EPTthere you go, i fixed your game.
Well, not really, but its a start. ZvZ would be kinda fucked, but oh well. maybe reduce the roach warren cost.
The Roach is whats wrong with SC2. - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
there you go, i fixed your game. Well, not really, but its a start. ZvZ would be kinda fucked, but oh well. maybe reduce the roach warren cost. | ||
|
randomness
United States38 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:17 Koltz wrote: In BW we had interesting battles largely due to the part that there were no "hard-counters." It is so strange that people keep saying this. I'm glad to know I can kill those firebats with my zerglings. | ||
|
TieN.nS)
United States2131 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:51 Doc Daneeka wrote: really? i'm pretty sure i read or heard that somewhere but maybe it's false memory syndrome cos it sounds like a good idea, lol. Brood War didn't have +dmg to certain unit types. Instead, there was normal, explosive, and concussive damage that scaled damage based on unit sizes. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:50 Fayth wrote: hydras never had a bonus against armored.... they did less dmg to light units, if anything hydras shud be like 8+4armored On April 05 2010 13:55 TieN.nS) wrote: Brood War didn't have +dmg to certain unit types. Instead, there was normal, explosive, and concussive damage that scaled damage based on unit sizes. Its the same thing? Well, except that their DPS overall is less redonculous. And while technically you got +5 halfways, the only thing that benefited from that was medium, or concussive, both which were rare in comparison. . | ||
|
Oracle
Canada411 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:54 randomness wrote: It is so strange that people keep saying this. I'm glad to know I can kill those firebats with my zerglings. In any event where you "only" have lings, it would be very early game, or you are doing some sort of speedling cheese, for example vs a 1 rack cc opening. In this event, there wont be many firebats out yet, and 4 speedlings can take out a firebat with proper micro. Conversely, a firebat can kill 4 microed zerglings if he hides behind a mineral. 2 Firebats on your ramp with a medic can effectively ward off a speedling cheese. 2 Firebats in the open with a medic will get owned by more than 8 zerglings. The firebats role was very distinct and absolute. Zergling micro allowed us to "overcome" hard-counters. Like I said in my post earlier. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
 --- Let me explain something about "Hardcounters". I'm tempted to make a new thread, nobody seems to get it. SC2 is not about hardcounters any more then SC1 was. The metagame is still volatile, a formulaic build is still being developed, so your going to see a lot of fights ending because of "hardcounters". Was MM hardcountered by storms and reavers in SC1? You betcha. Thats an entire tech option/alternative, hardcountered by 1/2 units. Their isn't even a definable difference between a hardcounter and a normal counter. Only counter and softcounter. No hardcounters. Counters encourage things. The hardcounter to mass light units is aoe, so it encourages AoE. Is this a good thing? Many would say yes, yes is agreeable. That is all they do. Bios hardcounter encourages mech. etc etc. They shape the metagame, and through feedback and patching, the game itself. What do roaches encourage? A lot of things, outlined in my post, and most of them aren't good by any stretch of the imagination. On April 05 2010 13:56 Koltz wrote: In any event where you "only" have lings, it would be very early game, or you are doing some sort of speedling cheese, for example vs a 1 rack cc opening. In this event, there wont be many firebats out yet, and 4 speedlings can take out a firebat with proper micro. Conversely, a firebat can kill 4 microed zerglings if he hides behind a mineral. 2 Firebats on your ramp with a medic can effectively ward off a speedling cheese. 2 Firebats in the open with a medic will get owned by more than 8 zerglings. The firebats role was very distinct and absolute. Zergling micro allowed us to "overcome" hard-counters. Like I said in my post earlier. Yes and roaches can kill immortals if they micro and run away damaged roaches. Whats your point? Still doesn't change the fact that I attack a your expo with 5 immortals, your 15 roaches won't be able to do much.. Just like how if I attack a with my 6 firebats and 4 medics your expo, and you only have zerglings, you cant do much, | ||
|
Doc Daneeka
United States577 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:55 TieN.nS) wrote: Brood War didn't have +dmg to certain unit types. Instead, there was normal, explosive, and concussive damage that scaled damage based on unit sizes. oh no, i meant in a sc2 build pre-beta. there was something about hydras doing bonus against first air, then armored, then nothing when the beta came out. | ||
|
TieN.nS)
United States2131 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:55 Half wrote: Its the same thing? Well, except that their DPS overall is less redonculous. And while technically you got +5 halfways, the only thing that benefited from that was medium, or concussive, both which were rare in comparison. . Not really sure what you're trying to say in response to my last post, but regarding 8 +4arm vs a base +12 with no bonus, that's a pretty big nerf. Marines would take an extra hit to kill base or two extra hits with combat shield upgrade, etc. | ||
|
Oracle
