|
United States7483 Posts
On February 07 2013 09:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 09:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 07 2013 07:31 Ramiz1989 wrote:On February 07 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote:
Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes. Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better? Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^ I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race. I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit.
It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed.
You can't simply look at units in a vacuum.
|
On February 07 2013 12:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 09:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 09:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 07 2013 07:31 Ramiz1989 wrote:On February 07 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote:
Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes. Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better? Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^ I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race. I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit. It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed. You can't simply look at units in a vacuum.
Oh! Don't misunderstand--if you look a several pages back I actually said that I think Zerg getting awesome siege units is dumb and contradictory to what Zerg is supposed to embody and I wish that Blizzard was at good at making mech work in terran as opposed to making mech work in Zerg.
I personally think Zerg having Widow Mines and Broodlords is dumb and antithetical to who they are as an identity.
I'm mostly defending whether or not SH or BL are OP/Fair/Unfair because I don't actually think that they're "broken."
Their design is fair--although their numbers aren't quite right. But I do agree with you completely that Zerg shouldn't have such Protoss-y units.
|
On February 07 2013 12:24 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 09:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 09:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 07 2013 07:31 Ramiz1989 wrote:On February 07 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote:
Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes. Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better? Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^ I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race. I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit. It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed. You can't simply look at units in a vacuum.
Except switching to Swarm Hosts at that stage of the game would slow your tech to Hive too much and not be as optimal.
I've attempted it many times. It's far harder to take a base with SH than it is with Ultras. If you want to use SH at all, you'll make maybe 10 of them while teching to Ultras, and save the rest of your gas for Ultras.
On February 07 2013 02:52 Whitewing wrote:
I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them.
This is funny. You know a single siege tank does more damage than a Broodlord AND the damage is AoE? And costs under half the resources to create. And costs less supply. Think of the Broodlings as making up for the loss of damage and as the AoE damage. Which is very litttle in exchange for the extra tech + extra cost + extra supply.
Even if you go by your example, would you be willing to give up the tanks AoE for firing units, make them cost double the resources, and more supply, and put them just as late in tech as a battle cruiser? I would think not....
I really wish people knew what they were talking about before posting balance complaints with illogical information.
On February 07 2013 06:39 Whitewing wrote:
Mass ling/ultra/baneling flanks crush such armies all the time in game, but if you put something in the way, suddenly they can't. Autoturrets were envisioned to do this, but they can't because they're too difficult to actually place due to being buildings.
People keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense. Shift queueing a line of turrets is easy as hell. People have been claiming you can do it with infestors and its far easier to make a wall of turrets than infestors. What exactly makes turrets hard to place when A) they are so big its easy to line them up in a line, and B) you don't even have to 100% block everything becuase even if theres a small hole in the wall, only lings or marines will be able to pass through, and if all the units have to run towards a choke point to try to get through that's even better for you.
|
-Autoturrets are hard because of the speed of the Raven. The cast range is damn near melee so its more
Drop a turret, move a bit, drop a turret, move a bit, drop a turret, etc...
The problem is not the Turret its the Raven.
|
Why are people even arguing about ravens and autoturrents? The only reason why ravens and autoturrents aren't a problem now is because ravens weren't as easy to mass as infestors were and ravens couldn't get their full utility until AFTER you researched all their upgrades. Yeah, you could technically create a wall of autoturrents, but the question is WHY would you? Unlike locusts, IT and broodlings, autoturrets are immobile, meaning once you place it, it's stuck there. Plus using an autoturret would take energy away from your more useful energy expensive spells. You don't plant an autoturret to kill things, you plant it to be an annoying threat. The problem now is that with the ridiculous way seeker missile is now, you have a problem similar to the infestor, lots of "free" units that do damage and an aoe spell that makes it so that you can't go near that unit unless you want to take lots damage. The fact that we're even trying to talk and justify mass autoturret usage just goes to show how bad this "free unit" mentality has seeped into Starcraft.
|
On February 07 2013 13:35 KamikazeDurrrp wrote:
Yeah, you could technically create a wall of autoturrents, but the question is WHY would you?
