathers.
Where is its head office?
On September 08 2012 16:23 Alexj wrote: I like how terrans suddenly discover that they need to sacrifice supply for map control.
That said, 2 supply is actually stupid
there's nothing "sudden" about it. Terrans have been building bunkers with marines at distant expansion to control areas of the map since forever.
Woooow what? Wtf? It is such a rare occasion that u place random bunkers as Terran.
it's so rare that it's standard to get a bunker at the third against zerg...
On September 08 2012 19:57 thOr6136 wrote: or maybe mines should come in pairs like zerglings - 1 mine 0.5 supply and yes i agree it should detect invis/burrowed units
Why in the name of god should it detect ANYTHING? Do burrowed banes detect stuff? No! Is it somewhere written on the mine "Detetector". No! Do Zergs need to manually detonate to kill ghosts/DTs? Yes!
well it wouldn't be like detect = you see the invisible unit but more like mine would attach to invisible unit and dmg it
or make an option to auto destroy mines like banelings
On September 08 2012 19:57 thOr6136 wrote: or maybe mines should come in pairs like zerglings - 1 mine 0.5 supply and yes i agree it should detect invis/burrowed units
Why in the name of god should it detect ANYTHING? Do burrowed banes detect stuff? No! Is it somewhere written on the mine "Detetector". No! Do Zergs need to manually detonate to kill ghosts/DTs? Yes!
well it wouldn't be like detect = you see the invisible unit but more like mine would attach to invisible unit and dmg it
or make an option to auto destroy mines like banelings
and your arguments are stupid -,.- no offense
yeah just make the mine be manually explodable like burrowed baneling and it would be fine. but no autoexplode if burrowed/cloaked unit walks by. just handle them as banelings.
On September 08 2012 19:57 thOr6136 wrote: or maybe mines should come in pairs like zerglings - 1 mine 0.5 supply and yes i agree it should detect invis/burrowed units
Why in the name of god should it detect ANYTHING? Do burrowed banes detect stuff? No! Is it somewhere written on the mine "Detetector". No! Do Zergs need to manually detonate to kill ghosts/DTs? Yes!
well it wouldn't be like detect = you see the invisible unit but more like mine would attach to invisible unit and dmg it
or make an option to auto destroy mines like banelings
and your arguments are stupid -,.- no offense
yeah just make the mine be manually explodable like burrowed baneling and it would be fine. but no autoexplode if burrowed/cloaked unit walks by. just handle them as banelings.
Okay so from the conclusion you want a mine with 1 supply that costs 75/25 that can be triggered to explode? Hell why not give even MORE splash damage to Terran, it is not like they allready got the most AoE.
On September 08 2012 19:24 Quotidian wrote: OP's point is spot on.. it's so weird that they changed the mine so much before beta, because it's not like they had a good grasp on how thing would actually function when the beta went live anyway. Their surprise at the overall strength of the Warhound is an example of that. They should've been more willing to experiment with it along the way, instead of launching with a unit there's no good reason to make
Also, Avilo please don't take this the wrong way but this has been bothering me with your posts for a while + Show Spoiler +
It's
It's is a contraction of "it is" or "it has."
It's time to go.
Do you think it's ready?
I read your article - it's very good.
Do you know where my purse is? It's on the table.
It's been a long time.
Its
Its is the possessive form of "it."
That's an interesting device - what is its purpose?
I saw Les Misérables during its initial run.
This stove has its own timer.
The bird lost some of its feathers.
Where is its head office?
On September 08 2012 16:23 Alexj wrote: I like how terrans suddenly discover that they need to sacrifice supply for map control.
That said, 2 supply is actually stupid
there's nothing "sudden" about it. Terrans have been building bunkers with marines at distant expansion to control areas of the map since forever.
Woooow what? Wtf? It is such a rare occasion that u place random bunkers as Terran. And yes, terran never before needed to invest supply into mapcontrol. Protoss? Observer. Zerg? Lings, burrowed blings, mutas.
Oh lol just noticed it's an Avilo thread so ... yea, guess it doesn't help what useful arugments you bring up
Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about. I'd like to hear your definition of map control, just for the laughs. I think you made your point, you hate Terran and it should get nerfed. That's pretty much everything you have to add.
On September 08 2012 19:57 thOr6136 wrote: or maybe mines should come in pairs like zerglings - 1 mine 0.5 supply and yes i agree it should detect invis/burrowed units
Why in the name of god should it detect ANYTHING? Do burrowed banes detect stuff? No! Is it somewhere written on the mine "Detetector". No! Do Zergs need to manually detonate to kill ghosts/DTs? Yes!
well it wouldn't be like detect = you see the invisible unit but more like mine would attach to invisible unit and dmg it
or make an option to auto destroy mines like banelings
and your arguments are stupid -,.- no offense
yeah just make the mine be manually explodable like burrowed baneling and it would be fine. but no autoexplode if burrowed/cloaked unit walks by. just handle them as banelings.
Okay so from the conclusion you want a mine with 1 supply that costs 75/25 that can be triggered to explode? Hell why not give even MORE splash damage to Terran, it is not like they allready got the most AoE.
first of all i am a zerg player. and yes i am fine with that. but the mine shouldnt attack air. the mine attacking air is pretty retarded since turrets + marines/thors are already really good vs mutas/banshees/phoenix and like they removed air from swarm host they should remove it from mine also.
On September 08 2012 20:54 Atlan___ wrote: make the mine buildable in the warhound for same cost but without supply and with bigger damage (and splash) then it will be fine.
On September 08 2012 20:54 Atlan___ wrote: make the mine buildable in the warhound for same cost but without supply and with bigger damage (and splash) then it will be fine.
no supply would be superduper imba.
Why ? all other races do have static deffense which also don't cost supply + it does not suicide on the attack.
On September 08 2012 20:54 Atlan___ wrote: make the mine buildable in the warhound for same cost but without supply and with bigger damage (and splash) then it will be fine.
no supply would be superduper imba.
