|
On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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.
Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor.
|
On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor.
Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong.
That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome.
|
Holy shit they are planning on adding +shields dmg to mines! Isn't dmg+shielddmg what everyone wanted to be added to siegetank so it wouldn't be op in other matchups but would make it useful against P?
|
On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor.
I'm pretty sure if the Terran micros the Thor rather than A-move and let it it stand and shoot, the hydras have a chance. My experience is if I have hydras and they have thors it's a pretty one sided fight. Lots of dead hydras.
|
On February 08 2013 02:47 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. I'm pretty sure if the Terran micros the Thor rather than A-move and let it it stand and shoot, the hydras have a chance. My experience is if I have hydras and they have thors it's a pretty one sided fight. Lots of dead hydras.
Also, I don't know how you micro against a unit that has longer range, two shots hydras and has 400 HP. Seriously, the Thor wins if it fires 8 times against 4 hydras. They can't even kite it because it has longer range. Maybe if they did damage, left before it fired a second time, healed for 3 minutes and then attacked again until the thor was dead. Or they were magic.
|
On February 08 2013 02:21 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:17 baba1 wrote:On February 07 2013 06:16 DemigodcelpH wrote:On February 07 2013 05:15 baba1 wrote:
^
So true.
TvP was all about mech in BW because bio did NOT work. Like at all. You were basicly forced into mech because all bio melted in seconds so it was not even an option.
Now terrans want both of the better worlds with viable mech and viable bio.. 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. And your argument is, "because thats how SC1 was," which is at best a false equivilence logical fallacy.
Good job quoting something I did not say.
You're the one spewing bs..
|
On February 08 2013 02:46 Jarree wrote:
Holy shit they are planning on adding +shields dmg to mines! Isn't dmg+shielddmg what everyone wanted to be added to siegetank so it wouldn't be op in other matchups but would make it useful against P?
It is one of the suggestions.
I think it tends to lead to the larger debate of using these odd damage bonuses on certain units to account for specific matchup problems or even very specific moments of imbalance, so as to solve the problem without breaking things that are balanced.
I am not in favor as it seems to lead to short term solutions but doesn't address greater balance issues. It also continues to create more situations where units are only good in certain situations regardless of the skill of the player using, the micro, the attack position, etc. I'd like to see more instances where more units were productive at all times in the hands of the right player vs. amazing sometimes and worthless others.
|
On February 08 2013 02:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:47 MstrJinbo wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. I'm pretty sure if the Terran micros the Thor rather than A-move and let it it stand and shoot, the hydras have a chance. My experience is if I have hydras and they have thors it's a pretty one sided fight. Lots of dead hydras. Also, I don't know how you micro against a unit that has longer range, two shots hydras and has 400 HP. Seriously, the Thor wins if it fires 8 times against 4 hydras. They can't even kite it because it has longer range. Maybe if they did damage, left before it fired a second time, healed for 3 minutes and then attacked again until the thor was dead. Or they were magic.
Well... Thors take longer to build than a Barracks. Three thors take about as long as ling speed. Thors are countered by Hydras/Roaches through numerical advantage--not cost efficiency. They build faster, can position faster, and are backed up by larva instead of factories. You trade lopsidedly early on and over time you reinforce more efficiently until they only have 1-3 Thors to your 15-20 roach/hydras.
Getting overly granular in the analysis leaves out so much that need to be focused on.
|
On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome.
Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it...
|
On February 08 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:52 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:47 MstrJinbo wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. I'm pretty sure if the Terran micros the Thor rather than A-move and let it it stand and shoot, the hydras have a chance. My experience is if I have hydras and they have thors it's a pretty one sided fight. Lots of dead hydras. Also, I don't know how you micro against a unit that has longer range, two shots hydras and has 400 HP. Seriously, the Thor wins if it fires 8 times against 4 hydras. They can't even kite it because it has longer range. Maybe if they did damage, left before it fired a second time, healed for 3 minutes and then attacked again until the thor was dead. Or they were magic. Well... Thors take longer to build than a Barracks. Three thors take about as long as ling speed. Thors are countered by Hydras/Roaches through numerical advantage--not cost efficiency. They build faster, can position faster, and are backed up by larva instead of factories. You trade lopsidedly early on and over time you reinforce more efficiently until they only have 1-3 Thors to your 15-20 roach/hydras. Getting overly granular in the analysis leaves out so much that need to be focused on.
Well, and that is what I actually said at the start of the discussion until Spyridon claimed that Hydras were not just efficient in certain gameplay-specific ways (most notably production in the midgame), but straight up beating said units cost for cost. Then I simply tried to show that they don't.
I think we have gone a full circle 
|
On February 08 2013 03:25 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome. Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it...
Maybe you should play the game instead of testing. Vipers pull thors and hydras oneshot them. End of story.
|
On February 08 2013 03:32 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:25 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome. Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it... Maybe you should play the game instead of testing. Vipers pull thors and hydras oneshot them. End of story.
Or you can have an infestor neural parasite it. Hydra Thor is pretty strong I hear.
|
On February 08 2013 03:32 Jarree wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:25 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome. Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it... Maybe you should play the game instead of testing. Vipers pull thors and hydras oneshot them. End of story.
So I guess we should all just stop arguing about the game and just play it.
Clever, I would have never thought about that...
|
On February 08 2013 03:37 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:32 Jarree wrote:On February 08 2013 03:25 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome. Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it... Maybe you should play the game instead of testing. Vipers pull thors and hydras oneshot them. End of story. Or you can have an infestor neural parasite it. Hydra Thor is pretty strong I hear.