Canada411 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:58 Half wrote: Also, I hope I don't get booted for "bad manners for this", but seriously, the people going on about hardcounters need to...STFU. --- Let me explain something about "Hardcounters". I'm tempted to make a new thread, nobody seems to get it. SC2 is not about hardcounters any more then SC1 was. The metagame is still volatile, a formulaic build is still being developed, so your going to see a lot of fights ending because of "hardcounters". Was MM hardcountered by storms and reavers in SC1? You betcha. Thats an entire tech option/alternative, hardcountered by 1/2 units. Their isn't even a definable difference between a hardcounter and a normal counter. Only counter and softcounter. No hardcounters. Counters encourage things. The hardcounter to mass light units is aoe, so it encourages AoE. Is this a good thing? Many would say yes, yes is agreeable. That is all they do. Bios hardcounter encourages mech. etc etc. They shape the metagame, and through feedback and patching, the game itself. What do roaches encourage? A lot of things, outlined in my post, and most of them aren't good by any stretch of the imagination. Hard counter is just a word used to differentiate the degree in which one type negates the other type. And you seriously cannot claim that some units are countered to a higher degree than other units? Hard counters in SC2 are to such a high degree that they almost do not allow for the countered unit to be produced, where as in BW we had inequalities of vulture > zealot > tank > goon > vulture. although the vulture countered the zealot, it did not mark its disappearance from PvT | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
One problem with SC 2 hard counters, though, is that some units (ie roaches, marauders) hard counter everything in the same tier. That's just bad design. | ||
|
OverShield
Canada41 Posts
Marauders should have to research Slow (I think its kind of silly that M&M can have both of their abilities before Zeal's or Stalker get either of theirs), and maybe make the damage 12+8 or 12+6. Immortals could use a slightly longer build time and perhaps have their +armored damage scaled down a tad. I'm a little surprised about people calling Immortals "boring". First of all, they are fuckin badass. Second, they are an asset to a P army in most situations not just countering the aforementioned units. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 05 2010 14:01 Koltz wrote: Hard counter is just a word used to differentiate the degree in which one type negates the other type. And you seriously cannot claim that some units are countered to a higher degree than other units? Hard counters in SC2 are to such a high degree that they almost do not allow for the countered unit to be produced, where as in BW we had inequalities of vulture > zealot > tank > goon > vulture. although the vulture countered the zealot, it did not mark its disappearance from PvT Hellions counter zealots so hard. Nobody even bothers to make hellions. (in PvT) What could I possible make to stop you from making zealots? I can't think of any unit I could possible make to stop zealots, besides a wall off with tanks (in which you'll lollerape with immortals and bstalkers), and mass banshees. Immortals "hardcounter" siegetanks? Kind of like how storms and reavers hardcountered the entirety of Bio? On April 05 2010 14:03 OverShield wrote: I actually agree with Mora here. These units just need to be toned down a bit. -1 armor and -15 hp for the Roach sounds about right. -50 hp is absurd. Marauders should have to research Slow (I think its kind of silly that M&M can have both of their abilities before Zeal's or Stalker get either of theirs), and maybe make the damage 12+8 or 12+6. Immortals could use a slightly longer build time and perhaps have their +armored damage scaled down a tad. I'm a little surprised about people calling Immortals "boring". First of all, they are fuckin badass. Second, they are an asset to a P army in most situations not just countering the aforementioned units. 50 HP is absurd, but I'd like to bring back roach passive regen. A startling trend in SC2 is having these distinct units in Alph, and making then bland in the name of balance because they figured that their original roles were too hard to balance/unbalance able. Plus 145 hp t1 unit infringed on toss racial identity. | ||
|
Zaqwert
United States411 Posts
Roaches are stupid powerful but rather than nerf them they made maurderes and immortals super powerful to counter them, which in turn ruins unit diversity. | ||
|
Oracle
Canada411 Posts
Yes and roaches can kill immortals if they micro and run away damaged roaches. Whats your point? Still doesn't change the fact that I attack a your expo with 5 immortals, your 15 roaches won't be able to do much.. Just like how if I attack a with my 6 firebats and 4 medics your expo, and you only have zerglings, you cant do much, Vague statement. You cannot compare the relationshp of firebat/ling to immortal/roach. Firebat/ling depends heavily on the surrounding of lings. If a firebat pops out right away from a barracks and lings are ready with the surround, it is going to die. If an immortal pops and there are roaches waiting, its not going to make as big of a difference, as they are both ranged units. If an immortal can kill 3 roaches alone, if it comes out of a robo with 3 roaches surrounding it, its still going to kill them Furthermore, the emphasis on producing roaches/immortals in SC2 and producing firebats in BW are very different. If you consider firebat a hard-counter of lings, then it is very different from the definition of hard-counter of sc2. The hard-counters of SC2 are great vs their respective counters. Immortals demolish tanks, mauraders. But they are great vs MANY other things as well. Firebats are great vs lings. Not too good vs much else. | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On April 05 2010 14:03 OverShield wrote: From a design point of view, it would be much faster to over-nerf the three units then see how the matchups fare and then slowly bring them back into line than take baby-steps. I actually agree with Mora here. These units just need to be toned down a bit. -1 armor and -15 hp for the Roach sounds about right. -50 hp is absurd. Marauders should have to research Slow (I think its kind of silly that M&M can have both of their abilities before Zeal's or Stalker get either of theirs), and maybe make the damage 12+8 or 12+6. Immortals could use a slightly longer build time and perhaps have their +armored damage scaled down a tad. I'm a little surprised about people calling Immortals "boring". First of all, they are fuckin badass. Second, they are an asset to a P army in most situations not just countering the aforementioned units. I'd typically reserve small changes for small issues, but it seems the complaints surrounding roaches have been here since the initial beta version and multiple nerfs later they're still ridiculous. | ||