Why ? all other races do have static deffense which also don't cost supply + it does not suicide on the attack.
terran has the BEST static defense that doesnt cost supply: PF. it even does splash damage and can be repaired. spines/spores/cannons dont and do A LOT less damage, do NO AoE damage and arent movable on the whole map. mines are basically like banelings (which cost supply) so its fine they have supply. but 2 supply is too much so make them 1 supply.
I hope Blizzard don't mess this up. Terran needs some defensive unit/ buildings (as P have cannons and Z have spine crawlers). Having that kind of defence would make Terrans less turtle-y I feel.
I wouldn't be opposed to removing the burrow (invisible) aspect of the mine as long as it does effective damage. It needs to be a deterrent against Marine runbys, Zergling runbys and mass zealot/ stalker walk ins/ warp ins. Note; I say deterrent, not hard counter. It needs to slow the opponent down and/ or make the opponent think twice about attacking, just like a few cannons or a few spines would make a Terran think twice about dropping.
So yeah, some decent damage, maybe some splash. I think it should be cost efficient against small groups of units (6 marines, 12 zerglings, a warp in of zealots) but it can't be imba and rough up a full army. Just like a few stalkers have difficulty with spine crawlers, but 20+ stalkers almost don't notice them. Just like a few zerglings can't fight cannons but a huge runby isn't slowed down.
I think Blizzard need to balance the widow mine with cannons/ spines (note: both of these cost no supply). Seems like the fairest and most balanced way. I'm not sure what the best method would be. Perhaps make them quite expensive (75/25 is expensive for a self destruct unit), but cost 0.5 supply and do decent splash damage (I think I'd prefer wide splash, but low damage). Or forget the splash but make them do more direct damage. I think splash is a better way to go though, because otherwise they really have almost no use at all...
Factory constructs 2 widow mines as standard for 1 supply. Reactor factory constructs 4 widow mines for 2 supply. Keep everything else as is.
Half the cost, 1/4 the supply and it'll be fine.
Main difference between this and the BW vulture mine is you can relocate the mines here. After they're done nerfing the warhound, I hope they take a look at the Widow mine.
On September 08 2012 20:54 Atlan___ wrote: make the mine buildable in the warhound for same cost but without supply and with bigger damage (and splash) then it will be fine.
no supply would be superduper imba.
False. Static defense doesn't need to cost supply.
PFs cost signifcant gas and 4-5x as much as spores/spines/cannons so that's not a valid argument on why mines can't cost supply. It worked fine in BW, so it can work with the right damage numbers.
Just make it exactly like the spider mine. There's no shame in taking something from one of the best and most succesful games ever. You're already taking the concept of a mine. A mine shouldn't cost supply and shouldn't be able to move on it's own. It would add so much for entertainment and e-sports in general to add the old BW mine.
The spider mine could be focused down before it attacks your units, meaning your opponent has potential to micro against it effectively. The fact that it gets dropped by units, makes it a lot less fragile (to be used in straight up battles), more massable and more mobile. Vultures were really fast, could quickly place 3 mines each and then go harrass something else. The fact that it got placed by vultures means it's also a lot more interesting and dynamic in straight up battles. Vulture's could quickly go behind an opponent or even straight up versus armies (in smaller skirmishes) and start dropping mines (see epic Bisu micro).
The mines shouldn't be contrallable if they ever get dropped by a unit (if they are quickly available in the game, which they should be to make them actually useful and worth getting) because this would make them way too strong in small skirmishes and this way people won't be able to lure them with a single zergling or zealot (which was important in the balancing aspect of it).
They should definitely not work versus air units. It's pretty ridiculous that an entire medivac would get destroyed by a mine you don't even have to micro. At least scourges required a lot of attention and sick multitasking and control to counter a drop.
If the mines can't target air, you can still use them to counter drops. And atleast mutalisk play won't be entirely destroyed by the mine...
Two supply and armory requirements need to go so we can just start discussing about the purpose of the supply costing mine that hits air and ground. The way I see it that's it's only saving grace right now - the fact that it hits air. It might even be too good for that, but that really isn't the point of the mine they originally intended to be.
Edit: It might be even worth it to keep the price (or increase it even), lower the supply cost to 1 and make two of them come out of the factory at the same time. Merge their single and AOE target damage so it's the same (I don't know the exact number for the aoe right now but I believe it's pretty low like 30 something?) - of course this is where the biggest adjustments would be. But to make it different that a baneling make it hit air so it servers multiple purposes (defending your base from air raids and carpeting your flanks/siege fronts with them) while NOT taking up so much supply.
For 2 supply it just isn't worth building, I'd much rather have 2 tanks or 3 medivacs than 3 spider mines. 2 tanks would even hold and control space better than the 2 spider mines due to the reduced splash. I feel that even 1 supply is a little too much as in BW you could get a mine for 2/3 supply and then still have a unit which can be used for damage.
I'm not sure if I mind the armory requirement. If you can rush out mines then early game contains really become quite easy. I don't agree with the high supply cost, because specialty units can only prosper if they don't put too much strain on your main army. If the dark templar was 3 supply, as would be appropriate for their cost, I don't think we'd see as many of them. If someone has a strategy dependent on minefields, then I think that should be viable based on cost, not on how much it cuts into your army supply.
It's a bit too easy to get to 200/200 in this game though, which plays into the problem.
On September 08 2012 20:54 Atlan___ wrote: make the mine buildable in the warhound for same cost but without supply and with bigger damage (and splash) then it will be fine.
no supply would be superduper imba.
False. Static defense doesn't need to cost supply.
PFs cost signifcant gas and 4-5x as much as spores/spines/cannons so that's not a valid argument on why mines can't cost supply. It worked fine in BW, so it can work with the right damage numbers.
and the mine isnt static defense like spores/cannons/PF are build to protect buildings/mineral lines. area control units like tanks/swarm host etc. are used to prevent frontal engagements in these areas or neglect basetrades while the main army is somewhere else. and thats exactly what terran mech needs. to control space, so that the slowmoving mech army isnt just basetraded etc. against. there isnt a supply problem anyway, just make them 0,5 or 1 supply. for zero supply they would need to nerf the damage too hard.
