| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
badname
Australia25 Posts
On January 29 2013 01:39 Stingart wrote: Zerg: 15 Hatch: 4 (Worker Z B R) Lair ground: 3 (H I SH) Lair air: 3 (M C V) Hive: 2 (U BL) "Free units": 2 (Locust and Broodling) queen, overlord, overseer? if you count the mule you should count them. | ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
A unit with only a weak GtG attack, but with a skill similar to lockdown that stuns a single target unit and also locks air units down to the ground. Will be helpful against air, immortals and siegetanks. Spell will be energy based so that unit will be susceptible to feedback. Yeah...I'd say they could have fixed warhound some other way...but meh | ||
|
Rucky
United States717 Posts
On January 29 2013 05:00 badname wrote: queen, overlord, overseer? if you count the mule you should count them. 4+3+3+2+2=14 14+3=17 so equal zerg # = protoss # terran have the least? | ||
|
Stingart
122 Posts
On January 29 2013 05:00 badname wrote: queen, overlord, overseer? if you count the mule you should count them. You are right, i did not count them. This is how it currently stands: Terran: 16 OC: 2 (Worker Mule) Rax: 4 (M M R G) Fact: 5 (H ST T BH WM) Star: 5 (M V B R BC) Protoss: 17 Nexus: 3 (Worker MSC M) Gate: 5 (Z S S DT HT) Robo: 4 (O WP I C) Stargate: 5 (P O VR T C) Zerg: 19 Hatch: 6 (Worker Q Z B R Olord) Lair ground: 4 (H I SH Oseer) Lair air: 2 (M C) Hive ground: 1 (U) Hive air: 2 (V BL) "Free units": 4 (Locust - Broodling - Changeling - Infested Terran) Protoss and Zerg both have more units than Terran. So to anybody that says we need a balanced game around quantity, we can conclude that either Terran should get another unit or Zerg and Toss both get units removed. Not that i ever agree with quantity over quality, but i'd like to point this out to anybody that says Terran has the most units, they do not. They have the least amount. | ||
|
SXGCoil
United States341 Posts
| ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
| ||
|
Stingart
122 Posts
On January 29 2013 08:34 Brawny wrote: Terran is already the best structured race. Other races have gimmicks like fungal or ff that the race instantly dies if either of them are not present or really bad. Terran has the weakest late game. The race revolves around killing Zerg and Protoss before late game arrives. How do they do this? By hiding tech > pressure build > rely on your opponent making mistakes. Isn't this a gimmick? Terran is a time bomb race in and of itself. Terran revolves around mistakes, aside from not defending a drop you have FF and Fungel. These are the 2 key spells for a Terrans victory since they can be messed up badly. If Z and P did not have these "gimmicks" but instead had any other form of defense than the Terran race would fall apart. How is Terran late game? With Raven and ghosts. If you call FF and Fungel a gimmick than HSM, Auto Turret, PDD, Cloak, Snipe and especially EMP are gimmicks as well. | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On January 29 2013 04:08 Rabiator wrote: The Battle Hellion is a nice unit, BUT it is only a combat unit if the opponent wants to fight it. That is a serious design flaw and a mobile but not so strong unit would be a better addition IMO. The Achilles heel of mech is the immobility and mech needs something to make up for that somewhat. In BW the Vulture (plus the Spider Mines) did a lot of that, but the Hellion is less useful, because it is only strong against light armored units - which excludes a lot of infantry units already - while the Vulture was strong against all "small size" units - which included most infantry units except Dragoon and Hydralisk - plus the Spider Mine again, which is good against large size units. So the Vulture is a good allround damage unit AND it is fast and the Hellion is really rather limited in its utility. Due to the Space Control of the Spider Mines the versatility of the Vulture is MUCH greater than the Hellion ... So the only solution for SC2 would be to add that versatility in another unit than the Hellion and since the air defense is severely lacking it would be a form of the Goliath. The Widow Mine is a total waste and should be removed from the game and replaced by a relatively potent AA Goliath with a machinegun ground attack without bonus damage, while the Hellion loses its transformation and gets a "napalm mine" (creates an area of burning on the floor for a few seconds) instead. It has zero synergy with a mech army and while it is nice to have something to cover bases with additional AA it doesnt really work as an "army unit" and thus only really helps against timings. Once people have learned how to deal with Widow Mines I expect them to become rather useless. I actually don't agree