|
== ON PROTOSS SHIELDS ==
A long time ago, the Protoss Zealot in SC1 had 80 shields and 80 health. In patch 1.8, this was changed to 60 shields and 100 health; anyone who's knowledgeable about Starcraft game mechanics would consider this a buff. Why?
- Psi shields take full damage from Explosive and Concussive attacks, regardless of whether you're small, medium or large. In the Zealot's case, this means his shields take full damage from tanks, hydras, sunken colonies, goons and spider mines, while his health would only take half damage.
- Psi shields always have a base "armor" value of zero, while health has higher base armor values. In the Zealot's case, it's the difference between armor 1 and armor 0- the difference between a Zergling dealing 4 damage per hit and 5 damage per hit is huge (25% more damage vs. shields, assuming no upgrades).
- Psi shield upgrades are really expensive, so it's extremely rare to get them in 1v1.
All in all, more health and less shields seems like a great deal. It's not all there is to it- you'd love to have more shields on a Plagued unit (which is why the Archon laughs in the face of that spell), and you can restore Shields with a Shield battery. Then again, shield batteries aren't used all that often in SC1, and in SC2 I have good reason to believe they won't be used at all.
+ Show Spoiler [Shield battery rant] +Remember the SC1 shield battery? It costs 100 minerals, stores up to 200 energy, and restores 2 shields per energy spent. The SC2 equivalent costs 200 minerals, can store the same 200 energy, and the recharge rate is half of what it was in SC1, at 1 shield restored per energy point spent. If it's twice as expensive and half as useful as the SC1 version, which sees little use already, the Shield Battery equivalent of SC2 might as well not be there for all the good it does (I'm speaking as far as the shield recharge ability is concerned- its other ability, Proton Charge, is good).
Now, fast forward to SC2. As far as I know, shields don't take full bonus damage from everything (e.g. a Marauder hit on a Zealot's shields would only deal 12 damage, as opposed to the 24 damage it would deal vs. a Stalker with armor type "Armored"- please correct me if I'm wrong on this count!), so that disadvantage for shields is gone.
While shields will still always have a base "armor" value of zero, and psi shield upgrades will likely remain expensive, shield regeneration rate has changed dramatically.+ Show Spoiler [Disclaimer] +The following calculations have been done on the basis of the regeneration rate of the epic Probe scout from the first SC2 Battle Report. While he's not quite Proberto, his shields go up and down a lot so it's the best info source I could find. Be aware that this Battle Report was released before the current macro mechanics even existed, so this info might be outdated.
== NOTES ON THE BLIZZCON BUILD ==
The Blizzcon build. We all still see SC2 from a SC1 viewing glass, so in that same sense:
- Zealot. Which is the real Zealot? The second link suggests massive game balance changes: 9 damage per hit? That means 2-shotting lings at equal upgrade levels. I remember the Gamereplays article claimed killing Zealots with Zerglings was an ordeal, and Psyonic_Reaver agreed, claiming Machine and Ret had similar impressions. Then again, Chill didn't seem to agree with it. 8 or 9 damage per hit? The PvZ implications are massive.
And then there's the other big change. 60 health and 100 shields? If that's true, then the Ghost's EMP will absolutely trash them, and Zealots who live to fight another battle and manage to restore all their shields will still be quite durable the second time around, even with considerable damage to their health.
- Stalker. No matter which source you use, one thing is clear: The Stalker has no bonus damage vs. Armored currently. In SC1 terms, this means the SC2 Dragoon doesn't deal Explosive damage anymore, dealing a level 10 (or 11, depending on the source you trust) damage to any target. To compensate, it's become quite a bit more durable, at 80 health and 100 shields (previously 100 health 40 shields), and its firing rate seems faster than that of the SC1 Dragoon. With its decently fast movement speed and Blink, plus all those fast-regenerating Shields, harassing Stalkers could be a pretty big annoyance. Then again, the Protoss counters to heavily armored units seem pretty far into the Tech Tree, at the Robotics and Stargate level respectively.
- Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator?
|
WOW more trash articles from people speculating before the game is even out... Here's a tip.... WAIT FOR IT TO COME OUT
|
On October 04 2009 10:03 Engineer wrote:
WOW more trash articles from people speculating before the game is even out... Here's a tip.... WAIT FOR IT TO COME OUT
Here's a tip for you: If you don't like these "trash articles", you don't have to read them.
|
i second this.. we should wait.. no point in talking about a game that is gonna up like sc ghost
|
|
|
What would happen if Zealots deal 18 damage per attack, and 2-shot lings at equal upgrade levels in SC2?
It seems to me like it would give Roaches a much more obvious role as the Zerg tank unit. Lings would still be able to outrun Zealots, scout better (a lone zergling scouting is much safer than a lone zealot who can get surrounded and taken out), and pick their battles- they'd have more mobility, but less power. Hydras deal a lot more damage to Zealots in SC2, so a Roach / Hydra combo might be good to counter Zealots. And there's always Banelings.
Still, Protoss might be able to contest Zerg's early map control if Zealots beat Zerglings at equal resource levels. Zerglings would still be the bane of Stalkers. All in all, if this Zealot damage buff is real and stays, it'd change PvZ substantially. Will Protoss still want to fast expand? Will 2-gate still be an all-in build?
|
Interesting point about the shields, but as far as I know, SC2 has no more armor types.
|
actually, the shield battery thing is a bit sad... 4x less effective ftl
|
On October 04 2009 11:47 ForTheSwarm wrote:
Interesting point about the shields, but as far as I know, SC2 has no more armor types.
That's where you'd be wrong. There are 2 armor types in SC2:
Armored: The armor type shared by all buildings and destructible rocks, as far as I know. Additionally, many units count as Armored. This is the equivalent of the "Large" armor type from SC1.
Light: Units that are not Armored, are Light. This is the equivalent of the "Small" armor type from SC1.