On September 08 2012 21:48 Grumbels wrote: I'm not sure if I mind the armory requirement. If you can rush out mines then early game contains really become quite easy.
I guess the armory basically takes the place of the upgrade that you needed in BW (and armory actually builds faster), so it makes some sense on that level. But the supply cost is way too high, and I've started to agree that you should basically get two-for one like you do with zerglings. If mines don't come as an ability on another unit, they should be 0.5 supply units
I've got this whole widow mine thing figured out. What needs to be done is make the widow mine a cheap 0.5 supply unit that comes out of the factory two at a time with a range below that of your standard ranged units like stalkers, marines, immortals, roaches, etc. These mines will have splash damage, and give a split second delay on charging the enemy units to allow for counter micro to pick them off. This is by far the ideal design for the widow mine in HOTS and here's why.
First off, Mines are suicide units by definition that also come with no guarantee they will hit an enemy unit and do the damage to make up for the cost, which requires them to be much cheaper than the units they will actually kill. An expensive mine, or even a slightly too expensive mine is a useless mine.
I think any sensible person would agree that 2 supply per mine makes mines utterly useless investments. Mines 'must' be low supply to be of use, otherwise your main army will be too small and you will just die straight up. The thing is, if you give mines no supply and do not link them to a unit(like the spider mine was with the vulture) terran can mass the hell out of them and it can get out of hand. Having 0.5 supply per mine allows the usage of mines while restricting them to reasonable numbers.
Having them come out 2 at a time make sense because of how their supply works and making one 0.5 supply unit at a time doesn't really make sense. Plus it would be way too taxing on peoples production to have to make more mines every 10 seconds or so.
Having them come out of the factory as is makes sense because blizzard obviously wants to bring a sort of spider mine back while making it unique from the spider mine. If you make them come from a unit they'd basically be spider mines 2.0.
The mines need to have enough range to pose a real threat(not just where they activate when walked on top of) while also allowing counter micro. If you have a range of say, 4 for example, then if mines pop up during a battle the enemy has the chance to pick them off if they are fast and skilled enough. This sort of range also prevents them from being too powerful that they can't just attack themselves to any units that ever try to take them out detection or not.
These mines need to have splash damage to truely effectively control range. If these mines simply kill one unit at a time a few cheap units like lings can be sent in and the mines would never be cost efficient. Plus it looks dumb to have a bomb blow up in a clomp of units but only damage one.
As for damage, these mines are supposed to be fairly easy to avoid as long as the enemy is safe(hence controlling the map) so they should do a lot of damage to the targeted unit with a fairly powerful amount of splash.
Also, i don't care if mines damage flying units or not, but I guess I'd prefer that they didn't else you will have mines killing drop ships and banshees and stuff way too easily.
On September 08 2012 13:36 Zombo Joe wrote: So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
Exactly. Let's say you build 10 widow mines for whatever reason. What would you rather have?
Another 5 ravens? Another 5 warhounds? Another 3 tanks? 1 thor and some vikings?
The list goes on. If you are beta testing Terran right now in HOTS and using the mines you are putting yourself at a disadvantage vs every race, including in TvT.
They need to re-buff it so it can kill units. I just played trump and saw him trying to use the mines (oh how naive trump :D lol) and i walked like 3 warhounds and some hellions onto the mines and my warhounds were still in the high green health @_@.
Imo, why not give the mine to the warhound and make it not cost supply/stronger? That would add a bit more depth to the warhound and you'd see them going around the map laying mines.
As is, it's way too weak, and it's always worth it to build a raven/viking/warhound/tank/thor/hellion/marauder/marine/medivac (any other unit) over the widow mine. If you're looking to stop drop harrass, turrets are already more than enough and more effective than widow mines.
On September 08 2012 13:36 Zombo Joe wrote: So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
Edited my post to say that 2 supply might (and notice I say might) work due to mech efficiency. Also I said it could be used behind your tank line while pushing to stop tank snipes or the enemy army going around yours and getting a better engagement.
Meh, circumstantial.
Maybe they'll be good in tvt vs marines.
They are not good at that or anything else. If you want to stop drops, build a permanent missile turret for zero gas cost with more range instead.
I think they should nerf the warhound so its a reasonable unit, and give it widow mines as an upgrade ability. That give the warhound some more utility and it means they can make it so its not as strong as it currently is. They could also give it to the reaper, but I think that would be imba in the early game.
Otherwise the mine is completely useless. Which is sad because its my favorite concept. Its basically a 2 supply baneling that does less splash radius and more single target damage.
The only thing I can see it being use for is drop denial in TVT. it can one shot a medivac so it might be worth having 1 or two in the back of your base.
1) We have turrets to deal with drops, mines help clean up the units that actually get out, not kill the dropships as that's actually kind of OP.
2) Mines were used to slow enemy armies down and make it dangerous for them to not blindly walk around your army to go base trade you. Currently you can't use them for this.
3) The main issue is the cost and the fact they're 2 supply. It means to get any decent number of mines you have to give up tanks/thors/hellions in your main army and that means your main army will just melt to any attack into it.
4) Why is it not possible to just give them as an ability to either the hellion or the warhound and make them cost energy? They were free in BW and people never really complained about them as they were easily countered by just having detection. Their place in the game should be to slow down the enemy to make it possible to move your tanks safely.
On September 10 2012 02:57 Qikz wrote: The issue I have with the mines are as follows
1) We have turrets to deal with drops, mines help clean up the units that actually get out, not kill the dropships as that's actually kind of OP.
2) Mines were used to slow enemy armies down and make it dangerous for them to not blindly walk around your army to go base trade you. Currently you can't use them for this.
3) The main issue is the cost and the fact they're 2 supply. It means to get any decent number of mines you have to give up tanks/thors/hellions in your main army and that means your main army will just melt to any attack into it.
4) Why is it not possible to just give them as an ability to either the hellion or the warhound and make them cost energy? They were free in BW and people never really complained about them as they were easily countered by just having detection. Their place in the game should be to slow down the enemy to make it possible to move your tanks safely.
