EPTAlso using AOE units should be troublesome instead we have speed banelings on creep that is on half of the map, ultra mobile colosus, warp templar...
I miss something like shuttle/reaver micro:[
David Kim on potential beta changes (Feb 4th,2013) - Page 31
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
blublub
Poland18 Posts
Also using AOE units should be troublesome instead we have speed banelings on creep that is on half of the map, ultra mobile colosus, warp templar... I miss something like shuttle/reaver micro:[ | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On February 07 2013 22:00 blublub wrote: When there will be less AOE so every unit could count... Also using AOE units should be troublesome instead we have speed banelings on creep that is on half of the map, ultra mobile colosus, warp templar... I miss something like shuttle/river micro:[ Yeah I agree, there's way too much a-move AoE in the game. Even fungal and storm just involve another button press. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On February 07 2013 19:56 -Archangel- wrote: No they are not, they get killed by both tanks and enough voids supported by anything. They are even not that better against roaches without infestor support. I think they should remain to be good damage dealers but do it better for their cost and still be vulnerable to AoE. Yes siege tanks counter them, but voids for equal amounts of investment don't have an advantage (as you say they "need enough" and enough means a lot bigger investment in this case). But every anti-armor unit has their counters all the same. That doesn't mean Hydras don't work particularly well for taking out armored units. ZvT they are strong vs Mara's, Thors, Viks, BC - basically every heavy unit except Tanks (they share a weakness to all AoE siege units). ZvP they are strong vs basically everything except Colossus and Tempest if they use their range properly. They are strong vs all Zergs armored units except Ultras as well. In general, for a ground based army below T3 they are Zergs best bet for facing all the armored units. Especially the armored units that need specific counters (such as Immortal/Thor/Etc). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 07 2013 22:55 Spyridon wrote: Yes siege tanks counter them, but voids for equal amounts of investment don't have an advantage (as you say they "need enough" and enough means a lot bigger investment in this case). But every anti-armor unit has their counters all the same. That doesn't mean Hydras don't work particularly well for taking out armored units. ZvT they are strong vs Mara's, Thors, Viks, BC - basically every heavy unit except Tanks (they share a weakness to all AoE siege units). ZvP they are strong vs basically everything except Colossus and Tempest if they use their range properly. They are strong vs all Zergs armored units except Ultras as well. In general, for a ground based army below T3 they are Zergs best bet for facing all the armored units. Especially the armored units that need specific counters (such as Immortal/Thor/Etc). Thors and Marauders beat hydras. Stalkers, Immortals and Zealots aren't too bad vs them either. The hydralisk has two strengths: -) reasonable dps vs everything, which makes them a good unit against ground if you have a reasonable HP buffer/blocker in front. -) easily massable+universal, which allows you to get an army advantage and makes them reasonable units whenever it comes to fighting cost for cost, as you can just field "more cost" of something that isn't particularily bad vs most things and therefore you can overpower units that actually win vs hydras in equal fights (like immortals, thors, marauders). Even more it makes them a good unit vs airunits before the lategame, as all of them are costinefficient by design in combats. That being said, Hydras OR Roaches lack a real counterfocus. Both of them are good vs most things when you can produce more (which you can as zerg). Neither of them is actually a real counter to something, apart from very few units. This makes both of them really bad in the high supply, as no matter what the opponent does, you cannot use hydra and roach advantages of "just having more", because you are maxed. However with some small counterfocus (like 10+4vs armored hydras), there would actually be times where hydra armies would actually be good in the lategame. Anyways, depending on how well viper play works, pulling/blinding units might actually be enough to get a big enough advantage in a combat, that hydras (and roaches) might be able to use their swarmpowers, even in the lategame. | ||
|
doggy
Germany306 Posts
On February 07 2013 23:45 Big J wrote: Anyways, depending on how well viper play works, pulling/blinding units might actually be enough to get a big enough advantage in a combat, that hydras (and roaches) might be able to use their swarmpowers, even in the lategame. Viper works really well in mid-to lategame. But in the very lategame they just get feedbacked easily, hydras get stormed easily and voidrays do the rest. In ZvT tho i dont think thats an issue, but no terran is trying so far to use ghosts to counter vipers. So we will see how that developes in future | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1072 Posts
imo these need some real changes before the game will be properly balanced.... also don't like how much more dmg muta's can tank... going muta is so powerful vs toss unless you already opened phonex... | ||
|
ElMeanYo
United States1032 Posts