There is no equivalent for SC1's "Medium" armor type. At any rate, there were few units with this armor type: The Vulture was removed (Hellions are Armored), the Corsair was removed (Phoenix are Light, and Void Rays are Armored), the Defiler was removed (Infestors are Armored), the Queen was radically redesigned and is now Armored. Only two formerly Medium units remain relatively unchanged: Hydras are now Light, and Lurkers are Armored.
The gameplay implications of the new armor types are that many units deal bonus damage against certain opponents. Hydras and Marauders deal bonus damage vs. Armored for instance, while Hellions deal bonus damage vs. Light.
Simultaneously, there are other categories units can fit into, such as:
Mechanical
Biological
Psionic
Vehicle
Hover
Massive
You get units like the Roach and the Archon, who deal bonus damage vs. Biological. The Terran Viking deals bonus damage vs. Massive units with its air attack.
So yeah. There's definitely an armor system in place.
|
On October 04 2009 10:03 Engineer wrote:
WOW more trash articles from people speculating before the game is even out... Here's a tip.... WAIT FOR IT TO COME OUT
Hey dipshit
Why would there be a StarCraft 2 forum before the game's release if we're not supposed to discuss, speculate, and theory craft about it?
Is it just supposed to sit there and fill up with those boring Q&A updates?
Jesus Christ. The way shields work in SC2 is important, even if it does change. It's worth talking about.
|
Lol, so many haters.
Ghost involvement as a support unit is going to be very interesting. If both the stalker and zealot stay at 100 shield, then ghosts could be huge in defense (or assault). I'm thinking of a scenario where T FEs while P goes for a 1 base rush. A couple of ghosts come out and throw a few EMPs and P is forced to hold off on his attack while T gains valuable time for his macro to get up.
In SC1 I consider TvZ to be the most dynamic, but TvP could become really interesting in SC2.
Does anyone know about the range of effect for EMP?
|
On October 04 2009 12:18 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 11:47 ForTheSwarm wrote:
Interesting point about the shields, but as far as I know, SC2 has no more armor types. That's where you'd be wrong. There are 2 armor types in SC2: Armored: The armor type shared by all buildings and destructible rocks, as far as I know. Additionally, many units count as Armored. This is the equivalent of the "Large" armor type from SC1. Light: Units that are not Armored, are Light. This is the equivalent of the "Small" armor type from SC1. There is no equivalent for SC1's "Medium" armor type. At any rate, there were few units with this armor type: The Vulture was removed (Hellions are Armored), the Corsair was removed (Phoenix are Light, and Void Rays are Armored), the Defiler was removed (Infestors are Armored), the Queen was radically redesigned and is now Armored. Only two formerly Medium units remain relatively unchanged: Hydras are now Light, and Lurkers are Armored. The gameplay implications of the new armor types are that many units deal bonus damage against certain opponents. Hydras and Marauders deal bonus damage vs. Armored for instance, while Hellions deal bonus damage vs. Light. Simultaneously, there are other categories units can fit into, such as: Mechanical Biological Psionic Vehicle Hover Massive You get units like the Roach and the Archon, who deal bonus damage vs. Biological. The Terran Viking deals bonus damage vs. Massive units with its air attack. So yeah. There's definitely an armor system in place.
Where did you get all this info?
|
On October 04 2009 13:36 lynx.oblige wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 12:18 Zato-1 wrote:On October 04 2009 11:47 ForTheSwarm wrote:
Interesting point about the shields, but as far as I know, SC2 has no more armor types. That's where you'd be wrong. There are 2 armor types in SC2: Armored: The armor type shared by all buildings and destructible rocks, as far as I know. Additionally, many units count as Armored. This is the equivalent of the "Large" armor type from SC1. Light: Units that are not Armored, are Light. This is the equivalent of the "Small" armor type from SC1. There is no equivalent for SC1's "Medium" armor type. At any rate, there were few units with this armor type: The Vulture was removed (Hellions are Armored), the Corsair was removed (Phoenix are Light, and Void Rays are Armored), the Defiler was removed (Infestors are Armored), the Queen was radically redesigned and is now Armored. Only two formerly Medium units remain relatively unchanged: Hydras are now Light, and Lurkers are Armored. The gameplay implications of the new armor types are that many units deal bonus damage against certain opponents. Hydras and Marauders deal bonus damage vs. Armored for instance, while Hellions deal bonus damage vs. Light. Simultaneously, there are other categories units can fit into, such as: Mechanical Biological Psionic Vehicle Hover Massive You get units like the Roach and the Archon, who deal bonus damage vs. Biological. The Terran Viking deals bonus damage vs. Massive units with its air attack. So yeah. There's definitely an armor system in place. Where did you get all this info? It's been out there for a while now. I'm not sure what the original source is (probably very old), but you can look at all of it on the starcraft2 wiki now.
|
^QFT
I think the whole point of redoing the shields is so that the shield upgrades provide more incentive and the ghost becomes more practical. imho there have been certain units to each race that I believe developers really want to focus and emphasize on, especially lore-wise (it doesn't make sense to not use a queen when the zerg belong in a hive). Thus, the changes allow for better and more practical use of the Ghost, and I think that's a pretty great idea.
as far as stats, I'd still wait for the release (or at least beta) since nothing's set in stone.
|
On October 04 2009 14:38 Wire wrote:especially lore-wise (it doesn't make sense to not use a queen when the zerg belong in a hive). Man... speaking of that, I love the queen changes 
Right not it's insanely powerful but also very fragile. Saving your queen in some early-game scenarios is probably going to constantly involve positioning your queen correctly and surrounding it with drones for protection. It already makes me picture a dozen cute little drones all screaming "Save the queen!" as they fanatically swarm around her
|
On October 04 2009 13:36 lynx.oblige wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 12:18 Zato-1 wrote:On October 04 2009 11:47 ForTheSwarm wrote:
Interesting point about the shields, but as far as I know, SC2 has no more armor types. That's where you'd be wrong. There are 2 armor types in SC2: Armored: The armor type shared by all buildings and destructible rocks, as far as I know. Additionally, many units count as Armored. This is the equivalent of the "Large" armor type from SC1. Light: Units that are not Armored, are Light. This is the equivalent of the "Small" armor type from SC1. There is no equivalent for SC1's "Medium" armor type. At any rate, there were few units with this armor type: The Vulture was removed (Hellions are Armored), the Corsair was removed (Phoenix are Light, and Void Rays are Armored), the Defiler was removed (Infestors are Armored), the Queen was radically redesigned and is now Armored. Only two formerly Medium units remain relatively unchanged: Hydras are now Light, and Lurkers are Armored. The gameplay implications of the new armor types are that many units deal bonus damage against certain opponents. Hydras and Marauders deal bonus damage vs. Armored for instance, while Hellions deal bonus damage vs. Light. Simultaneously, there are other categories units can fit into, such as: Mechanical Biological Psionic Vehicle Hover Massive You get units like the Roach and the Archon, who deal bonus damage vs. Biological. The Terran Viking deals bonus damage vs. Massive units with its air attack. So yeah. There's definitely an armor system in place. Where did you get all this info?
