Patch 6 Notes - Page 28

On March 27 2010 04:42 LUE.Leoj wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why Barracks should ever have Reactors now. It's slightly more expensive but a Rax+Lab is just as easy/quick to build and you can make Marauders AND Marines out of it. I feel like in pretty much any situation where I would want a reactor, building a 2nd barracks is now just easier.

On March 27 2010 04:09 Klockan3 wrote:

Funny how you can make exactly the same argument with raxes and factories being able to fly!!

On March 27 2010 03:09 Zeke50100 wrote:
It's Blizzard's "subtle" way of making a push towards mech, not to mention that Vikings cost less gas now. Viking on the ground is basically a mech unit that is better than the Stalker in many, many ways.

On March 27 2010 05:02 adelarge wrote:


Erm no, you can't. Flying building are the same like in BW. On the other hand, supply depots were changed, which was the point of this argument.

On March 27 2010 05:18 Klockan3 wrote:

Supply depots was changed to make them like other structures, not to make them more viable as walls than other structures. All that it changed was to allow for supply only walls.

On March 27 2010 03:47 Slayer91 wrote:
I think people are really overreacting about this baneling buff. I mean, they're good vs rines becaues they splash and rines have low hp. That won't change at all. Marauders are bigger and have more hp so they spread out splash and also take less damage.

Pre change:
15-1 = 14 damage vs a marauder
= 9 banelings to kill a 125 hp 1 armour marauder. (A bit more efficient when bunched but big marauder frames really means you won't splash that much.
250 mins 225 gas. MORE THAN A COLOSSUS in gas and only 75 less minerals to take down one marauder. (Because of the way splash works you would need more to take down like 3 marauders as well)
Post change:
20-1 = 19 damage vs a marauder.
=7 banelings to kill a 1 armour marauder
=175 mins 175 gas. MAYBE efficient in terms of minerals but never in terms of gas.

So you still REALLY need to micro them against marauder/marine because you can blow enough banelings to kill all his marines and kill only a couple marauders.

Result: Banelings are still worthless except really for marine hard counter, and maybe zealot/templar counter as well, and also baneling bombs on workers might be deadly. Still ridiculously inefficient vs anything not light, no real change. No doubt, they are still amazingly effective vs marines and I really hate this emphasis on mass marauder, it's already popular and got buffed. I was always a marine fan. Really weak vs splash but more firepower.

Other changes:
Double hellion harass openings nerfed a lot, my version used 5 rines to harass early which is not viable at all with slowed rine production/reactor production.
Slower rine/reactor production also means more minerals for teching. They probably want to encourage that.
Terrans given a lot more gas to encourage raven/ghost usage,
More minerals used with your vikings/ghosts means smaller core unit groups.

ZvZ:
Roach burrow now largely going to be unused. I never saw any real abuse of burrow micro so I always felt burrow being too weak not too strong, since you also lose the units firepower when you burrow it.

On March 27 2010 05:13 lololol wrote:


Vikings on the ground aren't more powerful than stalkers, and they have a higher cost and lower mobility, so no, they aren't better than stalkers in many many ways, they are better in one specific thing - destroying air, which is their main purpose(and the best unit in the game for that purpose) and the ground form is mostly to use up what you have left over, if the opponent stops making air or to harass undefended expos and such.

On March 27 2010 05:33 lololol wrote:

Banlings cost 50 minerals. 25 for the zergling and 25 morph cost, so your mineral costs are a lot lower than the actual ones.

A burrowed roach regenerated more hp than it could deal in damage, so losing their firepower was compensated. They regenerated 10 hp a second and dealt 16 damage every 2 seconds, they also have 2 armor, so the regen is even more helpful.

On March 27 2010 05:37 Zeke50100 wrote:


Vikings have a ground cooldown of 1, and a base attack of 14. Stalkers have a cooldown of 1.44, and a base attack of 10 (+4 vs Armored). Vikings also equal the Stalker's range. The only thing a Stalker beats it at is movement speed, with 2.9531 compared to 2.25.

Mobility isn't too big of a deal because it can transform into air, which is much more mobile than the Stalker, even with Blink (albeit requiring more micro and APM).

They out-price the Stalker by 25 Minerals and 25 Gas, which I can grant you; however, that is a small price to get the top anti-air unit, along with a decent ground unit.

It can soft-counter Banshees and Brood Lords (pretty well ) by being un-hittable, while the Stalker cannot. The Corruptor does not have enough range to be a successful counter, as well as Phoenixes (however, the Phoenix's speed can make up for it; a Viking can still transform into ground and be unhittable temporarily, and transform back to pseudo-hit and run). Both Roaches and Marauders can be beaten by a Viking much more efficiently by a Stalker, and even pseudo-hit and run via Transform micro.

Both suck against Immortals, although the Viking can just fly away, while the Stalker can be trapped by ground units/terrain. Stalkers are evenly matched against Stalkers, while the Viking's superior attack speed will overpower a Stalker. Zealots are...melee And so are Archons, Zerglings, etc.

Only Hydralisks, Marines, Stalker, and Sentry cannot be pseudo-hit and run by the Viking as ground units.

Enough to support that Vikings are better than Stalkers, even as anti-ground?