with you at all on this post lol. While hellbats are fairly immobile, there are still plenty of ways to push your opponent into engaging, namely through the use of flanks. I think it's something fairly under-utilized so far, but I think more and more terrans will be transforming half of their hellions into hellbats and leaving the other half in hellion form to flank and block a retreat (in the midgame). Perhaps they may just flank with 4 widow mines. It's a tactic we haven't seen much of, but it makes sense in the same way that zealots need to flank. In addition, hellbats trade fairly equally with zealots, stalkers, (small numbers of) marines/marauders, zerglings, roaches, and, of course, other hellions (AT THE COST OF ONLY MINERALS*). How is that different from the vulture's utility? If we're talking about giving mech more mobility in the mid-game, the hellbat/hellion pretty much fills this role perfectly. If we're talking about giving mech mobility in the lategame...well, that's a whole other story and needs a wall of text to really analyze. Widow mines are really in a weird spot right now, and I agree that their utility is subpar. I think unless Blizzard makes some big changes like increasing the splash damage or dropping it in supply to 1, we're going to see widow mines fizzle out and only be used in either 1) cheesy 1-base plays, 2) 2-4 for early defense (~5:00-9:00), or 3) lategame aggressive tactics against air armies. While some of those are interesting, it honestly doesn't really help with controlling space that well. | ||
|
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On January 29 2013 08:44 Stingart wrote: Terran has the weakest late game. The race revolves around killing Zerg and Protoss before late game arrives. How do they do this? By hiding tech > pressure build > rely on your opponent making mistakes. Isn't this a gimmick? Terran is a time bomb race in and of itself. Terran revolves around mistakes, aside from not defending a drop you have FF and Fungel. These are the 2 key spells for a Terrans victory since they can be messed up badly. If Z and P did not have these "gimmicks" but instead had any other form of defense than the Terran race would fall apart. How is Terran late game? With Raven and ghosts. If you call FF and Fungel a gimmick than HSM, Auto Turret, PDD, Cloak, Snipe and especially EMP are gimmicks as well. This is so false, and I don't know why people continue spewing it. Terran has, by far, the strongest lategame army in BC/thor/ghost. There is literally no army in the game that can take out that composition. The problem is not in terran's lategame composition, it's in terran's lategame transition and terran's inability to reinforce quickly enough. The reason why most terran's can't transition into a lategame BC/ghost army against protoss is that they cannot control space except with their entire bio army, and that army trades fairly equally with the traditional protoss deathball; this means that you cannot free up supply for BCs as you need to constantly be defending and trying to avoid dying. There's a dance of death between not being able to free up supply and freeing up supply too quickly. In TvZ, this transition is a little easier because MMM/T/V trades pretty cost effectively with any zerg army, especially in a choke with planetaries. Mech trades even better. However, it's still difficult, which is why you see a lot of terran's dying to BL timings before they have a lot of vikings or just as they've started raven production. As for reinforcement, terran reinforcement comes way too late to continue to stay aggressive, meaning that terrans generally need to stay defensive in the lategame and slowly starve their opponents in order to win. It's a little unfair compared to protoss that can be anywhere on the map or zerg that can defend with spine walls while doing slow pushes, but it's what terrans have. That being said, I think the fair majority of the reasons why terrans extend the midgame (I do as well) is because lategame armies are expensive, and terran can trade more cost-effectively 90% of the time in the midgame. By extending the midgame, you force the zerg or protoss player to exhaust their minerals in their first 3 bases fairly quickly, making it difficult to defend further expansions while simultaneously being able to afford their massive, expensive armies. Hope this helps. TL;DR: Lategame terran armies are the shit, the problems are in reinforcement and transitions. Stop saying that terran lategame sucks, because it's simply not true. | ||
|
Dagan159
United States203 Posts