|
Oracle
Canada411 Posts
On April 05 2010 14:04 Half wrote: Hellions counter zealots so hard. Nobody even bothers to make hellions. (in PvT) What could I possible make to stop you from making zealots? I can't think of any unit I could possible make to stop zealots, besides a wall off with tanks (in which you'll lollerape with immortals and bstalkers), and mass banshees. Immortals "hardcounter" siegetanks? Kind of like how storms and reavers hardcountered the entirety of Bio? I have been known to Biomech in a lot of my TvP games on BW. Storms and reavers seem great vs marines, but player skill can make them viable in TvP. not to mention, timing push before the occurance of templar tech. http://repdepot.net/replay.php?id=5941 I dont have SC installed on my laptop so i just chose the first game I could think of, (btw that is the real kwark). When a terran has mauraders, zealots become extremely useless, such that minerals spent on them are a waste and the protoss would rather not make them because no matter what they do, maurders are going to own them. And as the game goes on longer, zealots become increasingly more useless, even with charge. | ||
|
USn
United States376 Posts
On April 05 2010 13:02 Mora wrote: sort of like... 75% of the units in sc1? lol ie: zealot dragoon hydralisk zergling marine (unless stim disqualifies it) scouts mutas etc. I put that poorly. All those units (except hydra and, lol, scout) demand careful attention because of special qualities or limits (bad ai, stim, melee, etc) that give them a unique feel. | ||
|
WorkersOfTheWorld
United States619 Posts
To give my own viewpoint as a long-time SC fan, now sc2 beta junky, it seems like a median could be reached. Roaches do seem to be the pre-eminator of the three units in question. That being said, the OP did not, and the rest of us should not, point our finger at one of these units as the outlier. I think the roach, marauder, and immortal need a heavy re-work. They should be either costly t2 units (much like the immortal) with slightly less effect than the present units have, or they should be narrowly more effective than their t1 counterparts in terms of damage. I believe the stalker is a pretty good example of what a t1.5 unit should be. It's a general use unit, it covers the weakness of the zealot (ranged, anti-air), but it does not eclipse the zealot unless air units are involved (roaches are an exception, but i'm trying to compare to the rest of the units out there). Conversely, the marauder covers a weakness of the marine (armor), but it completely eclipses the marine on the ground when air units aren't present. Similarly, roaches completely eclipse the zergling in almost every ground battle themselves. I think it's still up for debate just what kind of niche these units should be filling, or just how they can be changed, but it's certainly not going to be a very interesting game if minimal bandaids are applied to the status quo. The relationship of these units dictates that a change to one is going to necessarily screw with the match-up between two others. Over-nerf the marauder and protoss will be nearly unstoppable in an immortal push. Over-nerf the roach and terran will steamroll zerg with the same marauder cheese they currently employ in TvP. Over-nerf the immortal and protoss will have an even slimmer chance at winning any games. TLDR: Agree with the OP, but i think these units can be salvaged. They just need a lot of review from the dev team right now. Hopefully the next couple of patches have some serious re-working of the "unholy trinity." | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On April 05 2010 14:08 Koltz wrote: Vague statement. You cannot compare the relationshp of firebat/ling to immortal/roach. Firebat/ling depends heavily on the surrounding of lings. If a firebat pops out right away from a barracks and lings are ready with the surround, it is going to die. If an immortal pops and there are roaches waiting, its not going to make as big of a difference, as they are both ranged units. If an immortal can kill 3 roaches alone, if it comes out of a robo with 3 roaches surrounding it, its still going to kill them Furthermore, the emphasis on producing roaches/immortals in SC2 and producing firebats in BW are very different. If you consider firebat a hard-counter of lings, then it is very different from the definition of hard-counter of sc2. The hard-counters of SC2 are great vs their respective counters. Immortals demolish tanks, mauraders. But they are great vs MANY other things as well. Firebats are great vs lings. Not too good vs much else. Fine, the same applies to hellions versus lings, though I admit its not as potent until were talking 8 lings versus 2 hellions, on lower numbers, due to lings being balanced for more lings surrounding any given target, their a lot weaker. On April 05 2010 14:11 L wrote: From a design point of view, it would be much faster to over-nerf the three units then see how the matchups fare and then slowly bring them back into line than take baby-steps. I'd typically reserve small changes for small issues, but it seems the complaints surrounding roaches have been here since the initial beta version and multiple nerfs later they're still ridiculous. This is what I'd do. Anyway, Maraunders and roaches have too much health anyway, even disregarding dynamic and looking towards thematic and playstyle concerns. | ||
| ||