There's plenty of pages full of info on SC2, I even linked to some of them in the OP. Here's some of the more updated ones:
SC2armory
SC2pod
Starcraft-Source
Even though their info cannot catch up to the changes in the internal Blizzard builds, and isn't comprehensive, there's still a lot to be learned about SC2 there. You want to know how much damage a Reaper does? You want to know what spell other than Psi Storm the High Templar currently has? They're the places to go to.
You can also draw some interesting conclusions. For instance:
In SC1, Range-upgraded Dragoons are very effective vs. Siege Tanks in the early game, because their explosive attack deals a lot of damage to Large targets. In SC2, now that the Stalker's lost its bonus damage vs. Armored, Tanks and Marauders will likely murder them. On the other hand, they might be really good to fend off muta harassment (think Marines with slightly longer attack range and Blink, but less rate of fire).
|
I look at stats at SC2pod and again I can see Archons dealing 50dmg + bonus and I keep thinking they are going to be fucking balls of death... maybe shields recharging rate is so poor to make it harder keeping them alive?
I like your article Zato and I agree with Ronald_McD 100% remember that beta was supposed to start during this year's summer.
|
On October 04 2009 23:44 beetlelisk wrote:I look at stats at SC2pod and again I can see Archons dealing 50dmg + bonus and I keep thinking they are going to be fucking balls of death... maybe shields recharging rate is so poor to make it harder keeping them alive? I like your article Zato and I agree with Ronald_McD 100% remember that beta was supposed to start during this year's summer.
Thanks ^^
About Archons: They are big and slow, but after they manage to get in melee range, they start doing a ton of damage to clumped up units.
In SC1, the Archon is a good unit in PvP: They join your speedlots and are quite effective at killing the enemy speedlots. They're also more resilient than any other unit when getting hit by reaver scarabs and psi storm. Dragoons are a pretty hard counter to them.
Archons are a great unit in PvZ: They're your most effective unit against cracklings (along with Templars), they can make a muta stack disappear if they manage to get a good few hits in, they can withstand Lurker fire better than Zealots, they're practically immune to Plague, and in medium or large groups they completely own Ultras (unless they're under the cover of Dark Swarm). However, Hydras are a pretty hard counter to them.
Archons are a bad unit in PvT: Tanks own them, Vultures own them, Vessels own them (with EMP Shockwave), even Goliaths own them in large groups and with upgrades.
Now, let's analyze the changes relevant to the Archon in SC2- let's ignore the recent damage buff for now, if you don't mind, I'll get back to it later:
*Unit surround AI is much better. This is pretty huge- if you've ever seen an Archon get surrounded by cracklings, you know how fast they can die even to melee units which they're supposed to counter. This makes them less effective against Zealots and Lings.
*Their Zerg counterpart, the Ultralisk, now has a ton more health and also has splash damage. The Archon deals more damage, but the Ultra attacks faster + Show Spoiler [On attack rate] +Archon attack speed is listed as "Normal", while Ultralisk attack speed is listed as "Fast"- for an idea of how big this difference might be, the Zealot's attack speed is also listed as "Normal", while the Zergling's attack speed is "Fast"
*Plague is gone, so the advantage of being practically immune to it is irrelevant in SC2.
This all means:
- Archons will probably continue to be bad in PvT, though perhaps not quite as much. While there won't be Vultures to rape them, Marauders who can slow them down is almost as bad.
- I have no idea how effective Archons will be in PvP, because I have yet to witness a decent PvP in good video quality where I can understand what's going on. However, with the High Templar's Phase Shift and the Phoenix Graviton Beam, they might not be all they used to be.
- In PvZ, Zerglings will have an easier time surrounding them and Ultras will be a much more worthy opponent. They'll still vaporize any mutalisks they manage to get a few hits on.
In summary: Archons will still kill mutas, and not a whole lot more. All reports on the Archon I'd read before the damage buff claimed the unit sucked, which is consistent with the above analysis. I'm guessing Blizzard came to the same conclusion, and decided to give them a huge damage buff to make them competitive again. Overkill? Not enough? Hard to say at this point.
|
On October 04 2009 09:47 Zato-1 wrote:
- Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator?
Zato, If your opponent doesn't have a C&C/Nexus/hatchery it's buildings will become visible after X amount of seconds. Only way to cancel the reveal effect is to put down a new hatch/nexus/C&C
|
On October 05 2009 01:42 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 09:47 Zato-1 wrote:
- Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator? Zato, If your opponent doesn't have a C&C/Nexus/hatchery it's buildings will become visible after X amount of seconds. Only way to cancel the reveal effect is to put down a new hatch/nexus/C&C
Depending on your opponent's color and the terrain color in the minimap, it can still be nontrivial to spot those hidden pylons. At any rate, I for one won't complain if they make the "hide the farm" tactic even less viable.
|
On October 05 2009 01:54 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 01:42 Integra wrote:On October 04 2009 09:47 Zato-1 wrote:
- Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator? Zato, If your opponent doesn't have a C&C/Nexus/hatchery it's buildings will become visible after X amount of seconds. Only way to cancel the reveal effect is to put down a new hatch/nexus/C&C Depending on your opponent's color and the terrain color in the minimap, it can still be nontrivial to spot those hidden pylons. At any rate, I for one won't complain if they make the "hide the farm" tactic even less viable.
