|
On February 10 2011 14:37 xbankx wrote:
Any terran saying bio with stim is not good versus toss due to forcefield is just not looking at the reality. Personally as a toss, I would like stim mm to be weaker in early game example: make stim factory required upgrade or cost more(like 200/200) or require another building like EE bay to build it. This way the stim timing comes a lot later. However, as a toss player I recognize late game TvP is almost unplayable unless you can somehow secretly go BC and get like 5 of them without toss noticing or are like 2-3 bases ahead of toss due to temp warpin. My suggestion is to make templar amulet more expansive(like 250/250 and increase gas cost of temps to 200 instead of 150. This way toss can't freely spam high temps+immortals as soon as he reach 3 bases but would require 4-5.
Okay, what's the reality? FF is very strong, and makes it possible to just hulk smash bio stim or no stim. There is no question of that. Delaying stim would most likely just kill terrans. It's not hard to kill bio without stim, and this is so that we cannot use a timing attack that's still easily defendable if you realize it's coming. Sure 3 rax is a strong push, but tbh I can't use 3 rax past mid diamond because players just kill me when I do it. I may not be MKP, but my micro isn't too shabby. So in return you give HTs a slight nerf so that people will just choose to collosus first always and HT second?
I really liked IdrA's statement that stim's strong in the lower levels but at a certain point it's nullified.
|
"Corruption" on corruptor would give zerg win in any match.
Replenish army after kill is a little hard when all buildings are under corruption = gg.
I do agree that colossus is "too" powerful.
My suggestion:
-> Reduce damage to 15 + 2 per up (not +4).
-> Stalker 10(4) and +1 per up. TO 10(4) + (1 light) (2arm) per up.
|
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer.
|
Take Colossus out, bring reaver back. Reaver is slow and hard to control while colosus is an uninteresting 1-a unit. Either that, or limit the number of colossus that can be built in a game to 4 or 5.
|
Thxz again Artosis and Idra keep up the good work
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer.
Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works.
The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax.
|
On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax.
Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out.
|
On February 14 2011 04:46 MoreFaSho wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax. Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out.
Yes bunkers have the potential to be the best of the 3. But you're completely forgetting cost. I'm putting 300 minerals (or 300 min 50 gas/300 min 200 gas) and 4 food into one bunker vs 100 minerals in a spine. Plus it's an offensive bunker. For it to be in range you can already have a spine done. It's the only defense of the 3 that costs food. I'm not trying to say that bunkers are bad. I'm saying people whine about bunkers being this overwhelming thing, but forget what it takes to go into a bunker and what it takes out of the terran player.
|
edit: I am tired, debated the wrong issue here...
|
On February 14 2011 05:13 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 04:46 MoreFaSho wrote:On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax. Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out. Yes bunkers have the potential to be the best of the 3. But you're completely forgetting cost. I'm putting 300 minerals (or 300 min 50 gas/300 min 200 gas) and 4 food into one bunker vs 100 minerals in a spine. Plus it's an offensive bunker. For it to be in range you can already have a spine done. It's the only defense of the 3 that costs food. I'm not trying to say that bunkers are bad. I'm saying people whine about bunkers being this overwhelming thing, but forget what it takes to go into a bunker and what it takes out of the terran player.
Why do you think that putting units in is a bad thing?
Bunkers take units that you already have and makes them stronger, then they can be salvaged to get their money back once their advantage wears off and placed again somewhere else where they are more advantageous.
Cannons don't make your current units any stronger, they are just an additional stalker that can't move. They don't help your army at all after the brief period where terran attacks.
The only time cannons pull ahead of bunkers is when you have multiple spread out bases that can be defended without having your army there. But even still you need 10+ cannons because of the size of your opponents army at that point in the game. Thats a 1500 mineral investment that may never pay off if your opponent decides to ignore the expansion.