Because that has a perfect synergy with the new Seeker Missile functionality. The new one is designed to where if you can't split every unit that has been targeted off from your main army, you will get blown up.
Flanking with Hellbat drops + autoturrets = sandwich the enemy in an inescapable barrage of missiles. Plus this is a natural transition from the common Terran openers, since you will already have dropships and hellbats/widows/etc.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 07 2013 13:14 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 12:24 Whitewing wrote:On February 07 2013 09:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 09:01 Whitewing wrote:On February 07 2013 07:31 Ramiz1989 wrote:On February 07 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 07:14 Enchanted wrote:
Really don't like the whole let's mass swarm hosts and make you fight for 30 minutes. Would you like the whole lets mass siege tanks and stand around for 30 minutes design better? Don't know about him, but many Hypocrites would... ^^ I don't want matchups against zerg to play the same way as matchups against terran do, and frankly putting siege units on zerg just make it more ridiculous because of the other mechanics of the zerg race. I definitely agree. But balance/fairness wise, there still is nothing wrong with the Swarm Host other than it would have been a much cooler protoss unit. It's too early to make a balance judgment on it, but I hestitate to agree with you. The fact is that zerg has the fastest units in the game, a creep mechanic for more speed boosts, the easiest time expanding and holding expansions, the greatest economy and easiest time making workers, and has the fastest production mechanic and best tech switching. Thus, the more options a zerg has to put on pressure of various kind, the more broken it will become than in the hands of terran or protoss because of how much easier it is to switch into and out of it. A zerg can open mutalisk, harass for a few minutes while expanding, then transition into 10 swarm hosts at the same time to really pressure the front. No terran can open banshee harass to cover an expansion and then a few minutes later build 10 tanks out of nowhere. No protoss can go from sky toss to 6-8 colossi in just a few minutes, and certainly not while expanding rapidly and making workers at an intense speed. You can't simply look at units in a vacuum. Except switching to Swarm Hosts at that stage of the game would slow your tech to Hive too much and not be as optimal. I've attempted it many times. It's far harder to take a base with SH than it is with Ultras. If you want to use SH at all, you'll make maybe 10 of them while teching to Ultras, and save the rest of your gas for Ultras. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 02:52 Whitewing wrote:
I meant it in the sense of the broodlord, who has an attack that deals significant damage. I meant if you just took the normal siege tank attack and then added that unit in. Maybe reduce the overall damage a little to compensate. You get 10 tanks firing those things and you're not reaching them. This is funny. You know a single siege tank does more damage than a Broodlord AND the damage is AoE? And costs under half the resources to create. And costs less supply. Think of the Broodlings as making up for the loss of damage and as the AoE damage. Which is very litttle in exchange for the extra tech + extra cost + extra supply. Even if you go by your example, would you be willing to give up the tanks AoE for firing units, make them cost double the resources, and more supply, and put them just as late in tech as a battle cruiser? I would think not.... I really wish people knew what they were talking about before posting balance complaints with illogical information. Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 06:39 Whitewing wrote:
Mass ling/ultra/baneling flanks crush such armies all the time in game, but if you put something in the way, suddenly they can't. Autoturrets were envisioned to do this, but they can't because they're too difficult to actually place due to being buildings. People keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense. Shift queueing a line of turrets is easy as hell. People have been claiming you can do it with infestors and its far easier to make a wall of turrets than infestors. What exactly makes turrets hard to place when A) they are so big its easy to line them up in a line, and B) you don't even have to 100% block everything becuase even if theres a small hole in the wall, only lings or marines will be able to pass through, and if all the units have to run towards a choke point to try to get through that's even better for you.