You can switch the colours, in SC1 you simply press shift+tab and your opponent gets the colour red in both the minimap and the actuall game. it will work about the same in SC2.
But yea, building hiding will prolly still exist, C&C/hatchery/nexys hiding that is. People do this in Warcraft3 all the time. Sure it's one big and expensive building but you can still hide it 
|
Wow man :D thanks for your insight about Archons
I was thinking about doing my own thread but I think I'll post here:
What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters"  ?
Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream?
No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it.
No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it.
Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair.
Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes.
No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them.
For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter.
Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...?
The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell.
BTW I wonder what kills Tank faster: Warp / Void Ray or Immortal and what is going to happen to Carrier, some sources say Interceptors deal 5x2 dmg and have 50/50 HP now so will Carrier be just a siege unit now?
|
Immortals probably kill tanks faster (in three hits). While they're very strong vs tanks, they'll still take some damage. Void rays can kill tanks while taking no damage at all, but they're really specialized against very high hit point units (battlecruisers, buildings).
|
On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters" ? Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream? No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it. No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it. Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair. Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes. No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them. For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter. Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...? The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell.
The phoenix. As a Protoss fan, I'm actually pretty excited about the unit! The old Scout + Corsair got replaced by Void Ray + Phoenix, and I doubt anything can be quite as bad as the Scout. The Corsair is a good unit- but mostly just in PvZ.
Protoss is very dependent on the Zealot-Goon combo in SC1; the only strategy that doesn't rely heavily on those two units is Sair-Reaver in PvZ. It might be this will change in SC2- I find that in order to analyze the Phoenix properly, you have to also consider its partner in crime, the Void Ray.
Do you remember Battle Report 1? David Kim owning some Protoss player as Terran? The unit combo with which he ran the Protoss over was Hellion - Marauder - Banshee. Hellions tore up the Zealots, Marauders were effective against Stalkers and Colossi, and Banshees helped to dismantle the Colossus threat. These units have something in common: none of them can attack air. In SC1, you got something similar in Tanks + Vultures, but the only serious air counters are Zealot bombs on top of the tanks + mines, and Carriers- Carriers are so far up the tech tree and such a huge investment, they're not something you can build to support your standing army. Unlike, say, Reavers or Templars.
Back to SC2. Void Rays and Phoenix are not a huge investment like Carriers; they're more akin to switching from Hydras to Mutas against a meching Terran (although Zerg can do so more quickly thanks to the nature of larvae). Lings, banelings, roaches are all incapable of shooting air, and Void Rays can actually deal a lot of damage if left unchecked- unlike, say, Scouts. To turn this into an air superiority force, you have the Phoenix: they're really cheap, they're fast, and they're fairly straightforward- first, they take out any enemy air, then they support your ground units by picking on Siege Tanks, Immortals, Lurkers and such.
Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk:
- A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta).
- A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate.
- A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta).
How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
Phoenix vs. Arbiters: I think the comparison to the Corsair is better, actually. Instead of Disruption Web which affects an area, they have Graviton Beam which only affects one unit at a time but allows the other Phoenix to take out the incapacitated unit. Besides, Protoss still have a Stasis Field in SC2, it's called Vortex.
Also- I lol'd at the "Arbiter hero" fighting turrets concept :p
|
On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:BTW I wonder what kills Tank faster: Warp / Void Ray or Immortal and what is going to happen to Carrier, some sources say Interceptors deal 5x2 dmg and have 50/50 HP now so will Carrier be just a siege unit now?
Air units and Immortals are both a good counter to tanks. I'd say the supporting Terran cast is more important in this case: If he has a ground-heavy force with Hellions or Ghosts, Immortals will melt to tank fire once their shields are taken down. If he has Thors, those will shoot your Phoenix out of the air so fast it's not funny- but Immortals will chew 'em up :p
|
You know the damage buff to Zealots might be to encourage Zerg players to use the Roach?
|
On October 05 2009 03:55 Median wrote:
You know the damage buff to Zealots might be to encourage Zerg players to use the Roach?
Well, it'll certainly make Zerglings stop being the early game answer to everything the Protoss has.
|
i dont agree with this not being able to build supply depot without command centre thing
it could be useful in do or die situations to build a supply instead of a new cc , why take that option out?
|
On October 05 2009 01:42 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 09:47 Zato-1 wrote:
- Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator? Zato, If your opponent doesn't have a C&C/Nexus/hatchery it's buildings will become visible after X amount of seconds. Only way to cancel the reveal effect is to put down a new hatch/nexus/C&C
Really? There goes those fun elimination games where both people have armies but no real base ;/
|
Since we were talking about Archons earlier, something just occured to me now that you can make archons from DTs.
1 - Sneak 2 DTs into enemy base
2 - Morph into Archon out of site near mineral patches
3 - ?!?!?
4 - Profit!
Edit: man, I really should save these for beta/release...
|
On October 06 2009 02:56 0neder wrote:
Since we were talking about Archons earlier, something just occured to me now that you can make archons from DTs.
1 - Sneak 2 DTs into enemy base
2 - Morph into Archon out of site near mineral patches
3 - ?!?!?
4 - Profit!
Edit: man, I really should save these for beta/release...
i think the two dts can do enough damage by themselves, and they stay invisible.. so
|
Canada11349 Posts
On October 06 2009 03:04 da_head wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2009 02:56 0neder wrote:
Since we were talking about Archons earlier, something just occured to me now that you can make archons from DTs.
1 - Sneak 2 DTs into enemy base
2 - Morph into Archon out of site near mineral patches
3 - ?!?!?
4 - Profit!