The answer might not please you: Blizzard wanted to change something about mines so that people could not say they copied the idea from BW. Because of that, in order to reuse a perfectly valid concept from BW, they have to break it in some way. Sad but true. T____T
Was about to start a thread detailing the Widow Mine and just saw this one. I'll post what I have so far on my outlook regarding the unit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To put it bluntly, I believe the Widow Mine (WM for short) is conceptually broken and should have either been scrapped or remade after its introduction. It simply has too many drawbacks and fails to perform the role it was designed to fill.
Its Role - the WM is a one-trick pony. It lacks the versatility seen in other units while being questionable in its own; defense.
Costs Supply - more supply in WMs equals less supply in your main army.
Costs Resources - 75 minerals & 25 gas isn't something to be taken lightly (especially so for a unit that could be classified as a speed bump). While many argue that WMs can easily trade efficiently with their high single-target damage and lower but still potent splash, I find myself doubting if that's realistic. Also, more resources spent on WMs means less resources spent on the army.
Burrows to Activate - it takes 4 seconds for a WM to burrow before it can activate and target an enemy unit... it takes 4 seconds for a tank to go into siege mode... give that a second to soak in... Out of position and repositioning WMs will be eradicated just as fast as your thoughts that these units could possibly be used in aggression.
5(?) Range - Oddly enough, 5 range just doesn't cut it. Most of the critical units outrange the WM; Marauders, Siege Tanks, Warhounds, Banshees, landed Vikings, Stalkers, Immortals, Colossi, Void Rays, and Tempests (Zerg has other tools like Infestors, Swarm Hosts, and Brood Lords)
Splash Damage Deals Friendly Fire - Do you really want to protect your mineral line with a unit that does splash damage? Also, fast units tend to run over and pull the WMs in the direction they're going (i.e. speedlings running towards your marines and mutas / phoenixes flying at your workers).
Competes with Factory Units - Might not seem major but that's time that could have been spent building hellions, tanks or warhounds.
Requires Armory - I imagine this will be removed though I'll comment on it just in case. The armory requirement presents two fundamental issues. First, it delays the time that WMs can appear. This prevents the WM from making an impact early on while also giving the opponent extra time to obtain detection and therefore neutralize the unit. Second, an early armory such as one right after the factory telegraphs the fact that Terran is pushing for fast WMs and ruins the element of surprise.
The Warhound - The Warhound counters WMs so dominantly that it's disheartening. It really is ironic that Warhounds not only counter siege lines but also the units that are supposed to protect them.
Haywire Missiles - this 10 range anti-mechanical ability designed to take out tanks and Protoss units is super effective against WMs. These eat through the WM’s 90 health by dealing 30 damage on a 6 second cooldown.
7 Attack Range - yet another way to destroy WMs outside their activation range.
High HP - unlike most units, the Warhounds survive the first initial WM and even the splash damage of a second. This ‘tankiness’ for lack of a better word allows them to stop, scan, and clear any surrounding mines.
Timing - Warhounds can, and usually will, be created before WMs.
The Swarm Host - Zerg’s new siege unit makes a mockery out of WMs. The combination of Swarm Hosts and a single Overseer allow for the ability to painlessly clear any area with ease. The Oracle - a second, mobile version of detection if Protoss chooses not to tech into the robotics bay. The Tempest - I doubt WMs will deter the movement of a unit with 22 range.
Burrow and Stealth can both be used to avoid the WM’s direct damage while Blink escapes it entirely. These abilities seem to cause the WM to lose sight of its target so they detonate at the location it was last seen (hence burrow and stealth taking splash). While this might seem extreme, consider the other possibility of Protoss sending stalkers to collect WMs and then blinking them into Terran’s army.
I think point #4 is fair but in every other point I think you're right, especially in it being 2 supply. You'll never see Terran make it when the warhound also costs two supply, probably even if/when they cost 3 supply. It isn't that hard to check for widow mines and out-micro them, you should be punished for being careless, much like banelings. They should be a barrier in order to control space to buy time for Terran to get their tanks in position - no race should tread widow mined ground carelessly (in an ideal Starcraft 2), lest siege tank fire be upon them.
On September 10 2012 06:16 Inkstorm wrote: Was about to start a thread detailing the Widow Mine and just saw this one. I'll post what I have so far on my outlook regarding the unit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To put it bluntly, I believe the Widow Mine (WM for short) is conceptually broken and should have either been scrapped or remade after its introduction. It simply has too many drawbacks and fails to perform the role it was designed to fill.
Its Role - the WM is a one-trick pony. It lacks the versatility seen in other units while being questionable in its own; defense.
Costs Supply - more supply in WMs equals less supply in your main army.
Costs Resources - 75 minerals & 25 gas isn't something to be taken lightly (especially so for a unit that could be classified as a speed bump). While many argue that WMs can easily trade efficiently with their high single-target damage and lower but still potent splash, I find myself doubting if that's realistic. Also, more resources spent on WMs means less resources spent on the army.
Burrows to Activate - it takes 4 seconds for a WM to burrow before it can activate and target an enemy unit... it takes 4 seconds for a tank to go into siege mode... give that a second to soak in... Out of position and repositioning WMs will be eradicated just as fast as your thoughts that these units could possibly be used in aggression.
5(?) Range - Oddly enough, 5 range just doesn't cut it. Most of the critical units outrange the WM; Marauders, Siege Tanks, Warhounds, Banshees, landed Vikings, Stalkers, Immortals, Colossi, Void Rays, and Tempests (Zerg has other tools like Infestors, Swarm Hosts, and Brood Lords)
Splash Damage Deals Friendly Fire - Do you really want to protect your mineral line with a unit that does splash damage? Also, fast units tend to run over and pull the WMs in the direction they're going (i.e. speedlings running towards your marines and mutas / phoenixes flying at your workers).
Competes with Factory Units - Might not seem major but that's time that could have been spent building hellions, tanks or warhounds.
Requires Armory - I imagine this will be removed though I'll comment on it just in case. The armory requirement presents two fundamental issues. First, it delays the time that WMs can appear. This prevents the WM from making an impact early on while also giving the opponent extra time to obtain detection and therefore neutralize the unit. Second, an early armory such as one right after the factory telegraphs the fact that Terran is pushing for fast WMs and ruins the element of surprise.