Also possibly remove the Light tag so they don't get owned by things like zerglings, hellbats and phoenix so bad. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On February 07 2013 23:45 Big J wrote: This makes both of them really bad in the high supply, as no matter what the opponent does, you cannot use hydra and roach advantages of "just having more", because you are maxed. However with some small counterfocus (like 10+4vs armored hydras), there would actually be times where hydra armies would actually be good in the lategame. Anyways, depending on how well viper play works, pulling/blinding units might actually be enough to get a big enough advantage in a combat, that hydras (and roaches) might be able to use their swarmpowers, even in the lategame. Vipers work great as long as you micro them properly, I've seen Idra typically grab them before Infestors. As for your comparisons of which units beat them, are we talking 1 vs 1? Or are we talking based on how many resources spent? 1 vs 1 you are correct, but with equal resource amounts of Hydras vs those units Hydras dont lose. This is because, as been stated by the pros many times, Roach and Hydra are resource efficient, but not supply efficient. This means they are best put to use with mid-game armies as the "first encounter" with some resources banked. At Hive tech just make a couple Vipers while you are teching to T3. You can have an initial encounter with Roach/Hydra/Viper and do the most damage you can, and once Vipers are out of energy bring them back to base. As they Roach/Hydra die you can use the banked resources to create your supply efficient T3 units and w/e else u need to counter the enemy composition. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
| ||
|
Xorphene
United Kingdom492 Posts
On February 08 2013 01:32 summerloud wrote: just increase supply cap to 250 and hydras will be fine No, because they will still melt to any form of AOE, and increasing supply cap means more AOE... | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: Vipers work great as long as you micro them properly, I've seen Idra typically grab them before Infestors. As for your comparisons of which units beat them, are we talking 1 vs 1? Or are we talking based on how many resources spent? 1 vs 1 you are correct, but with equal resource amounts of Hydras vs those units Hydras dont lose. This is because, as been stated by the pros many times, Roach and Hydra are resource efficient, but not supply efficient. This means they are best put to use with mid-game armies as the "first encounter" with some resources banked. At Hive tech just make a couple Vipers while you are teching to T3. You can have an initial encounter with Roach/Hydra/Viper and do the most damage you can, and once Vipers are out of energy bring them back to base. As they Roach/Hydra die you can use the banked resources to create your supply efficient T3 units and w/e else u need to counter the enemy composition. 1Thor 300/200/6 beats 4hydralisks 400/200/8 1Immortal 250/100/4 beats 2hydralisks 200/100/4; but if you actually try to even out those 50minerals with 21hydras vs 9immortals hydras win. (3 : 7 ratio) Range/speed Hydralisk vs stim/concussive marauder is a very close battle that the hydralisks win slightly more often in my testings, but it can vary. All of that with marauders that cost 25gas less per unit. Chargelot vs Hydras is just so extremly onesided, that I don't really tried to hit some sweetspot. Chargelots win. (24 vs 24 with chargelots approaching in a ball instead of spread, hydras being in a tight ball) All of those tests are true for 0-0 upgrades. The Immortal and the Thor get advantages from better upgrades (3/3/0 Immortals do win vs 3/3 Hydras in the 3 : 7 ratio). Marauder vs Hydra stays the same. 3/3/0 Chargelots get insignificantly worse vs 3/3 hydras. (didn't test stalkers, because it depends on blinking a lot and therefore it varies strongly on skill and amount level - and I'm right now on my laggy laptop). But I believe I have done medium amounts like 20vs20 before and I think stalkers in those amounts win. So in conclusion, the discussable units are marauders and immortals which basically break even with hydras (win/lose situation dependend). Zealots and Thors could be considered softcounters to hydralisks (that always beat hydras cost- and supplyefficiently) | ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
Always been the issue with Hydras. There is a sweet spot in that mid game before the AoE is out and then after that done. As it stands now the hydra will never be really useful except situationally with that constant risk. I'd love it if they just gave you either the speed or the range or decreased the cost of both so that you could simply mix a few hydras into your army for a dps boost but not have to fully commit to them. Just how backwards zerg is, you are better off massing infestors and supporting with a few hydras than massing hydras and supporting with a few infestors which would seem to be the more logical composition. | ||
|
nomyx
United States2205 Posts
| ||
|
Harbinger631
United States376 Posts