Edit: man, I really should save these for beta/release... i think the two dts can do enough damage by themselves, and they stay invisible.. so
Plus the time it takes to make said Archons could be better spent killing units and buildings and dodging detection.
|
Anyone ever accidentally merge their DTs into a dark archon during a DT drop? I have 
|
I guess the only useful context would be if you knew they had air units they'd bring back to defend.
|
Dragoons originally used to build faster and shoot faster, but cost a little bit more. PvT it wasn't uncommon for mass dragoons to be a strong strategy, even against a terran with many tanks. Maybe the stalker will resemble the early dragoon a bit?
|
On October 06 2009 10:28 ][-][eretic wrote:
Dragoons originally used to build faster and shoot faster, but cost a little bit more. PvT it wasn't uncommon for mass dragoons to be a strong strategy, even against a terran with many tanks. Maybe the stalker will resemble the early dragoon a bit?
this is wrong
dragoons had one less range before the patch changes , making them useless
|
On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:
Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk:
- A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta).
- A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate.
- A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta).
How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
Um, mutas deals more damage than phoenixes, since their attack bounces. 10+5+2=17, meaning that mutas deals almost 50% more damage than phoenixes while phoenixes have 50% more health. Of course mutas damage is spread a bit but I'd still say that it is far from a one sided battle and since mutas are better against ground so he is more likely to have more mutas than you have nixes since you need other units for ground.
And by mixing in 1-2 corrupters he will get corrupted units during the battle so then he most likely will win with equal resources.
|
I need to divide your post because you've touched different subjects ;P
On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters" ? Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream? No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it. No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it. Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair. Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes. No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them. For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter. Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...? The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell. Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk: - A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta). - A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate. - A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta). How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
I have no idea how much damage will 2nd and 3rd muta hits deal (and this would be pretty huge if those were 5 and 2) but I agree with Klockan that you can't make as much Phoenixes as you would like to because Zerg will just switch to ground forces and roll over you most likely before toss air can take care of Overlords.
This is even if you win against Mutalisk / Corrupter combo - talking about Corrupters I wonder how final corrupting mechanic will look like, so far killing hit has to be done by Corrupter in order to corrupt unit right?
Making enough Phoenixes to match initial Mutas would be hard to do alone - good Zerg would just fake Muta openings to make Protosses spend big amount of their resources on Stargates and air units.
Phoenix vs. Arbiters: I think the comparison to the Corsair is better, actually. Instead of Disruption Web which affects an area, they have Graviton Beam which only affects one unit at a time but allows the other Phoenix to take out the incapacitated unit. Besides, Protoss still have a Stasis Field in SC2, it's called Vortex.
I disagree:
- Escaping Disruption Web is easy, that's why it's not used in modern PvT instead of Stasis.
- I haven't seen info saying Graviton Beam affects only 1 target: this doesn't make any sense - to choose for example 1 Zergling / 1 Marine or 1 Ultralisk / Siege Tank?
What's more AFAIK this spell was supposed to lift buildings into air too, it was described as possible counter against "turtles".
- GB may be another reason why energy transfer ratio was so poor.
- Even Dustin Browder himself said in an interview that he considers Mothership as unit made for fun, i.e. not made in competitive games.
You wrote about Carriers being too high in tech earlier even though they are being used and you mention Mothership?
|
On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters" ? Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream? No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it. No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it. Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair. Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes. No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them. For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter. Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...? The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell. The phoenix. As a Protoss fan, I'm actually pretty excited about the unit! The old Scout + Corsair got replaced by Void Ray + Phoenix, and I doubt anything can be quite as bad as the Scout. The Corsair is a good unit- but mostly just in PvZ. Protoss is very dependent on the Zealot-Goon combo in SC1; the only strategy that doesn't rely heavily on those two units is Sair-Reaver in PvZ. It might be this will change in SC2- I find that in order to analyze the Phoenix properly, you have to also consider its partner in crime, the Void Ray. Do you remember Battle Report 1? David Kim owning some Protoss player as Terran? The unit combo with which he ran the Protoss over was Hellion - Marauder - Banshee. Hellions tore up the Zealots, Marauders were effective against Stalkers and Colossi, and Banshees helped to dismantle the Colossus threat. These units have something in common: none of them can attack air. In SC1, you got something similar in Tanks + Vultures, but the only serious air counters are Zealot bombs on top of the tanks + mines, and Carriers- Carriers are so far up the tech tree and such a huge investment, they're not something you can build to support your standing army. Unlike, say, Reavers or Templars. Back to SC2. Void Rays and Phoenix are not a huge investment like Carriers; they're more akin to switching from Hydras to Mutas against a meching Terran (although Zerg can do so more quickly thanks to the nature of larvae). Lings, banelings, roaches are all incapable of shooting air, and Void Rays can actually deal a lot of damage if left unchecked- unlike, say, Scouts. To turn this into an air superiority force, you have the Phoenix: they're really cheap, they're fast, and they're fairly straightforward- first, they take out any enemy air, then they support your ground units by picking on Siege Tanks, Immortals, Lurkers and such.
On October 05 2009 03:14 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:BTW I wonder what kills Tank faster: Warp / Void Ray or Immortal and what is going to happen to Carrier, some sources say Interceptors deal 5x2 dmg and have 50/50 HP now so will Carrier be just a siege unit now? Air units and Immortals are both a good counter to tanks. I'd say the supporting Terran cast is more important in this case: If he has a ground-heavy force with Hellions or Ghosts, Immortals will melt to tank fire once their shields are taken down. If he has Thors, those will shoot your Phoenix out of the air so fast it's not funny- but Immortals will chew 'em up :p
Zatic wrote he liked using infantry against toss opponents so much he almost made no Tanks - Marines have much bigger role in PvT now and it was confirmed again and they are going to be primary threat to any Protoss air imo, even in the 1st SC2 gameplay shown during WWI in Seoul Marines were used against Warp Rays, they may be enough against Phoenixes too.
Colossi are their doom but as sites you've given links to confirm Vikings are supposed to be answer to them - Colossi are so big they are treated as air units too and Vikings even have damage bonus against Massive units.
Will we see any Thors in PvTs if Terrans are going to have sufficient AA before Thor tech, AA that's not as susceptible to units with damage bonus against armoured?
Phoenix lost it's role as superiority fighter when it's only spell was changed, they may help to keep enemy air units at bay but I don't think they are going to be the main answer.