The Warhound - The Warhound counters WMs so dominantly that it's disheartening. It really is ironic that Warhounds not only counter siege lines but also the units that are supposed to protect them.
Haywire Missiles - this 10 range anti-mechanical ability designed to take out tanks and Protoss units is super effective against WMs. These eat through the WM’s 90 health by dealing 30 damage on a 6 second cooldown.
7 Attack Range - yet another way to destroy WMs outside their activation range.
High HP - unlike most units, the Warhounds survive the first initial WM and even the splash damage of a second. This ‘tankiness’ for lack of a better word allows them to stop, scan, and clear any surrounding mines.
Timing - Warhounds can, and usually will, be created before WMs.
The Swarm Host - Zerg’s new siege unit makes a mockery out of WMs. The combination of Swarm Hosts and a single Overseer allow for the ability to painlessly clear any area with ease. The Oracle - a second, mobile version of detection if Protoss chooses not to tech into the robotics bay. The Tempest - I doubt WMs will deter the movement of a unit with 22 range.
Burrow and Stealth can both be used to avoid the WM’s direct damage while Blink escapes it entirely. These abilities seem to cause the WM to lose sight of its target so they detonate at the location it was last seen (hence burrow and stealth taking splash). While this might seem extreme, consider the other possibility of Protoss sending stalkers to collect WMs and then blinking them into Terran’s army.
extremely good post and i agree 100%
i would also like to say that, with any mine laying ability. A number of the problems you mentioned will always be the case no matter what. BUT , in broodwar these things were literally spammable. So the so called flaws of the unit didnt really matter as they almost came for free. (you got vulture and 3 mines for 75 mineral)
In sc2 however, these mines come with heavy cost. Which makes the unit a pointless one.
Who the hell would ever build one of these? Two supply is the better part of a Siege Tank! Spider Mines were ZERO supply and slaughtered enemy units, and THEY were considered beautifully balanced. What did they screw up on so hard that they had to make the Widow Mine worth two more supply than the Spider Mine?
On September 10 2012 10:13 johnny123 wrote: extremely good post and i agree 100%
i would also like to say that, with any mine laying ability. A number of the problems you mentioned will always be the case no matter what. BUT , in broodwar these things were literally spammable. So the so called flaws of the unit didnt really matter as they almost came for free. (you got vulture and 3 mines for 75 mineral)
In sc2 however, these mines come with heavy cost. Which makes the unit a pointless one.
It's almost funny how different the two could be which is ironic by how badly Blizzard butchered this unit.
1. The Supply: Both units currently cost 2 supply, but in BW the supply was tied to the unit rather than the mine. 2. The Cost: Vultures were purely mineral based whereas Widow Mines also cost gas. 3. The Role: Vultures had the versatility to harass, sacrifice themselves as meat shields, and defend key positions while the Widow Mine is pigeon holed into a bad burrowed baneling.
Yeah there's absolutely 0 reason to build them right now. They're basically gimmicky banelings that only do high damage to one target. Armory requirement and 2 supply makes 0 sense. May as well just keep massing war hounds. If it's really that big of a deal, make them a quick research from tech lab. Change to 1 supply, make it do something like 60 AOE damage to everything in radius.
Everyone who keeps referring to old Spider Mines when talking about Widow Mines needs to hop into BW again for like...10 seconds, plant a mine field, and watch some infuriatingly dumb AI at work.
Spider Mines worked in BW because they were dumb. They were strong enough to be useful, but awkward enough that a good player could take advantage of their unreliable attacks to just kill them.
In SC2, you have two options. They're either so strong that they're guaranteed to kill things, or so weak that a good player just needs to press Stop in time so that their army can auto-target them. That's why they're tied to supply, because letting a unit simply drop 2-3 of them with no cost means a minefield of death or yet another useless ability.
this doesn't change the fact that 2 supply, make no sense on an units that is supposed to control area map, it's against the concept of the mines itself. it is as if they are treats mines like an a-move units
On September 10 2012 17:00 Garmer wrote: this doesn't change the fact that 2 supply, make no sense on an units that is supposed to control area map, it's against the concept of the mines itself. it is as if they are treats mines like an a-move units
Also not only that, but if you get like 10 mines that's 20 supply not in your main army and if you don't have a high supply mech army, everything just rolls over it as tanks are so damned bad.
Make mines like 0.33 supply so you get 3 when you build them (like when you got a vulture) in the factory and nerf their single target damage but increase their splash by a little and they'd probably be fine. Single mines are useless to do the job they want them to do and also they don't "control areas" or "slow down the enemy".
On September 10 2012 17:00 Garmer wrote: this doesn't change the fact that 2 supply, make no sense on an units that is supposed to control area map, it's against the concept of the mines itself. it is as if they are treats mines like an a-move units
Also not only that, but if you get like 10 mines that's 20 supply not in your main army and if you don't have a high supply mech army, everything just rolls over it as tanks are so damned bad.
Make mines like 0.33 supply so you get 3 when you build them (like when you got a vulture) in the factory and nerf their single target damage but increase their splash by a little and they'd probably be fine. Single mines are useless to do the job they want them to do and also they don't "control areas" or "slow down the enemy".
Seriously? 0.33 supply? It would be worse than 1 supply Roaches... You realize that the whole point of Mines was to control space while reducing the Death Ball because it costs supply. I agree that 2 supply for a Mine is too much, but reduce it to 1, and pump the splash damage to be 50, and it would probably be fine.
They'd be 1 supply but each mine would be 0.33 meaning that your mech army isn't destroyed by every other army in the game as you have too much supply in mines. Even having it at 1 supply per mine makes the mine useless. Nobody would ever make them as a single mine is pointless to have and to get a decent number (say 10) that'd be 10 supply not in other units meaning your mech army gets killed by whatever deathball protoss, zerg or terran bio sends at you.