Bunkers are never a bad investment, that's what makes them so strong.
|
On February 14 2011 06:13 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 05:13 manicshock wrote:On February 14 2011 04:46 MoreFaSho wrote:On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax. Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out. Yes bunkers have the potential to be the best of the 3. But you're completely forgetting cost. I'm putting 300 minerals (or 300 min 50 gas/300 min 200 gas) and 4 food into one bunker vs 100 minerals in a spine. Plus it's an offensive bunker. For it to be in range you can already have a spine done. It's the only defense of the 3 that costs food. I'm not trying to say that bunkers are bad. I'm saying people whine about bunkers being this overwhelming thing, but forget what it takes to go into a bunker and what it takes out of the terran player. Why do you think that putting units in is a bad thing? Bunkers take units that you already have and makes them stronger, then they can be salvaged to get their money back once their advantage wears off and placed again somewhere else where they are more advantageous. Cannons don't make your current units any stronger, they are just an additional stalker that can't move. They don't help your army at all after the brief period where terran attacks. The only time cannons pull ahead of bunkers is when you have multiple spread out bases that can be defended without having your army there. But even still you need 10+ cannons because of the size of your opponents army at that point in the game. Thats a 1500 mineral investment that may never pay off if your opponent decides to ignore the expansion. Bunkers are never a bad investment, that's what makes them so strong.
Because of cost? Because of food? Because it takes away their mobility to make them stronger thereby turning them into the stalker that can't move as you put it? If I'm at 200/200, and the zerg/protoss is 200/200, they can just lay down some minerals and strengthen with spines/photons, and spines can move. I've seen many games where they just drop 10 spines because they can. Most P put like 5+ cannons at expos so they don't have to defend them with their main army. Bunkers I need to shave units off in order to maintain. Food costs money too, you can add 50 minerals to all of those previous numbers. I personally don't think there is any imbalance, but I'm being told that because bunkers are "free", I can just build a bunch and instawin against zerg. Sure they're great, and I can get my minerals back eventually but I need to buck up initially or else I can't even use them. It isn't a free ride for the terran, he has to delay himself in order to kill or delay the zerg. Which is why it isn't imbalanced.
|
On February 13 2011 23:56 goodvibes wrote:
"Corruption" on corruptor would give zerg win in any match.
Replenish army after kill is a little hard when all buildings are under corruption = gg.
I do agree that colossus is "too" powerful.
My suggestion:
-> Reduce damage to 15 + 2 per up (not +4).
-> Stalker 10(4) and +1 per up. TO 10(4) + (1 light) (2arm) per up.
Making Stalker stronger vs. arm isn't good, it would be stronger vs. viking.
They mentioned a good point - in late game, unless you want to break a siege tank line without going stargate colossus works better than immortal. So colossus should deal less dmg vs. arm, making marauders and roaches less squishy.
|
"Colossi are the real damage dealers in the Protoss ball." - Artosis
On nerfing colossi: Let's "hold off on buffing other units [if we nerf colossi]... wait and see what happens... because personally I think [Protoss] could be just fine." - IdrA
One of those statements can't be true.
As for having corruptors flying all over the place corrupting buildings, void rays can't even catch corruptors and stalkers/phoenix take 150 years to shoot one down - how would you stop mass corruption?
|
On February 14 2011 09:39 jgelling wrote:
"Colossi are the real damage dealers in the Protoss ball." - Artosis
On nerfing colossi: Let's "hold off on buffing other units [if we nerf colossi]... wait and see what happens... because personally I think [Protoss] could be just fine." - IdrA
One of those statements can't be true.
As for having corruptors flying all over the place corrupting buildings, void rays can't even catch corruptors and stalkers/phoenix take 150 years to shoot one down - how would you stop mass corruption?
Slightly raise the price and/or spawn time of the corruptors? meaning any that do die would have more significant economic impact on the Zerg. Or place Corrupt on a lengthy cool down timer?
|
Slightly raise the price and/or spawn time of the corruptors? meaning any that do die would have more significant economic impact on the Zerg. Or place Corrupt on a lengthy cool down timer?