I'm extremely curious if Carriers take role of ultimate AA in SC2 (against smaller units, I don't mean BCs or other Carriers here ;d)
|
On October 07 2009 00:08 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:
Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk:
- A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta).
- A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate.
- A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta).
How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
Um, mutas deals more damage than phoenixes, since their attack bounces. 10+5+2=17
Excuse me- where did you get these numbers?
In Brood Wars, mutas deal 9+3+1 damage. I know the primary hit now deals 10 damage, but if I had to extrapolate on the total attack damage, it would probably be 10+3+1.
Now, assuming that's the case, I ran an excel simulation of how a muta vs. phoenix battle would ensue. The assumptions I used are:
No Overkill: Players have perfect focus-firing and take advantage of every last point of damage, never dealing more damage to a unit than its total health. (Note that I can modify this assumption to make it more realistic, I just need more realistic estimates of how much damage is lost in overkill).
Muta splash: A muta has a main target, a first bounce target, and a second bounce target. As long as the phoenix numbers are high (more than half), mutas only take advantage of a small portion of their splash damage (1/3 of the damage dealt to the first bounce target) for the purposes of getting additional kills. As phoenix numbers get lower (less than half), there's less targets to spread the bounces around, so mutas take better advantage of their splash damage (2/3 of damage dealt to first bounce target + 1/3rd of damage dealt to second bounce target) for the purpose of getting kills. At really low phoenix numbers, all of the targets are damaged and all previous splash damage is counted against the few remaining phoenix.
No regen: No shields regen, no health regen for the mutas because of how fast they're getting killed.
No range advantage: The phoenix range advantage has no impact on this model.
Simultaneous fire: Both Phoenix and Mutas have the exact same firing rate, and all units attack at the same time.
Since Mutas and Phoenix cost almost exactly the same, I ran a first test with equal numbers of each. Here's my results:
![[image loading]](http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5070/phoenixmuta10.png)
![[image loading]](http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/1033/phoenixmuta15.png)
![[image loading]](http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6600/phoenixmuta40.png)
As I said- phoenix will murder an equal number of mutas, according to the stats we've been given. If you want access to my model, here it is:
http://www.filefront.com/14695177/Phoenix vs. Mutas.xls
Feel free to ask any questions about it. Note that I've only modeled the possibility of losing up to 5 units per volley, although that can be increased if you feel the burning need to test 100 phoenix vs. 100 mutas or some such.
Also, you can experiment by how much mutas need to outnumber Phoenix in order to beat them. Not much: About 20%. Still, that's probably too fine a measurement for a tool that makes so many assumptions, so you should take it with a grain of salt.
|
On October 10 2009 22:29 beetlelisk wrote:
[*] I haven't seen info saying Graviton Beam affects only 1 target: this doesn't make any sense - to choose for example 1 Zergling / 1 Marine or 1 Ultralisk / Siege Tank?
I believe you're confused as to what exactly Graviton Beam does. Let me read its tooltip, according to SC2Pod:
"Lifts up a target non-massive ground unit, disabling it and making it targeted as an air unit. Channeled ability."
You'll notice it always speaks in singular terms: "a (...) unit, disabling it and making it (...)". Here's a quote from Karune: "The Phoenix in the latest build uses energy (4 per second) when casting anti-gravity, thus the same Phoenix is not able to attack the target it is lifting with anti-gravity."
Again, no plural terms. "... not able to attack the target it is lifting (...)".
You say it makes little sense to be able to lift 1 zergling / 1 marine / 1 tank / 1 ultra. As it happens, a Phoenix using Graviton Beam (the new name of the anti-gravity ability Karune speaks of) can't lift an Ultralisk- because as the SC2Pod description says, it lifts up a non-massive ground unit. Ultralisks are a massive ground unit, much like Thors and Colossi. Siege Tanks, on the other hand, would be prime targets for Graviton Beam; Marines, not so much, because while you're lifting one of them up, his friends will shoot you out of the air.
On October 10 2009 22:29 beetlelisk wrote:
What's more AFAIK this spell was supposed to lift buildings into air too, it was described as possible counter against "turtles".
I don't ever recall having read that. At any rate, I believe it only affects units, and not buildings, currently.
On October 10 2009 22:29 beetlelisk wrote:
Even Dustin Browder himself said in an interview that he considers Mothership as unit made for fun, i.e. not made in competitive games.
You wrote about Carriers being too high in tech earlier even though they are being used and you mention Mothership?
What I meant to say in that occation is:
You have a Zerg army in, say, ZvP. Which unit combinations do you see? Lurker/Ling is used. Muta/ling as well. Lurker/hydra/ling as well. Mass hydra is another. All in all, Zerg can quickly switch between these four unit types, mix and match as they see fit.
Then, you have the Protoss army. You see a lot of Zealot/scout, right? Of course not- Scouts suck. How about Zealot/Carrier? Or Dragoon/Carrier? Not very common combinations either- though it's more likely you'll see them in a PvT. In the case of the Carrier, the problem is it's too high up the tech tree; takes too long to make one for a good timing push, for instance. It's why you can see a lot of midgame Zerg attacks with the 4 units previously mentioned, but not with Ultralisks. It's not that the Ultralisk is a bad unit; it just takes too long to get, so you only see them in the late game.
Carriers are the same, only more often than not, you don't see them- even in the late game. What are the Protoss armies like?
Early game: Dragoons, or Zealots, depending on the matchup.
Midgame: Dragoons + Speedlots + support (observers, reaver+shuttle, templars, DTs)
Late game: Dragoons + Speedlots + support (observers, arbiters, templars, reavers)
In other words... a lot of zealots and goons. Remember the crazy 2-port wraith build Leta's used vs. Zerg? Well, you don't see a 2-stargate Scout build very often. In fact, you can be pretty sure that all game long, the Protoss will be making a lot of zealots and dragoons- unless it's PvZ, and the Protoss goes Corsair/Reaver. That single exception aside, Protoss fighting units are mostly just zealots and goons. I guess Corsairs also count- but Protoss Air should be a much better package in SC2 with Phoenix / Void Ray.
|
Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator?