On September 10 2012 18:32 Qikz wrote: They'd be 1 supply but each mine would be 0.33 meaning that your mech army isn't destroyed by every other army in the game as you have too much supply in mines. Even having it at 1 supply per mine makes the mine useless. Nobody would ever make them as a single mine is pointless to have and to get a decent number (say 10) that'd be 10 supply not in other units meaning your mech army gets killed by whatever deathball protoss, zerg or terran bio sends at you.
a sieged up mech army with 10 less supply still owns every ground army. that IS how mech should be. the mech army shouldnt be a-move vs the other army. it should be about crawling your way forward with tanks, turrets and perhaps PFs while keeping you safe from runbys with mines, turrets and PFs.
best thing would be to make mines NO single target but 50-60 AoE damage while making them 0,5 or 1 supply and NOT hit air.
On September 10 2012 18:40 Qikz wrote: I don't actually understand why the mines hit air. We have turrets for that, infact that's all turrets are good for minus detection
Turrets aren't good when 20+ Mutas enters your base, Mines are good for that, and Turrets still don't do anything vs. Drop, you can still drop units before Turret kills the dropship, while Mines will kill it instantly, and will negate the drop completely.
On September 10 2012 18:40 Qikz wrote: I don't actually understand why the mines hit air. We have turrets for that, infact that's all turrets are good for minus detection
Turrets aren't good when 20+ Mutas enters your base, Mines are good for that, and Turrets still don't do anything vs. Drop, you can still drop units before Turret kills the dropship, while Mines will kill it instantly, and will negate the drop completely.
Is that fair though?
We should use turrets to attack dropships and then mines to attack the units that get out.
Also if you get enough turrets they do deter mutas. Even in larger numbers.
Meh the splash damage doesn't need to be better. If anything they'll never get a chance to do splash against good players. They just need to lower the supply to 0.5 per mine and have the same damage if they want that to happen.
The other problem with the mine right now is they don't really trade well against good players, especially against zerg.
1 mine for 1 zergling is a terrible trade for example.
On September 10 2012 19:43 Qikz wrote: Meh the splash damage doesn't need to be better. If anything they'll never get a chance to do splash against good players. They just need to lower the supply to 0.5 per mine and have the same damage if they want that to happen.
The other problem with the mine right now is they don't really trade well against good players, especially against zerg.
1 mine for 1 zergling is a terrible trade for example.
Yes, but 1 Mine for 1 Mutalisk/Hydralisk/Swarm Host is excellent trade. You can't have mines that are strong as this be 0.5 supply. Supported by Tanks, nothing will come close to the Mines and situation where you will trade 1 Mine for 1 Zergling won't happen, and everything else will be traded a lot more cost-efficiently than it should with Mines that are 0.5. Mines don't get killed easily like in BW, they have crazy 90 HP, from games I've seen for example, Roaches can't kill Mines, Mines will always attack first, before Roaches will be able to kill them.
And Widow Mines have big advantage over the Mines from SC BW, and that is that if you see enemy coming at you, and that you can't kill it with mines because they have more range/small units/whatever, you can just unburrow and retreat with them.
They view them as anti air, that's why they need armory to build and why Thors are unchanged, even though at Blizzcon they identified them as a weakness for anti air.
As base defence, they kill medivacs, warp prisms, banshees, mutas, etc... You might be able to make them work in a tank, hellion army with very few Thors in TvZ: see mutas coming...use the mines.
To make them 0.5 supply to be used as proper map control they would probably need to loose the anti air aspect. This would bring back the "Thor problem" that is only solved by transforming the Worhound in to a Goliath/ mini Thor.
Think death ball, and a lot of Blizzard design decisions are made clear.
On September 10 2012 22:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: They view them as anti air, that's why they need armory to build and why Thors are unchanged, even though at Blizzcon they identified them as a weakness for anti air.
As base defence, they kill medivacs, warp prisms, banshees, mutas, etc... You might be able to make them work in a tank, hellion army with very few Thors in TvZ: see mutas coming...use the mines.
To make them 0.5 supply to be used as proper map control they would probably need to loose the anti air aspect. This would bring back the "Thor problem" that is only solved by transforming the Worhound in to a Goliath/ mini Thor.
Think death ball, and a lot of Blizzard design decisions are made clear.
But that isn't true. The thor is good enough against mutas alone and with everything else you will be pushing with turrets anyway. Having the mines have anti air makes them terrible for what their actual purpose is which is board control and ruins the entire concept of having the mine.
I'm all for saying mech vs air is really bad, but as you usually transition to sky terran late game, you get air upgrades so vikings are good for it.
On September 10 2012 22:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: They view them as anti air, that's why they need armory to build and why Thors are unchanged, even though at Blizzcon they identified them as a weakness for anti air.
As base defence, they kill medivacs, warp prisms, banshees, mutas, etc... You might be able to make them work in a tank, hellion army with very few Thors in TvZ: see mutas coming...use the mines.
To make them 0.5 supply to be used as proper map control they would probably need to loose the anti air aspect. This would bring back the "Thor problem" that is only solved by transforming the Worhound in to a Goliath/ mini Thor.
Think death ball, and a lot of Blizzard design decisions are made clear.
But that isn't true. The thor is good enough against mutas alone and with everything else you will be pushing with turrets anyway. Having the mines have anti air makes them terrible for what their actual purpose is which is board control and ruins the entire concept of having the mine.
I'm all for saying mech vs air is really bad, but as you usually transition to sky terran late game, you get air upgrades so vikings are good for it.
Oh i'm not saying i agree with that, just that based on HOTS developmeant and interviews, that is what i think is their line of thought.
I wish we had mines for space control and stronger tanks and mini thors (they need AOE because of the unlimited unit selection---50 muta ball vs max 12 in BW). That's not going to happen though, even if it fixes what they want to fix and also brings a lot more depth to mech play. It's more important for Dustin Browder to distance himself from BW then to make good unit synergy and depth of play.
On September 10 2012 22:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: They view them as anti air, that's why they need armory to build and why Thors are unchanged, even though at Blizzcon they identified them as a weakness for anti air.
