| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On May 18 2011 08:23 freetgy wrote: in theory yes, pratical no, guess someone needs to watch artosis gsl qualifier matches  Haven't watched them, but I routinely use VR's to counter a decent number of Thors. VR's don't clump nearly as much as other units, so as long as you try to keep them spread apart you're perfectly fine. Thors shoot slow as can be and VR's do a LOT of damage to Thors. | ||
|
thebole1
Serbia126 Posts
thors ghoust and hellions are great combo vs toss try it ..  | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
Bunker Salvage Rebate Reduction This change was one of the most frequently requested by the community, and players made a lot of valid arguments as to why this change was necessary. We've seen too many bunker rushes vs. zerg, and we felt that adjusting the salvage return rate would be a positive change. Players will also have to think about mineral loss before constructing multiple bunkers on the defensive, which also feels right. BS a 25 mineral reduction will not stop bunker rushes. its still a minuscule amount of minerals being lost for such a powerful rush. | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
On May 18 2011 08:51 sylverfyre wrote: Void rays ANNIHILATE thors in large numbers. Even with worse upgrades, the most basic magic boxing of void rays is much easier than it ever was doing it with mutas, because of void rays' lower speed and larger collision size. Even if you don't focus fire and the thors do, void rays come out WAY on top, and are less expensive + faster to build. Not only that, but they're a pretty reasonable thing to build against a meching style. Vikings are scary but void rays vs vikings but VRs don't exactly auto-lose, but that's neither here nor there. Not true. Go play with VRs in a unit tester. Make 10 thors and TRY to get your VRs to magic box them. See how many VRs you need in order to beat 10 thors. It doesn't work. VRs don't have a magic box the way mutas do. They naturally clump whether or not you click inside the box. You have to manually micro VRs to get them to spread. It's VERY difficult. You basically need a surround in order to beat Thors with VRs. If you just a click into thors, 20 VRs will lose to 10 thors unupgraded on both sides. Try it in a unit tester. In real games its even worse because there are usually a ton of marines around. Can VRs be used to counter thors? Yes, but usually in small numbers. In large numbers its VERY difficult. My point is that VRs don't simply HARD counter Thors. They are situational just like almost every unit in SC2. | ||
|
randplaty
205 Posts
On May 18 2011 10:05 Stratos_speAr wrote: Haven't watched them, but I routinely use VR's to counter a decent number of Thors. VR's don't clump nearly as much as other units, so as long as you try to keep them spread apart you're perfectly fine. Thors shoot slow as can be and VR's do a LOT of damage to Thors. Yes if you keep them spread apart you're good. But my point is that it's not easy. The more Thors they have, the more VRs you need, the more difficult it is to keep your VRs separate. VRs do NOT have a magic box. | ||
|
SetStndbySmn
United States657 Posts
Firstly, from a design perspective, blizzard has said they intended for the thor to be heavy front line support. You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use." The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army, much like ghosts, or battlecruisers, or hellions, or high templars, or colossus, or many other units weren't intended to be the core of an army. Debating whether it ever was used as such, whether is should be used as such, and whether this will fix it or not is fine, but don't add in baseless accusations of their intentions. Secondly, from a balance perspective, they are saying it is frustrating to deal with a unit which has a mechanic that kills units that would normally counter it, when said mechanic is easier to execute than it is to prevent. There is discussion over the relationship between thors and voidrays, which I think is pretty irrelevant and missing the point; I think we can infer this change primarily had the relationship between thors and immortals in mind. Short of amazing execution, I personally don't think it's very interesting to see any number of immortals nullified by researching strike cannons. I think blizzard envisions a battle being more along the lines of fewer thors supporting the bulk of the army, with harder to execute (and thus more precious) strike cannons being directed at pivotal and important targets such as colossus. It's not to say that the vision of the thor's functionality is reciprocated perfectly by the functionality of the other races' units yet; they are simply moving the thor in the direction of the role they wish it to fill in a theoretically balanced game. | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
On May 18 2011 10:24 Ballistixz wrote: BS a 25 mineral reduction will not stop bunker rushes. its still a minuscule amount of minerals being lost for such a powerful rush. Cool, well hatch first isn't an entitlement sorry to say. | ||
|
Zaixer
Sweden82 Posts
| ||
|
thebole1
Serbia126 Posts
| ||
|
eloist
United States1017 Posts
On May 19 2011 04:56 SetStndbySmn wrote: A lot of you need to look at the strike canon nerf more objectively. Firstly, from a design perspective, blizzard has said they intended for the thor to be heavy front line support. You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use." The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army, much like ghosts, or battlecruisers, or hellions, or high templars, or colossus, or many other units weren't intended to be the core of an army. Debating whether it ever was used as such, whether is should be used as such, and whether this will fix it or not is fine, but don't add in baseless accusations of their intentions. Secondly, from a balance perspective, they are saying it is frustrating to deal with a unit which has a mechanic that kills units that would normally counter it, when said mechanic is easier to execute than it is to prevent. There is discussion over the relationship between thors and voidrays, which I think is pretty irrelevant and missing the point; I think we can infer this change primarily had the relationship between thors and immortals in mind. Short of amazing execution, I personally don't think it's very interesting to see any number of immortals nullified by researching strike cannons. I think blizzard envisions a battle being more along the lines of fewer thors supporting the bulk of the army, with harder to execute (and thus more precious) strike cannons being directed at pivotal and important targets such as colossus. It's not to say that the vision of the thor's functionality is reciprocated perfectly by the functionality of the other races' units yet; they are simply moving the thor in the direction of the role they wish it to fill in a theoretically balanced game. Objectively, where does the fact that the change nerfs Thors without strike cannons more than Thors with stirke cannons fit into your analysis? Most people are not really concerned that strike cannons is weaker all that much. Personally I am more annoyed that building Thors is no longer an alternative in reaction to seeing templars. Which is the other side of the coin. | ||