This is so unnecessary, I wish someone would point out to them that it's more or less a non-issue in SC. SC and by extension SC2 is probably BETTER OFF with building hiding during annihilation races as it's so easy to find and kill buildings. You might buy a few minutes at most but it's really easy to deal with in SC unlike WC3 where it can be incredibly hard to find farms (hidden off the edge of the map or entirely obscured from view). The main problem was never farm hiding in any case, it was Night Elf players hiding mobile buildings among trees.
|
On October 11 2009 01:37 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 22:29 beetlelisk wrote:
[*] I haven't seen info saying Graviton Beam affects only 1 target: this doesn't make any sense - to choose for example 1 Zergling / 1 Marine or 1 Ultralisk / Siege Tank? I believe you're confused as to what exactly Graviton Beam does. Let me read its tooltip, according to SC2Pod: "Lifts up a target non-massive ground unit, disabling it and making it targeted as an air unit. Channeled ability." You'll notice it always speaks in singular terms: "a (...) unit, disabling it and making it (...)". Here's a quote from Karune: "The Phoenix in the latest build uses energy (4 per second) when casting anti-gravity, thus the same Phoenix is not able to attack the target it is lifting with anti-gravity." Again, no plural terms. "... not able to attack the target it is lifting (...)". You say it makes little sense to be able to lift 1 zergling / 1 marine / 1 tank / 1 ultra. As it happens, a Phoenix using Graviton Beam (the new name of the anti-gravity ability Karune speaks of) can't lift an Ultralisk- because as the SC2Pod description says, it lifts up a non-massive ground unit. Ultralisks are a massive ground unit, much like Thors and Colossi. Siege Tanks, on the other hand, would be prime targets for Graviton Beam; Marines, not so much, because while you're lifting one of them up, his friends will shoot you out of the air.
In the link you gave Karune says that the same Phoenix that is casting this spell can't attack at the same time - that's why it's singular. I'd like to know in what context
"a (...) unit, disabling it and making it (...)" was written, could you give a link to this quote please?
Again I refuse to believe that this spell affects only 1 target - on the same SC2pod page it's said it drains 50 energy + 4 per second. In March when it was just 4 energy per second it could be a single target but with 50 for starters? Well, whatever, I guess we will see.
Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 22:29 beetlelisk wrote:
What's more AFAIK this spell was supposed to lift buildings into air too, it was described as possible counter against "turtles". I don't ever recall having read that. At any rate, I believe it only affects units, and not buildings, currently.
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=10697501059&sid=3000&pageNo=1
+ Show Spoiler +19. Re: Karune Q&A Batch Archive 10/02/2008
---StarCraft II Q&A Batch 28---
"The Hallucination ability has been cut from the High Templar. Instead, it will have an Anti-Gravity ability in addition to its classic Psi Storm ability. This ability will allow a High Templar to lift up buildings and units in the air, disabling their movement and attack, while also making them an air target. This ability can be cast on Supply Depots blocking choke points, as well as incoming Thors, or other threatening units. This has been the first ability the Devs have been comfortable with, in giving players a real choice to be made, to use Psi Storm or the Anti-Gravity ability. This ability is still being balanced, in terms of the duration units and buildings will stay in the air, energy cost, and if it will be a channeling spell (which means the High Templar will be unable to move or cast other abilities while casting the Anti-Gravity ability)."
There it is but you are right on this one - they can't lift buildings now
Show nested quote +On October 10 2009 22:29 beetlelisk wrote:
Even Dustin Browder himself said in an interview that he considers Mothership as unit made for fun, i.e. not made in competitive games.
You wrote about Carriers being too high in tech earlier even though they are being used and you mention Mothership?
What I meant to say in that occation is: You have a Zerg army in, say, ZvP. Which unit combinations do you see? Lurker/Ling is used. Muta/ling as well. Lurker/hydra/ling as well. Mass hydra is another. All in all, Zerg can quickly switch between these four unit types, mix and match as they see fit. Then, you have the Protoss army. You see a lot of Zealot/scout, right? Of course not- Scouts suck. How about Zealot/Carrier? Or Dragoon/Carrier? Not very common combinations either- though it's more likely you'll see them in a PvT. In the case of the Carrier, the problem is it's too high up the tech tree; takes too long to make one for a good timing push, for instance. It's why you can see a lot of midgame Zerg attacks with the 4 units previously mentioned, but not with Ultralisks. It's not that the Ultralisk is a bad unit; it just takes too long to get, so you only see them in the late game. Carriers are the same, only more often than not, you don't see them- even in the late game. What are the Protoss armies like? Early game: Dragoons, or Zealots, depending on the matchup. Midgame: Dragoons + Speedlots + support (observers, reaver+shuttle, templars, DTs) Late game: Dragoons + Speedlots + support (observers, arbiters, templars, reavers) In other words... a lot of zealots and goons. Remember the crazy 2-port wraith build Leta's used vs. Zerg? Well, you don't see a 2-stargate Scout build very often. In fact, you can be pretty sure that all game long, the Protoss will be making a lot of zealots and dragoons- unless it's PvZ, and the Protoss goes Corsair/Reaver. That single exception aside, Protoss fighting units are mostly just zealots and goons. I guess Corsairs also count- but Protoss Air should be a much better package in SC2 with Phoenix / Void Ray.
OK let's stay with Carriers in PvT for now - you wrote
On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:
Do you remember Battle Report 1? David Kim owning some Protoss player as Terran? The unit combo with which he ran the Protoss over was Hellion - Marauder - Banshee. Hellions tore up the Zealots, Marauders were effective against Stalkers and Colossi, and Banshees helped to dismantle the Colossus threat. These units have something in common: none of them can attack air. In SC1, you got something similar in Tanks + Vultures, but the only serious air counters are Zealot bombs on top of the tanks + mines, and Carriers- Carriers are so far up the tech tree and such a huge investment, they're not something you can build to support your standing army. Unlike, say, Reavers or Templars.