As base defence, they kill medivacs, warp prisms, banshees, mutas, etc... You might be able to make them work in a tank, hellion army with very few Thors in TvZ: see mutas coming...use the mines.
To make them 0.5 supply to be used as proper map control they would probably need to loose the anti air aspect. This would bring back the "Thor problem" that is only solved by transforming the Worhound in to a Goliath/ mini Thor.
Think death ball, and a lot of Blizzard design decisions are made clear.
But that isn't true. The thor is good enough against mutas alone and with everything else you will be pushing with turrets anyway. Having the mines have anti air makes them terrible for what their actual purpose is which is board control and ruins the entire concept of having the mine.
I'm all for saying mech vs air is really bad, but as you usually transition to sky terran late game, you get air upgrades so vikings are good for it.
That then isn't mech, is it? Thors aren't good vs. Mutas as you think. Yes, 3-4 Thors would counter ~15 Mutas, but if enemy see you go for pure Mech, he can go for 25+ Mutalisks, that spread counter Thors easily. And if you get too many Thors, you use too much supply, so you lack Hellions and/or Siege Tanks, and in the end, simple mass of Roach/Ling/Infestor army will crush you. I feel that Mine will be great, just needs a little tweaking, and it will be awesome for new mech, while nerfing the Warhound to the ground, so we end up using Tanks the most, with Battle Hellions/Warhounds/Thors/Mines as support units, depending on what you play against and what you need.
On September 10 2012 22:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: They view them as anti air, that's why they need armory to build and why Thors are unchanged, even though at Blizzcon they identified them as a weakness for anti air.
As base defence, they kill medivacs, warp prisms, banshees, mutas, etc... You might be able to make them work in a tank, hellion army with very few Thors in TvZ: see mutas coming...use the mines.
To make them 0.5 supply to be used as proper map control they would probably need to loose the anti air aspect. This would bring back the "Thor problem" that is only solved by transforming the Worhound in to a Goliath/ mini Thor.
Think death ball, and a lot of Blizzard design decisions are made clear.
But that isn't true. The thor is good enough against mutas alone and with everything else you will be pushing with turrets anyway. Having the mines have anti air makes them terrible for what their actual purpose is which is board control and ruins the entire concept of having the mine.
I'm all for saying mech vs air is really bad, but as you usually transition to sky terran late game, you get air upgrades so vikings are good for it.
That then isn't mech, is it? Thors aren't good vs. Mutas as you think. Yes, 3-4 Thors would counter ~15 Mutas, but if enemy see you go for pure Mech, he can go for 25+ Mutalisks, that spread counter Thors easily. And if you get too many Thors, you use too much supply, so you lack Hellions and/or Siege Tanks, and in the end, simple mass of Roach/Ling/Infestor army will crush you. I feel that Mine will be great, just needs a little tweaking, and it will be awesome for new mech, while nerfing the Warhound to the ground, so we end up using Tanks the most, with Battle Hellions/Warhounds/Thors/Mines as support units, depending on what you play against and what you need.
well since mech is already viable with no battlehelions, warhounds and mines, what you say isnt right. if the zerg commits to supermass muta he wont be able to get roach ling infestor out 2 seconds later like you make it sound. thors with turrets + repair on both are superfine vs mass muta. making the mine hit air ist just bad and in the result the mine will be very weak since otherwise it is too good vs the very expensive air units while sucking on the ground.
On September 10 2012 22:49 Sapphire.lux wrote: They view them as anti air, that's why they need armory to build and why Thors are unchanged, even though at Blizzcon they identified them as a weakness for anti air.
As base defence, they kill medivacs, warp prisms, banshees, mutas, etc... You might be able to make them work in a tank, hellion army with very few Thors in TvZ: see mutas coming...use the mines.
To make them 0.5 supply to be used as proper map control they would probably need to loose the anti air aspect. This would bring back the "Thor problem" that is only solved by transforming the Worhound in to a Goliath/ mini Thor.
Think death ball, and a lot of Blizzard design decisions are made clear.
But that isn't true. The thor is good enough against mutas alone and with everything else you will be pushing with turrets anyway. Having the mines have anti air makes them terrible for what their actual purpose is which is board control and ruins the entire concept of having the mine.
I'm all for saying mech vs air is really bad, but as you usually transition to sky terran late game, you get air upgrades so vikings are good for it.
That then isn't mech, is it? Thors aren't good vs. Mutas as you think. Yes, 3-4 Thors would counter ~15 Mutas, but if enemy see you go for pure Mech, he can go for 25+ Mutalisks, that spread counter Thors easily. And if you get too many Thors, you use too much supply, so you lack Hellions and/or Siege Tanks, and in the end, simple mass of Roach/Ling/Infestor army will crush you. I feel that Mine will be great, just needs a little tweaking, and it will be awesome for new mech, while nerfing the Warhound to the ground, so we end up using Tanks the most, with Battle Hellions/Warhounds/Thors/Mines as support units, depending on what you play against and what you need.
well since mech is already viable with no battlehelions, warhounds and mines, what you say isnt right. if the zerg commits to supermass muta he wont be able to get roach ling infestor out 2 seconds later like you make it sound. thors with turrets + repair on both are superfine vs mass muta. making the mine hit air ist just bad and in the result the mine will be very weak since otherwise it is too good vs the very expensive air units while sucking on the ground.
It is viable in some situations, most of the time it get completely destroyed by Roach Drops and/or Muta play or you Roaches with Infestors. Yes, Zerg will be able to switch to mass units, that is like the trademark of the Zerg race in SC2, fastest tech switching? It won't be 2 seconds later, but it will definitely be a lot lot faster than what it takes for Terran to switch from mass Thors to mass Tanks and Hellions.
As P player, mines look really bad. First, if there are any early scouting giveaways for a mine terran, P could just 6 gate with hallucinate and win or pull 4 probes for the attack; mines are too fragile in that respect.