Good ideas - and the corruptor is a bit of an anomaly as the only flying unit in the game that has no capability of harassing ground. On the other hand, the brood lord morph eventually does give corruptors a role beyond pure AA, so corruptors are never wasted.
We'd have to see - to me it seems roach/corruptor into brood lords is already great against Protoss. Allowing corruptors a free "shut down the robo facility" ability - when robo is absolutely essential to handling roach/hydra - on its face looks like an easy win button.
Overseers are a dedicated investment. Corruptors are the very unit that counters the robo facility's production. If corruptors both countered colossi as they do now AND could indefinitely delay colossi production, you'd make the corruptor a double-counter.
It doesn't seem workable with Protoss ground-based AA DPS so poor, and the airborne counters ineffective against hit and run corruption tactics. And from a gameplay perspective, granting one race a combat unit that can control the skies AND halt enemy production would be more than a little annoying.
|
On February 14 2011 06:58 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 06:13 Backpack wrote:On February 14 2011 05:13 manicshock wrote:On February 14 2011 04:46 MoreFaSho wrote:On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax. Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out. Yes bunkers have the potential to be the best of the 3. But you're completely forgetting cost. I'm putting 300 minerals (or 300 min 50 gas/300 min 200 gas) and 4 food into one bunker vs 100 minerals in a spine. Plus it's an offensive bunker. For it to be in range you can already have a spine done. It's the only defense of the 3 that costs food. I'm not trying to say that bunkers are bad. I'm saying people whine about bunkers being this overwhelming thing, but forget what it takes to go into a bunker and what it takes out of the terran player. Why do you think that putting units in is a bad thing? Bunkers take units that you already have and makes them stronger, then they can be salvaged to get their money back once their advantage wears off and placed again somewhere else where they are more advantageous. Cannons don't make your current units any stronger, they are just an additional stalker that can't move. They don't help your army at all after the brief period where terran attacks. The only time cannons pull ahead of bunkers is when you have multiple spread out bases that can be defended without having your army there. But even still you need 10+ cannons because of the size of your opponents army at that point in the game. Thats a 1500 mineral investment that may never pay off if your opponent decides to ignore the expansion. Bunkers are never a bad investment, that's what makes them so strong. Because of cost? Because of food? Because it takes away their mobility to make them stronger thereby turning them into the stalker that can't move as you put it? If I'm at 200/200, and the zerg/protoss is 200/200, they can just lay down some minerals and strengthen with spines/photons, and spines can move. I've seen many games where they just drop 10 spines because they can. Most P put like 5+ cannons at expos so they don't have to defend them with their main army. Bunkers I need to shave units off in order to maintain. Food costs money too, you can add 50 minerals to all of those previous numbers. I personally don't think there is any imbalance, but I'm being told that because bunkers are "free", I can just build a bunch and instawin against zerg. Sure they're great, and I can get my minerals back eventually but I need to buck up initially or else I can't even use them. It isn't a free ride for the terran, he has to delay himself in order to kill or delay the zerg. Which is why it isn't imbalanced.
i think the biggest issue with bunkers is the salvage mechanic. Not that they can be salvaged but that they can be salvaged no matter what. I think if they put in something where it cant be salvaged within 5 seconds of being dmgd or with 1-2mins of being built it would be so much better and would stave off some of the whining
and dont try to pull the oh we need the bunkers to stop harras ive never seen a bunker being dropped to defend a mineral line. YOu have turrets, the majority of harass is going to be from air so any harass you have to deal with(not vs t) is stopped by turrets. soooooo yeah and i could go on how your miss representing the use of each tower but theres no point since these debates on tl will rarely accomplish anything so im going to stop wasting my time now.