I assume you've said this in BroodWar context, that you based it on how your BW PvT games look like.
You haven't ever seen Carriers used to win a game? I know that they are far in tech and it's better to use them on certain maps to abuse cliffs but I understood this part of your post as "Carriers are useless, they shouldn't be used at all".
I disagree about Carriers not being able to support your main army because (beside winning games with just pure Carriers) it's not uncommon to make Terran overreact about Carrier threat, spend money on Turrets and Goliaths while Protoss doesn't commit himself to just Carriers and attacks Terran's answer mainly with ground forces.
Similarly in SC2 if sources are correct Interceptors and thus Carriers are even more powerful so they should be used more often.
I try to follow changes done to SC2 units and so far I see lot's of attempts to make all of them useful, to avoid putting units that may be considered as useless in.
Mothership is the only unit that doesn't follow that trend but as devs said multiple times by now it's hard to balance it because most of the games played don't last long enough. I hope Mothership finds it's niche through beta.
|
On October 12 2009 09:10 beetlelisk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2009 01:37 Zato-1 wrote:On October 10 2009 22:29 beetlelisk wrote:
[*] I haven't seen info saying Graviton Beam affects only 1 target: this doesn't make any sense - to choose for example 1 Zergling / 1 Marine or 1 Ultralisk / Siege Tank? I believe you're confused as to what exactly Graviton Beam does. Let me read its tooltip, according to SC2Pod: "Lifts up a target non-massive ground unit, disabling it and making it targeted as an air unit. Channeled ability." You'll notice it always speaks in singular terms: "a (...) unit, disabling it and making it (...)". Here's a quote from Karune: "The Phoenix in the latest build uses energy (4 per second) when casting anti-gravity, thus the same Phoenix is not able to attack the target it is lifting with anti-gravity." Again, no plural terms. "... not able to attack the target it is lifting (...)". You say it makes little sense to be able to lift 1 zergling / 1 marine / 1 tank / 1 ultra. As it happens, a Phoenix using Graviton Beam (the new name of the anti-gravity ability Karune speaks of) can't lift an Ultralisk- because as the SC2Pod description says, it lifts up a non-massive ground unit. Ultralisks are a massive ground unit, much like Thors and Colossi. Siege Tanks, on the other hand, would be prime targets for Graviton Beam; Marines, not so much, because while you're lifting one of them up, his friends will shoot you out of the air. In the link you gave Karune says that the same Phoenix that is casting this spell can't attack at the same time - that's why it's singular. I'd like to know in what context was written, could you give a link to this quote please? Again I refuse to believe that this spell affects only 1 target - on the same SC2pod page it's said it drains 50 energy + 4 per second. In March when it was just 4 energy per second it could be a single target but with 50 for starters? Well, whatever, I guess we will see.
Um, I gave a link in the very first piece of text you quoted, here: SC2Pod in the description of the Graviton Beam ability.
Here's a Screenshot of Graviton Beam in action: Each phoenix lifts up a single siege tank, which is kind of what I figured was the greatest use of Graviton Beam vs. Terran. In Battle Report 3, we see David Kim's phoenix lifting up a queen with Graviton Beam, when there are a bunch of workers nearby. Wouldn't he have dealt more damage lifting up a group of workers? Yes, but I'm pretty sure Graviton Beam affects only one unit at a time.
Against Zerg, Graviton Beam could be of great help vs. Lurkers (yes, you can lift Burrowed units); against Protoss, you can lift up the enemy Immortals. It's not a bad ability if you can only lift up a single unit at once, you just have to pick the right units to lift.
|
I'm sorry, I missed that, I stopped reading after words non-massive and focused on this more.
I'm surprised, as I wrote I was more used to it as spell lifting even buildings so changing that to single units was really strange for me. Thanks for screenshot!
|
On October 12 2009 09:10 beetlelisk wrote:You haven't ever seen Carriers used to win a game? I know that they are far in tech and it's better to use them on certain maps to abuse cliffs but I understood this part of your post as "Carriers are useless, they shouldn't be used at all". I disagree about Carriers not being able to support your main army because (beside winning games with just pure Carriers) it's not uncommon to make Terran overreact about Carrier threat, spend money on Turrets and Goliaths while Protoss doesn't commit himself to just Carriers and attacks Terran's answer mainly with ground forces. Similarly in SC2 if sources are correct Interceptors and thus Carriers are even more powerful so they should be used more often.
I don't think Carriers are a bad unit in PvT- I just think they're a huge investment and not something you can transition to easily. Unlike, say, Wraits or Mutas. I'd compare the Carrier more to something like Ultralisks. The Protoss air force looks to be much more accessible in SC2 thanks to Phoenix + Void Rays, to the point that the threat of a serious midgame Protoss air force seems plausible.
As to Carriers in SC2:
I thought the max number of interceptors per Carrier was 4. After doing some research, it turns out I was wrong- still 8 interceptors per Carrier, and they do more damage.
On the other hand, you also have to watch out for the Carrier counters. Carriers are most useful in SC1 in PvT, because Terran doesn't have any unit that can simultaneously match the Carrier's power and mobility. In SC2, the Viking was pretty much made with the intention of being a direct counter to Carriers in mind.
On October 12 2009 09:10 beetlelisk wrote:
I try to follow changes done to SC2 units and so far I see lot's of attempts to make all of them useful, to avoid putting units that may be considered as useless in.
Mothership is the only unit that doesn't follow that trend but as devs said multiple times by now it's hard to balance it because most of the games played don't last long enough. I hope Mothership finds it's niche through beta.
To me, the Battlecruiser and Mothership are still a mystery. What are their strengths? What are their counters?
|
On October 04 2009 10:03 Engineer wrote:
WOW more trash articles from people speculating before the game is even out... Here's a tip.... WAIT FOR IT TO COME OUT
YEAH!!!
close down the sc2 section and delete all the news of zatics build and TL's Blizzcon coverage.
Let's only trash eachother and let Tl burst into flames of flamewar.
I rarely take time to write negative stuff but this was just wrong, keep the sc2 speculations up
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