On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote: 1Thor 300/200/6 beats 4hydralisks 400/200/8 1Immortal 250/100/4 beats 2hydralisks 200/100/4; but if you actually try to even out those 50minerals with 21hydras vs 9immortals hydras win. (3 : 7 ratio) Range/speed Hydralisk vs stim/concussive marauder is a very close battle that the hydralisks win slightly more often in my testings, but it can vary. All of that with marauders that cost 25gas less per unit. Chargelot vs Hydras is just so extremly onesided, that I don't really tried to hit some sweetspot. Chargelots win. (24 vs 24 with chargelots approaching in a ball instead of spread, hydras being in a tight ball) All of those tests are true for 0-0 upgrades. The Immortal and the Thor get advantages from better upgrades (3/3/0 Immortals do win vs 3/3 Hydras in the 3 : 7 ratio). Marauder vs Hydra stays the same. 3/3/0 Chargelots get insignificantly worse vs 3/3 hydras. (didn't test stalkers, because it depends on blinking a lot and therefore it varies strongly on skill and amount level - and I'm right now on my laggy laptop). But I believe I have done medium amounts like 20vs20 before and I think stalkers in those amounts win. So in conclusion, the discussable units are marauders and immortals which basically break even with hydras (win/lose situation dependend). Zealots and Thors could be considered softcounters to hydralisks (that always beat hydras cost- and supplyefficiently) This is the way Zerg is supposed to work. Cost inefficient units, but lots of them. | ||
|
baba1
Canada355 Posts
On February 07 2013 06:16 DemigodcelpH wrote: No. SC2 is a total of 3 games. There's no reason Terrans should be pigeonholed into a bio that gets stomped late-game for the entire 5 year duration of WoL + HotS. Why not? Terrans were pigeonholed into mech for over 10 years and it was still made amazing games. This is exactly what I'm saying, terrans want both mech and bio to be viable in all match ups and I don't think that's how it should work. | ||
|
JustTray
127 Posts
On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote: 1Thor 300/200/6 beats 4hydralisks 400/200/8 1Immortal 250/100/4 beats 2hydralisks 200/100/4; but if you actually try to even out those 50minerals with 21hydras vs 9immortals hydras win. (3 : 7 ratio) Range/speed Hydralisk vs stim/concussive marauder is a very close battle that the hydralisks win slightly more often in my testings, but it can vary. All of that with marauders that cost 25gas less per unit. Chargelot vs Hydras is just so extremly onesided, that I don't really tried to hit some sweetspot. Chargelots win. (24 vs 24 with chargelots approaching in a ball instead of spread, hydras being in a tight ball) All of those tests are true for 0-0 upgrades. The Immortal and the Thor get advantages from better upgrades (3/3/0 Immortals do win vs 3/3 Hydras in the 3 : 7 ratio). Marauder vs Hydra stays the same. 3/3/0 Chargelots get insignificantly worse vs 3/3 hydras. (didn't test stalkers, because it depends on blinking a lot and therefore it varies strongly on skill and amount level - and I'm right now on my laggy laptop). But I believe I have done medium amounts like 20vs20 before and I think stalkers in those amounts win. So in conclusion, the discussable units are marauders and immortals which basically break even with hydras (win/lose situation dependend). Zealots and Thors could be considered softcounters to hydralisks (that always beat hydras cost- and supplyefficiently) At best this post is a gross mischaracterization. At worst, a full lie. It completely ignores all micro, and therefore is invalid for this argument. As usual, starcraft is more nuanced than a-move then watch the pretty colors. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 08 2013 02:12 Harbinger631 wrote: This is the way Zerg is supposed to work. Cost inefficient units, but lots of them. Also, if you replace even a small number of hydras with a few zerglins, they do much better aganist immortals(who have nightmares about zerglings every night). The same rule applys to pure stalker against roachs, the stalkers do great until a few zerglings show up and then everything goes so wrong. The game is about using units together. Even the mighty broodlord is nothing without support. | ||
|
JustTray
127 Posts
On February 08 2013 02:17 baba1 wrote: Why not? Terrans were pigeonholed into mech for over 10 years and it was still made amazing games. This is exactly what I'm saying, terrans want both mech and bio to be viable in all match ups and I don't think that's how it should work. And your argument is, "because thats how SC1 was," which is at best a false equivilence logical fallacy. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 08 2013 02:12 Harbinger631 wrote: This is the way Zerg is supposed to work. Cost inefficient units, but lots of them. No it's not. Zerg units are mostly low ranged, so they should be incredibly costefficient in the low amounts, which balances out in the mid amounts and favors the opponent in the high amounts. To balance this out, the other races have specific counters to zerg units on mid techlevel, while zerg has specific units that synergize with their low range units on the higher tech levels. Zerg is and has always been incredibly costefficient when their units get enough surface area or have enough spell support. (speaking for SC2 and BW) How can people say zerg is supposed to be costinefficient, when 2cracklings roflstomp a marine and 4 of them beat the shit out of zealots? When Ultralisks win any 1v1 comparison? Or units like roaches/BW hydralisks that are quite good vs Stalkers/Dragoons in the even cost. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 08 2013 02:21 JustTray wrote: And your argument is, "because thats how SC1 was," which is at best a false equivilence logical fallacy. You can't just pick out one part of a sentence and then put "false equivalence logical fallacy" at the and to prove him wrong. You need to back that stament up with somthing, rather than just imply he is wrong and wait for him to respond. He said that BW had amazing games, even though terrans were limited on one play style. He is pointing out that even limited the games were amazing, so the demands for all players styles to be viable in all match ups may be reasonable. | ||
| ||