|
On February 14 2011 06:58 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 06:13 Backpack wrote:On February 14 2011 05:13 manicshock wrote:On February 14 2011 04:46 MoreFaSho wrote:On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax. Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out. Yes bunkers have the potential to be the best of the 3. But you're completely forgetting cost. I'm putting 300 minerals (or 300 min 50 gas/300 min 200 gas) and 4 food into one bunker vs 100 minerals in a spine. Plus it's an offensive bunker. For it to be in range you can already have a spine done. It's the only defense of the 3 that costs food. I'm not trying to say that bunkers are bad. I'm saying people whine about bunkers being this overwhelming thing, but forget what it takes to go into a bunker and what it takes out of the terran player. Why do you think that putting units in is a bad thing? Bunkers take units that you already have and makes them stronger, then they can be salvaged to get their money back once their advantage wears off and placed again somewhere else where they are more advantageous. Cannons don't make your current units any stronger, they are just an additional stalker that can't move. They don't help your army at all after the brief period where terran attacks. The only time cannons pull ahead of bunkers is when you have multiple spread out bases that can be defended without having your army there. But even still you need 10+ cannons because of the size of your opponents army at that point in the game. Thats a 1500 mineral investment that may never pay off if your opponent decides to ignore the expansion. Bunkers are never a bad investment, that's what makes them so strong. Because of cost? Because of food? Because it takes away their mobility to make them stronger thereby turning them into the stalker that can't move as you put it? If I'm at 200/200, and the zerg/protoss is 200/200, they can just lay down some minerals and strengthen with spines/photons, and spines can move. I've seen many games where they just drop 10 spines because they can. Most P put like 5+ cannons at expos so they don't have to defend them with their main army. Bunkers I need to shave units off in order to maintain. Food costs money too, you can add 50 minerals to all of those previous numbers. I personally don't think there is any imbalance, but I'm being told that because bunkers are "free", I can just build a bunch and instawin against zerg. Sure they're great, and I can get my minerals back eventually but I need to buck up initially or else I can't even use them. It isn't a free ride for the terran, he has to delay himself in order to kill or delay the zerg. Which is why it isn't imbalanced.
are you serious? terrans can just throw down PFs at any expansion they want and they are relatively safe from most ground units. and turrets protect them from air. so why are u acting as if bunkers are the main defense the terran has? sure a zerg can throw down spines. sure a toss can throw down cannons. but NONE of them are nearly as good as a PF.
now add bunkers to that and u have a almost impenetrable defense. add the fact that bunkers can be salvaged and used offensively and then go straight into defense and u have a race with some of the best defense in the game. so good that there defense can be used as offense at times.they even have a upgrade to INCREASE all of there buildings armor by 2. salvage is simply NOT needed for terrans period. its not even a matter of debate that terrans have awesomely good defense. i mean if you think about it a terran can fast expand anytime he wants by simply throwing down a PF at his early nat instead of a OC. but watch what happens when a zerg or toss fast expands against a terran.
so again i ask, why is salvage needed for terran despite how good there defense is without it?
ive played a few games where the terran would favor PFs over OCs. despite his low mule count he would still come out ahead because a zerg player in particular needs to invest so much minerals to take down a PF that has been fortified by bunkers and turrets. and guess what? ANY time he wants to actually make a push all he would do is salvage and go straight from a Defense mode to a offense mode. and if his atk/push fails? make more bunkers and turtle at his PFs. why not? u get ur money back in full anyway.
a zerg can mass spine crawlers. a zerg can even keep those spine crawlers alive with transfuse. but there is one big diffrense between a spine crawler and a bunker. they cant be salvaged and they are limited to creep. and they are fairly weak in general. any good bio army or siege tanks would walk over spine crawlers as if they were weeds.