On January 29 2013 08:53 SC2John wrote: I actually don't agree with you at all on this post lol. While hellbats are fairly immobile, there are still plenty of ways to push your opponent into engaging, namely through the use of flanks. I think it's something fairly under-utilized so far, but I think more and more terrans will be transforming half of their hellions into hellbats and leaving the other half in hellion form to flank and block a retreat (in the midgame). Perhaps they may just flank with 4 widow mines. It's a tactic we haven't seen much of, but it makes sense in the same way that zealots need to flank. In addition, hellbats trade fairly equally with zealots, stalkers, (small numbers of) marines/marauders, zerglings, roaches, and, of course, other hellions (AT THE COST OF ONLY MINERALS*). How is that different from the vulture's utility? If we're talking about giving mech more mobility in the mid-game, the hellbat/hellion pretty much fills this role perfectly. If we're talking about giving mech mobility in the lategame...well, that's a whole other story and needs a wall of text to really analyze. Widow mines are really in a weird spot right now, and I agree that their utility is subpar. I think unless Blizzard makes some big changes like increasing the splash damage or dropping it in supply to 1, we're going to see widow mines fizzle out and only be used in either 1) cheesy 1-base plays, 2) 2-4 for early defense (~5:00-9:00), or 3) lategame aggressive tactics against air armies. While some of those are interesting, it honestly doesn't really help with controlling space that well. Flanks with helions? why would you ever do that. Mech only works because hellbats tank damage and protect tanks. It is extremely difficult to foce a fight unless you managed to seige infront of a base, or perhaps dropping everywhere to the point where they just go for it. I really cant think of a situation in which you would flank with helions, they just die sooo fast and damage is really not that good unless you can get into melee range.. which you cant because they die sooooo fast. Also what with hallucinate being free and overlords, widow mine as defense early pretty much blows if the guy knows what hes doing. I think the problem is the thor is basically the goliath, except that because they made it "BIG AND BADASS YEEEAAAHHH" so they had to make it slow. pretty much everything is running circles around mech. I kinda wish they would change the + damage on snipe from psychic to light, then I would feel much better about getting ghosts. | ||
|
Stingart
122 Posts
On January 29 2013 09:08 SC2John wrote: This is so false, and I don't know why people continue spewing it. Terran has, by far, the strongest lategame army in BC/thor/ghost. There is literally no army in the game that can take out that composition. Hope this helps. TL;DR: Lategame terran armies are the shit, the problems are in reinforcement and transitions. Stop saying that terran lategame sucks, because it's simply not true. While i feel that you are not adding anything to the point of the discussion. About Terran being a while structured race and Protoss / Zerg relying on gimmicks. I still think that you do indirectly reply to this by mentioning 2 core problems about Terran. 1: Production 2: Transition. Thank you for that. On another note: I want to make it clear that I did never said that T late game sucked. I just said it was the weakest, without giving a proper explaination as to why it is the weaker of the 3. It seems to me that you are blowing of steam because of your exaggerated way of responding. Beside's you make it sound like you're responding to people in general, so i'll let you slide on this one. TL DR: You read something i never said. Chill out and peace. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview  , that takes on Ultras. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On January 29 2013 08:53 SC2John wrote: I actually don't agree with you at all on this post lol. While hellbats are fairly immobile, there are still plenty of ways to push your opponent into engaging, namely through the use of flanks. I think it's something fairly under-utilized so far, but I think more and more terrans will be transforming half of their hellions into hellbats and leaving the other half in hellion form to flank and block a retreat (in the midgame). Perhaps they may just flank with 4 widow mines. It's a tactic we haven't seen much of, but it makes sense in the same way that zealots need to flank. In addition, hellbats trade fairly equally with zealots, stalkers, (small numbers of) marines/marauders, zerglings, roaches, and, of course, other hellions (AT THE COST OF ONLY MINERALS*). How is that different from the vulture's utility? If we're talking about giving mech more mobility in the mid-game, the hellbat/hellion pretty much fills this role perfectly. If we're talking about giving mech mobility in the lategame...well, that's a whole other