I feel for any matchup, mines should not be 2 supply, and should not require an armory. There's no reason at all for these things to take up factory time AND need an armory to be built. I don't think we'll get the .5 supply from the factory since that is too "un-Terran-like." What I think is the best solution for these things is to have them be 1 supply, have a radius of 1.5 or 2, and do a flat splash damage to every unit caught in the aoe. The damage would be appropriate at 25 I think, meaning combat shield marines will need 3 hits, marines without shields 2, lings 2, and the armored units of all races like stalkers, roaches, marauders will only be softened up by it. You can have interesting combos with it then, like EMP then mines for a situational but very powerful combo, or marine stim + mines to do a ton of burst damage to an unlucky opponent, as opposed to a pure marine stim attack which won't do as much damage in a certain amount of time but is more of a sure thing than counting on people running over mines the instant the marines attack.
TLDR: Mines with 1 supply, no armory requirement, 1.5 or 2 radius splash, and low damage (25) would be pretty fitting.
I like how all these Mine nerfs were supposed to be directed toward the Warhound (+supply, armory requirement, dps decrease). It's like they took Mech and assumed it was the Mine part of the Mine/Warhound/Seige Tank that was OP. The best thing that could happen to the Mine would be to put it on a fast, gas costing unit. The Spider Mine was already the perfect mechanic (watch the PvT video in the Warhound thread), it being gasless was the balance issue.
I am loving this 0.5 supply idea (2x creating like zerglings). That means reactoring them would allow you to create 4x mines per production cycle. Just adjust the cost/damage appropriately and I think they would be fine.
Keep the armory requirement. It's needed to allow zerg/protoss the chance to get detection in place.
Someone made a post on the EU blizz HOTS forum, suggesting that mines would free up their supply as soon as they burrowed but you couldn't reposition them afterwards. I thought that was a cool idea. That way you'd still get the large minefields that you'd see in BW.
On September 11 2012 05:29 Quotidian wrote: Someone made a post on the EU blizz HOTS forum, suggesting that mines would free up their supply as soon as they burrowed but you couldn't reposition them afterwards. I thought that was a cool idea. That way you'd still get the large minefields that you'd see in BW.
On September 11 2012 05:33 usethis2 wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the difference between widow mines and burrowed banelings? Range and vision? Everything else is the same?
Nope, Mines can hit air units, do great single target damage(160) and low splash damage(35). Banelings need to be activated, and do the same damage to every unit(the difference is only between light and non-light units). Banelings also can attack unburrowed, cost 0.5 supply and 25 less minerals and have 30 hp, where Mine has 90. And yes, radius of Baneling explosion is 2.5(I think, not sure), while Mine has same radius(also not sure), but activate alone withing 5 range.
On September 11 2012 05:29 Quotidian wrote: Someone made a post on the EU blizz HOTS forum, suggesting that mines would free up their supply as soon as they burrowed but you couldn't reposition them afterwards. I thought that was a cool idea. That way you'd still get the large minefields that you'd see in BW.
Might as well make them cost 0 supply... not much of a difference.
If a solution closely resembles something from Brood War you should be very suspicious of it, because of the bias we have to see such things as purely good, so a counter to this bias is needed. Case in point, if it wasn't for spider mines, would people come up with silly ideas like giving mines to the warhound? or creating zero supply mines? (no matter that they won't take away from the death ball at all)
On September 11 2012 08:19 Grumbels wrote: If a solution closely resembles something from Brood War you should be very suspicious of it, because of the bias we have to see such things as purely good, so a counter to this bias is needed. Case in point, if it wasn't for spider mines, would people come up with silly ideas like giving mines to the warhound? or creating zero supply mines? (no matter that they won't take away from the death ball at all)
I don't think giving Widow Mines to the Warhound is silly. People want a mechanic that is qualitatively different for the Warhound than auto-cast missiles, the Spider Mine is a qualitatively different mechanic. It would also give reason to make Warhound more a support unit and not a dominating Terran Roach. Also people seem to be conflating combat use and Deathball, that misunderstanding has led to the Oracle, which has negligible combat use. Units can have combat use that has an anti-deathball tendency, by forcing spacing between the units, or by forcing it to be most effective by scattering your own units.
On September 11 2012 05:29 Quotidian wrote: Someone made a post on the EU blizz HOTS forum, suggesting that mines would free up their supply as soon as they burrowed but you couldn't reposition them afterwards. I thought that was a cool idea. That way you'd still get the large minefields that you'd see in BW.
Might as well make them cost 0 supply... not much of a difference.
no, there's a difference. It means you can't spam out mines when you don't have supply for it, and this is important once terran hits 200/200. It's the best solution I've seen so far, besides putting them on another unit.
On September 11 2012 08:19 Grumbels wrote: If a solution closely resembles something from Brood War you should be very suspicious of it, because of the bias we have to see such things as purely good, so a counter to this bias is needed. Case in point, if it wasn't for spider mines, would people come up with silly ideas like giving mines to the warhound? or creating zero supply mines? (no matter that they won't take away from the death ball at all)
nothing blizzard have done for hots is reducing the deathball anyway.
On September 08 2012 13:36 Zombo Joe wrote: So basically the you think the mine should only be used for 1 purpose, defending drops? Talk about gimmick game design.
2 supply makes it worthless, your opponent will just get a bigger army due to the supply discrepancy and kill you if you ever get more than a couple mines.
I saw a cool tactic on QXC's stream where he drew a Toss' units to the third, then ran in with a bunch of hellions into the natural and a bunch of widow mines between the third and the natural. so if toss pulled back to save his probes he loses his army. Cool stuff.
On September 11 2012 05:29 Quotidian wrote: Someone made a post on the EU blizz HOTS forum, suggesting that mines would free up their supply as soon as they burrowed but you couldn't reposition them afterwards. I thought that was a cool idea. That way you'd still get the large minefields that you'd see in BW.
Might as well make them cost 0 supply... not much of a difference.
no, there's a difference. It means you can't spam out mines when you don't have supply for it, and this is important once terran hits 200/200. It's the best solution I've seen so far, besides putting them on another unit.
You realize Terran doesn't have to hit 200/200? He can be at 190/200, and constantly produce Mines and keep burrowing them. 10 Supply won't make a difference since you will have a ton more Mines. It is senseless, at least in my opinion.
EPT