|
On February 14 2011 10:10 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 06:58 manicshock wrote:On February 14 2011 06:13 Backpack wrote:On February 14 2011 05:13 manicshock wrote:On February 14 2011 04:46 MoreFaSho wrote:On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax. Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out. Yes bunkers have the potential to be the best of the 3. But you're completely forgetting cost. I'm putting 300 minerals (or 300 min 50 gas/300 min 200 gas) and 4 food into one bunker vs 100 minerals in a spine. Plus it's an offensive bunker. For it to be in range you can already have a spine done. It's the only defense of the 3 that costs food. I'm not trying to say that bunkers are bad. I'm saying people whine about bunkers being this overwhelming thing, but forget what it takes to go into a bunker and what it takes out of the terran player. Why do you think that putting units in is a bad thing? Bunkers take units that you already have and makes them stronger, then they can be salvaged to get their money back once their advantage wears off and placed again somewhere else where they are more advantageous. Cannons don't make your current units any stronger, they are just an additional stalker that can't move. They don't help your army at all after the brief period where terran attacks. The only time cannons pull ahead of bunkers is when you have multiple spread out bases that can be defended without having your army there. But even still you need 10+ cannons because of the size of your opponents army at that point in the game. Thats a 1500 mineral investment that may never pay off if your opponent decides to ignore the expansion. Bunkers are never a bad investment, that's what makes them so strong. Because of cost? Because of food? Because it takes away their mobility to make them stronger thereby turning them into the stalker that can't move as you put it? If I'm at 200/200, and the zerg/protoss is 200/200, they can just lay down some minerals and strengthen with spines/photons, and spines can move. I've seen many games where they just drop 10 spines because they can. Most P put like 5+ cannons at expos so they don't have to defend them with their main army. Bunkers I need to shave units off in order to maintain. Food costs money too, you can add 50 minerals to all of those previous numbers. I personally don't think there is any imbalance, but I'm being told that because bunkers are "free", I can just build a bunch and instawin against zerg. Sure they're great, and I can get my minerals back eventually but I need to buck up initially or else I can't even use them. It isn't a free ride for the terran, he has to delay himself in order to kill or delay the zerg. Which is why it isn't imbalanced. are you serious? terrans can just throw down PFs at any expansion they want and they are relativelysafe from any ground units. and turrets protect them from air. so why are u acting as if bunkers are the main defense the terran has? sure a zerg can throw down spines. sure a toss can throw down cannons. but NONE of them are nearly as good as a PF. now add bunkers to that and u have a almost impenetrable defense. add the fact that bunkers can be salvaged and used offensively and then go straight into defense and u have a race with some of the best defense in the game. so good that there defense can be used as offense at times. salvage is simply NOT needed for terrans period.
I'm comparing bunkers to everything else because that's kind of what I have to do. I can say PF helps nullify harass at everything past my 2nd base and solidify their spot but that's about it. Losing a PF is a lot easier if your army isn't nearby then you think. If I plan my defense out and my attack path then yes I can have the best defense out of all 3 races due to the nature of my units and race in general. Tanks, bunkers, sensor tower, PF, turrets.
So salvage. What does it do? It allows me to either move a bunker or remove it without penalty. That's about it.
Now you have two points. One: it allows for a terran to bunker rush and then salvage so it's not nearly as big of a mineral hit. Two: it allows to reinforce expos and then salvage and do slow tank pushes with them. You can do that with spine crawlers too, it's called root and unroot only that's faster because of the build time of bunkers. If salvage weren't in the game it would just make slow tank pushes more mineral heavy. Bunker rush I've already explained multiple times, and you simply ignored it.
At any rate, I'm done debating this. I might have overstressed my point of initial cost, but that's simply because people completely ignore it and whine incessantly about bunkers because they're "free". Even though I normally lose bunkers all the time and they're only free if I choose to remove them.
|
On February 14 2011 11:12 manicshock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 10:10 Ballistixz wrote:On February 14 2011 06:58 manicshock wrote:On February 14 2011 06:13 Backpack wrote:On February 14 2011 05:13 manicshock wrote:On February 14 2011 04:46 MoreFaSho wrote:On February 14 2011 04:37 manicshock wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
have anyone mentioned bunkers + salvage yet or is it just me that think salvage is a BS mechanic and needs to be removed entirely?
you can build 3 to 4 bunkers to wall off a fast expanding zerg at no cost or risk at all. the 400 minerals u invested in the bunkers can be 100% refunded as if it never happened. in SC1 you could do the exact same thing but there was a cost/risk on the terran player for doing it. its fucking ridiculous.