story and needs a wall of text to really analyze. Widow mines are really in a weird spot right now, and I agree that their utility is subpar. I think unless Blizzard makes some big changes like increasing the splash damage or dropping it in supply to 1, we're going to see widow mines fizzle out and only be used in either 1) cheesy 1-base plays, 2) 2-4 for early defense (~5:00-9:00), or 3) lategame aggressive tactics against air armies. While some of those are interesting, it honestly doesn't really help with controlling space that well. You cant really "flank" with Widow Mines because they can only shoot once in a blue moon and die easily once discovered AND once people have learned how to deal with them. You cant really flank with mech units either, because everything else is more mobile than you. Battle Hellions only trade "fairly equally" with Stalkers if the Stalkers want to attack them AND get into melee range themselves. The same is true for any other unit. Mobility of the Battle Hellion is at the lower end of everything, which was exactly the point I was making about its limited usefulness. Once the opponent decides to engage they are fine, but the choice isnt yours most of the time unless you are "ahead" and are pressuring your opponent. The only way to "flank" with mech is a slow and methodical push supported by bunkers and turrets, but that doesnt work due to the lack of efficiency in the Siege Tank which can only work if you have all of them in one place. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors. Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.I wouldn't mind a thor with a ridiculously slow attack but was able to one shot stalkers. Mostly because I'm imagining doing medivac micro with them as I do  | ||
|
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On January 31 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote: I wouldn't mind a thor with a ridiculously slow attack but was able to one shot stalkers. Mostly because I'm imagining doing medivac micro with them as I do Well, you had better hope he doesn't have more than 4 stalkers or else he'll just snipe the medivac and you'll lose the thor lol. But yes, I agree that the thor really does need to be broken up into a smaller unit similar to the goliath. It just makes no sense to make it a walking tank. | ||
|
NeoValkyrion
United States27 Posts
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors. Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play. Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work? | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On January 31 2013 10:58 NeoValkyrion wrote: I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play. Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work? People had tons, but I think Blizzard wants the ground mode to only harass. Which fails because the aerial retreat takes way to long. Even an Ultra can burrow faster. Atleast that would explain the nerf to the damage in groundmode after it turned out they could massacre Hydras. I was poking Blizzard since WoL release that they should make the Groundmode lose the armored flag. So the ground anti armored stuff doesn't melt them (Vikings are actually perfect to peel of Immortal shields if they would not get destroyed by Immortals). And then they create the Battle Hellion to tank and change their flags up so they can get healed. While they had the perfect unit already ingame, they would even provide the so needed anti air. But HotS for me is the expansion of the unneeded new units. All the units they created were basically already in the game and just needed little tweaks. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On January 31 2013 10:58 NeoValkyrion wrote: I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play. Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work? There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time. The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature". The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things. | ||
|
Infernal_dream
United States2359 Posts
On January 31 2013 14:13 Rabiator wrote: There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time. The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature". The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things. Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors. | ||
|
Naphal
Germany2099 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games Grubby3612 ScreaM2854 FrodaN2296 Beastyqt1153 hiko844 B2W.Neo542 elazer302 ToD149 ArmadaUGS142 RotterdaM122 C9.Mang0118 KnowMe114 Trikslyr55 SteadfastSC13 |
|
Replay Cast
ReBellioN vs HonMonO
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[BSL 2025] Weekly
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