Siege tanks and broodlords aren't remotely comparable, my entire point was that spawning units during battle that block pathing continuously is problematic, not that it wouldn't be horrifically broken on the siege tanks. The point is, actually, that it would in fact be broken on tanks. Broodlords and Siege Tanks are comparable only in the sense that they both are siege units. Broodlords are frankly superior however, despite their lower damage output, due to their mobility and the fact that they are air units that also generate their own wall.
None of this has been a balance complaint either, but a comment about poor game design. Design =/= balance. Tic Tac Toe is a perfectly balanced game that always results in a draw if the players aren't idiots, but it has a terrible design.
Auto-turrets are very difficult to place during battles because the raven takes forever to get there, and by the time it does there are usually units in the way. While IT's will be thrown down in the nearest possible location to the place you click, if the auto-turret doesn't have 4 completely cleared hexes it will not be dropped. You don't want to drop them before the battle either since it prevents you from moving forward and hinders your own micro and aggression. If the enemy backs off rather than engaging, you still want to be able to continue leap frogging tanks forwards etc.
Trust me, there isn't a single professional terran doing it because it simply can't be done reliably, not because they're all to stupid to come up with the idea.
|
On February 07 2013 15:10 Whitewing wrote:
Siege tanks and broodlords aren't remotely comparable, my entire point was that spawning units during battle that block pathing continuously is problematic, not that it wouldn't be horrifically broken on the siege tanks. The point is, actually, that it would in fact be broken on tanks. Broodlords and Siege Tanks are comparable only in the sense that they both are siege units. Broodlords are frankly superior however, despite their lower damage output, due to their mobility and the fact that they are air units that also generate their own wall.
If they aren't comparable then why did you start comparing them?
Furthermore, my mention of Broodlords was in response to your claims that they do "significant damage" and claims that their damage should be reduced. For a 4 supply unit that's one of the most expensive units in the game their attack does very little damage, especially for a shot without any AoE. An unupgraded stimmed marine does more damage.
You do know the Broodlings are there for damage more than the Broodlords actual shot... right?
None of this has been a balance complaint either, but a comment about poor game design. Design =/= balance. Tic Tac Toe is a perfectly balanced game that always results in a draw if the players aren't idiots, but it has a terrible design.
Every single quote I responded to that you wrote was a balance complaint. If you have a problem with the design then how about actually discussing why the design is bad rather than talking about "reducing units damage", false statements about SH being used in ways they aren't particuarly strong at, complaints about unit speed when we're talking about some of the slowest units in the game.
And most of all your complaints show complete ignorance about how the Zerg mechanics work that are obvious by you talking about doing tech switches mid game that would require the Zerg player to already have a significant lead on you. You can't tech switch like you are saying unless you have thousands of resources saved up. No matter what race you are, if the enemy has that much of a lead on you, and has unquestioned map control like that, chances are you lost already.
Auto-turrets are very difficult to place during battles because the raven takes forever to get there, and by the time it does there are usually units in the way. While IT's will be thrown down in the nearest possible location to the place you click, if the auto-turret doesn't have 4 completely cleared hexes it will not be dropped. You don't want to drop them before the battle either since it prevents you from moving forward and hinders your own micro and aggression. If the enemy backs off rather than engaging, you still want to be able to continue leap frogging tanks forwards etc.
Trust me, there isn't a single professional terran doing it because it simply can't be done reliably, not because they're all to stupid to come up with the idea.
Auto turrets are easier to place than drops since they can be targeted and don't have the timeout. Furthermore, you directly claimed they are hard to place because they are buildings, which is what I questioned because it makes no sense at all, and now your switching up and claiming you meant something else without explaining your original statement.
If you have watched any top players at all (as if you claim), can you honestly say you haven't seen Terran players do Hellbat drops to flank the enemy and take out their light units mid-late game? That's been a common tactic for awhile now ever since Hellbat openers became popular.
And players are starting to integrate Ravens in to that. It's just that for some reason all the Terran players who come to this topic don't even want to admit that Ravens are one of their biggest upgrades they have received (probably because they have a free unit mechanic and would nullify their own argument).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