now i dont have a problem with terran building so many bunkers to stop a fast expand. what i DO have a problem with is that w/e money they invest into the bunkers is refunded in full, making the bunker rush basically free. THATS what i have a problem with. once the bunker rush is done they can salvage the 3-4 bunkers and immediately expand or build extra barracks/w/e.
not only does this stop a fast expand zerg in there tracks but it forces extra units just to break it. and again, there is no lost on the terrans part unless he actually forgets to salvage. can ANYONE explain to me why salvage exist in this game? having 100% of ur money refunded for ANY structure in a RTS game like this is ridiculous.
im a zerg player that highly favors fast expand builds as zerg. now it may sound like QQ but again, i dont have a problem with the bunker rush itself. what SHOULD happen is terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand zerg and that would bring them about event. but what happens instead is a terran invests 200-400 minerals to stop a fast expand, salvages the bunkers, gets 200-400 minerals BACK as a refund, and the terran player is now a head by a LARGE margin.
i honestly do not think that shit is fair seriously. and the fact that these maps are so small and the rush distances are so short makes these kinds of things a no brainer. Spoilered for length. Let's take a step back from bunkers and take a peak at all of the defensive structures. So there's the spine crawler, spore, photon cannon and bunker. Spine Crawler: can attack ground, can't attack air but can move which is key. Spore is the same just it can attack air. Photon cannon: can attack both air and ground but cannot move. Bunker: doesn't do anything until I put anywhere between 50-200 minerals of units at least and 1-4 food and doesn't give them any bonuses past the additional overall 400 HP. Salvage was designed to give bunkers movement akin to spine crawlers. I can salvage one, and move it forward. Part of the reason I can salvage it is also it's absolutely worthless unless I put units into it which costs money and food. Please go back to the o-boards where I first read this whine. Being greedy and getting punished for it is how the game works. The loss by the way is in the inital investment. If bunkers were free, I could just expand right then and there while killing you. I'm delaying my tech, my units, my expansion by pressuring you and forcing you to delay yours. It's also entirely possible to catch a bunker rush and destroy it if you defend it properly. Watch 12 weeks with the pros on 2 rax. Without question the new terran mechanic is the largest upgrade compared with BW. Protoss didn't get a real upgrade in cannon mechanic (although they do have defensive warpgate mechanic), zergs moving spines is useful, but risky, but the unit itself is not as good. and Terrans is a clear 100% improvment both in that there are better units to put in it (reaper, marauder), but also in it's salvage. Don't talk about additional investment because 1 bunker >> 1 spine or one cannon and can be repaired to increase it's effectiveness. This isn't a balance whine, the game can still be balanced with different mechanics, but bunkers are BETTER than spines or cannons without question and if you don't think so, you probably never built a bunker in BW or watched a replay in SC2 where a protoss player destroyed his own cannon to move out. Yes bunkers have the potential to be the best of the 3. But you're completely forgetting cost. I'm putting 300 minerals (or 300 min 50 gas/300 min 200 gas) and 4 food into one bunker vs 100 minerals in a spine. Plus it's an offensive bunker. For it to be in range you can already have a spine done. It's the only defense of the 3 that costs food. I'm not trying to say that bunkers are bad. I'm saying people whine about bunkers being this overwhelming thing, but forget what it takes to go into a bunker and what it takes out of the terran player. Why do you think that putting units in is a bad thing? Bunkers take units that you already have and makes them stronger, then they can be salvaged to get their money back once their advantage wears off and placed again somewhere else where they are more advantageous. Cannons don't make your current units any stronger, they are just an additional stalker that can't move. They don't help your army at all after the brief period where terran attacks. The only time cannons pull ahead of bunkers is when you have multiple spread out bases that can be defended without having your army there. But even still you need 10+ cannons because of the size of your opponents army at that point in the game. Thats a 1500 mineral investment that may never pay off if your opponent decides to ignore the expansion. Bunkers are never a bad investment, that's what makes them so