Neural an SCV and pump medivacs 
|
On February 08 2013 03:37 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:32 Jarree wrote:On February 08 2013 03:25 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome. Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it... Maybe you should play the game instead of testing. Vipers pull thors and hydras oneshot them. End of story. So I guess we should all just stop arguing about the game and just play it. Clever, I would have never thought about that...
No i mean literally, go play and see how it plays out, don't test some random scenario in unit tester and a-move random units to find out which composition is good. Theorycrafting around numbers is rarely how it works out in real games.
|
On February 08 2013 03:06 FLuE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 02:46 Jarree wrote:
Holy shit they are planning on adding +shields dmg to mines! Isn't dmg+shielddmg what everyone wanted to be added to siegetank so it wouldn't be op in other matchups but would make it useful against P? It is one of the suggestions. I think it tends to lead to the larger debate of using these odd damage bonuses on certain units to account for specific matchup problems or even very specific moments of imbalance, so as to solve the problem without breaking things that are balanced. I am not in favor as it seems to lead to short term solutions but doesn't address greater balance issues. It also continues to create more situations where units are only good in certain situations regardless of the skill of the player using, the micro, the attack position, etc. I'd like to see more instances where more units were productive at all times in the hands of the right player vs. amazing sometimes and worthless others.
I am a fan of the change and I have no problem with specific units doing more damage at specific set of units. I am part of the camp that says "Whatever gets the job done." People who talk about elegant design make me laugh, since BW has a way more messed up damage system and was totally under the hood. Most of the time, my plan was to shoot one unit with another unit and see how much damage it did.
Almost every game has different damage values based on specific situtations. There are skill shots in LoL that do more damage the farther away the target is. Another that does damage based on the targets total HP, or total magic power(AP). DotA as other weird abilities that do different damage values, including one that does damage the more the target moves.
|
You rarely also only have pure hydras vs pure x
A unit becomes stronger in a way if you mix it up with something more
Hydra+roach for example, roach tanks the damage, hydra do the damage
Instead of pure Hydra.
There are so many things to considder as have been stated, hydra vs x may not be cost effeciency but throw in some lings or roaches or whatnot and you have an entire new unit sort of
|
On February 08 2013 03:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:06 FLuE wrote:On February 08 2013 02:46 Jarree wrote:
Holy shit they are planning on adding +shields dmg to mines! Isn't dmg+shielddmg what everyone wanted to be added to siegetank so it wouldn't be op in other matchups but would make it useful against P? It is one of the suggestions. I think it tends to lead to the larger debate of using these odd damage bonuses on certain units to account for specific matchup problems or even very specific moments of imbalance, so as to solve the problem without breaking things that are balanced. I am not in favor as it seems to lead to short term solutions but doesn't address greater balance issues. It also continues to create more situations where units are only good in certain situations regardless of the skill of the player using, the micro, the attack position, etc. I'd like to see more instances where more units were productive at all times in the hands of the right player vs. amazing sometimes and worthless others. I am a fan of the change and I have no problem with specific units doing more damage at specific set of units. I am part of the camp that says "Whatever gets the job done." People who talk about elegant design make me laugh, since BW has a way more messed up damage system and was totally under the hood. Most of the time, my plan was to shoot one unit with another unit and see how much damage it did. Almost every game has different damage values based on specific situtations. There are skill shots in LoL that do more damage the farther away the target is. Another that does damage based on the targets total HP, or total magic power(AP). DotA as other weird abilities that do different damage values, including one that does damage the more the target moves.
Football and basketball also have different point values depending on how the ball reached the hoop/endzone.
|
On February 08 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:37 MstrJinbo wrote:On February 08 2013 03:32 Jarree wrote:On February 08 2013 03:25 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote: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. 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome. Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it... Maybe you should play the game instead of testing. Vipers pull thors and hydras oneshot them. End of story. Or you can have an infestor neural parasite it. Hydra Thor is pretty strong I hear. Neural an SCV and pump medivacs
No no, You should use the SCV to make mass orbitals and replace your drones with MULEs.
|
On February 08 2013 03:51 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 03:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 03:37 MstrJinbo wrote:On February 08 2013 03:32 Jarree wrote:On February 08 2013 03:25 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:44 Plansix wrote:On February 08 2013 02:33 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 02:19 JustTray wrote:On February 08 2013 02:02 Big J wrote:On February 08 2013 00:58 Spyridon wrote:
[quote]
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) 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. Go ahead. Make a better characterization about how the hydralisk is a counter to the Thor. And don't back out now. If you can call me a liar, you are hopefully capable of telling me how I can win with 4 hydras vs 1 Thor. Big J, that is not how you argue on TL. One does not back up his claims. You make a bold statement and call someone uninformed or a liar. Then you cite some part of gameplay that could be applicable to the situation. The most important part is that you don’t provide facts, proof or examples for your opponent to pick apart. Just leave it all hanging, like you are some authority on the game and its your opponents burden to prove you wrong. That is how you argue on TL, by always placing the burden of proof on your opponent. Facts are not welcome. Damn it, I knew I was doing something wrong when I was testing those units against each others. Finally I know what it was. It was actually testing the costefficiency to argue it... Maybe you should play the game instead of testing. Vipers pull thors and hydras oneshot them. End of story. Or you can have an infestor neural parasite it. Hydra Thor is pretty strong I hear. Neural an SCV and pump medivacs No no, You should use the SCV to make mass orbitals and replace your drones with MULEs.
Mule/Injects OP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