strong. Because of cost? Because of food? Because it takes away their mobility to make them stronger thereby turning them into the stalker that can't move as you put it? If I'm at 200/200, and the zerg/protoss is 200/200, they can just lay down some minerals and strengthen with spines/photons, and spines can move. I've seen many games where they just drop 10 spines because they can. Most P put like 5+ cannons at expos so they don't have to defend them with their main army. Bunkers I need to shave units off in order to maintain. Food costs money too, you can add 50 minerals to all of those previous numbers. I personally don't think there is any imbalance, but I'm being told that because bunkers are "free", I can just build a bunch and instawin against zerg. Sure they're great, and I can get my minerals back eventually but I need to buck up initially or else I can't even use them. It isn't a free ride for the terran, he has to delay himself in order to kill or delay the zerg. Which is why it isn't imbalanced. are you serious? terrans can just throw down PFs at any expansion they want and they are relativelysafe from any ground units. and turrets protect them from air. so why are u acting as if bunkers are the main defense the terran has? sure a zerg can throw down spines. sure a toss can throw down cannons. but NONE of them are nearly as good as a PF. now add bunkers to that and u have a almost impenetrable defense. add the fact that bunkers can be salvaged and used offensively and then go straight into defense and u have a race with some of the best defense in the game. so good that there defense can be used as offense at times. salvage is simply NOT needed for terrans period. I'm comparing bunkers to everything else because that's kind of what I have to do. I can say PF helps nullify harass at everything past my 2nd base and solidify their spot but that's about it. Losing a PF is a lot easier if your army isn't nearby then you think. If I plan my defense out and my attack path then yes I can have the best defense out of all 3 races due to the nature of my units and race in general. Tanks, bunkers, sensor tower, PF, turrets. So salvage. What does it do? It allows me to either move a bunker or remove it without penalty. That's about it. Now you have two points. One: it allows for a terran to bunker rush and then salvage so it's not nearly as big of a mineral hit. Two: it allows to reinforce expos and then salvage and do slow tank pushes with them. You can do that with spine crawlers too, it's called root and unroot only that's faster because of the build time of bunkers. If salvage weren't in the game it would just make slow tank pushes more mineral heavy. Bunker rush I've already explained multiple times, and you simply ignored it. At any rate, I'm done debating this. I might have overstressed my point of initial cost, but that's simply because people completely ignore it and whine incessantly about bunkers because they're "free". Even though I normally lose bunkers all the time and they're only free if I choose to remove them.
if salvage wasnt in the game it wouldn't effect a slow tank push in any way. and i dont know why you constantly compared bunkers to cannons/crawelers as if they were the same thing. they are not the same. first off cannons cant move. 2ndly the build time for a spine crawler is painfully long and the reburrow of it is painfully long. a terran can simply savage a bunker before it dies and they will not loose money. spine crawler does not compare to a bunk. a cannon does not compare to a bunk.
So salvage. What does it do? It allows me to either move a bunker or remove it without penalty. That's about it.
exactly. cannons cannot do that. spine crawlers can move but its limited to creep and can be sniped off in the middle of a reburrow. not to mention it takes insanely long to move a spine crawler. and if that spine crawler dies because you moved it to a more vulnerable location (lets say a offensive spine crawler push) then you loose alot of invested minerals. bunkers? salvage, all your money is back. no risk at all in doing it. unload units and salvage bunk before it dies. and salvage takes a very short period of time to complete.
|
On February 14 2011 11:12 manicshock wrote:
So salvage. What does it do? It allows me to either move a bunker or remove it without penalty. That's about it.
No.
Salvage allows Terran to Bunker rush an opponent very early in the game for a high reward situation and should it fail, salvaging returns most of the resources spent for that attack and hardly sets them back .
Low Risk - High Reward
This early in the game, No race can do that without suffering huge set backs if they fail.
That's the problem with Bunker salvaging. Terran can throw 150 minerals early game with no consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