|
yeahsc2
Serbia38 Posts
Canons take 40s Spines take 50s why should bunkers be faster as a reactionary defense tool? Because you need units for bunkers to be at least affective, while spines and cannons just give you defence without units. As for the thor, its only role from my view can be found in tvz against stacked mutas but zergs are learning and use magic box or some other tactic to negate the splash from the thor, or in tvt late game mech. Other thatn that, thor is good for nothing. Before this patch at least you could do something with it, now you cant do shit. A guy before me said : Toss/zerg players keep raving on "lolololo make something else than t1 units lolololol noob", but it's very frustrating that when you do, blizzard takes it away, slaps you on the hand and says "MMM you moron!". whic really made me laugh.  the worst thing is that its actually true. | ||
|
TofuFox
374 Posts
You're reading too far into it if your conclusion is, "blizzard is telling me which strategies are ok to use." Yet you then say The remark simply means they didn't intend for the thor to be the core backbone of your army How is that not saying "strategies which use thor as the core backbone of your army are not okay to use (even if they're not overpowered)"? | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
On May 19 2011 05:27 DooMDash wrote: Cool, well hatch first isn't an entitlement sorry to say. wasnt an entitlement in SC1 either. but know the diffrence? in SC1 there were RISKS invovled in stopping a hatch, but those risks outweighed the bunker rush if the hatch was stoped. if it wasnt stoped then u are down 100-200 minerals. in Sc2? if u stop the hatch with a bunker rush then ur ahead. if it fails then ur down 25-50 minerals. good job blizz. bunker rushing in SC2 has become a no brainer and has no thoght process invovled. if u see a zerg going hatch a terrans natural instinct is to bunker rush since there is no risk involved in it for them to think twice. they just do it because if it fails it will only cost them 25-50 minerals if they salvage. in SC1 there were risks on both sides and not just 1 side. going hatch first against terran was dangerous because of a potential bunker rush stopping it, but on the same token terran was also taking a slight risk because he is gonna be investing in 100-300 minerals to try and stop a hatch first. so there were risks on BOTH sides not just one. in sc2 there is only risk for the zerg. loosing 25 minerals is minuscule ESPECIALLY with terran having mules -_-. | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On May 19 2011 07:23 eloist wrote: Objectively, where does the fact that the change nerfs Thors without strike cannons more than Thors with stirke cannons fit into your analysis? Most people are not really concerned that strike cannons is weaker all that much. Personally I am more annoyed that building Thors is no longer an alternative in reaction to seeing templars. Which is the other side of the coin. I don't see how they aren't an option at all. I think it was HasuObs vs BratOk on Terminus, but BratOk eventually transitioned into late game Thors and Hasu just didn't even bother Feedbacking the Thors after the first few times, it barely hurt the thor as it was never on full energy, it just wasn't worth using the energy to Feedback a Thor when you had Storm as an option as well, he just flat out ignored them until he had enough of an advantage where he could throw away energy | ||
|
robbryjo
Germany60 Posts
Also it is pretty impossible to coutner a thor marine marauder ball with some Hellions | ||
|
lindn
Sweden833 Posts
On May 13 2011 19:21 Tppz! wrote: I'd like to ask Blizzard why Terran Pplayers should add the Thor t an Army if he has no function anymore but killing stacked mutas. There is no way you can add a Thor to an army as a support unit. Its 6 Supply each walking slower than anyrthing else so it can absorb the damage when you push. ultras also are a support unit to a army and also walks slower than your lings. your point? | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
On May 20 2011 16:07 Ballistixz wrote: wasnt an entitlement in SC1 either. but know the diffrence? in SC1 there were RISKS invovled in stopping a hatch, but those risks outweighed the bunker rush if the hatch was stoped. if it wasnt stoped then u are down 100-200 minerals. in Sc2? if u stop the hatch with a bunker rush then ur ahead. if it fails then ur down 25-50 minerals. good job blizz. bunker rushing in SC2 has become a no brainer and has no thoght process invovled. if u see a zerg going hatch a terrans natural instinct is to bunker rush since there is no risk involved in it for them to think twice. they just do it because if it fails it will only cost them 25-50 minerals if they salvage. in SC1 there were risks on both sides and not just 1 side. going hatch first against terran was dangerous because of a potential bunker rush stopping it, but on the same token terran was also taking a slight risk because he is gonna be investing in 100-300 minerals to try and stop a hatch first. so there were risks on BOTH sides not just one. in sc2 there is only risk for the zerg. loosing 25 minerals is minuscule ESPECIALLY with terran having mules -_-. This really shows that you have not thought the bunker rush through. When does a bunker rush fail? When you don't get the bunker up or your bunker gets overrun. How does the salvage help you there? Right - it doesn't. When does salvage come into play in a bunker rush? When you have established a position and push further in (though most of the time this is prevented by creep) or when you have killed off the hatch and are pulling out. And then no Terran would mind to let those 100 min bunkers stand because the damage is done and by far outweighs the investment. Salvage barely plays a role in bunker rush considerations. Salvage is rather a consideration on defense, where it's an incentive to create a bunker that is a worthless structure unless you fill it with units. So while other defenses (cannons, spines) remain useful when you push out, the bunker is empty and deserted. That's the point where salvage is useful. Note that this does not make the bunker free, because 100 minerals now are better than 100 minerals 5 mins later. | ||
|
yeahsc2
Serbia38 Posts
| ||
|
thebole1
Serbia126 Posts
| ||
|
yeahsc2
Serbia38 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Patches Events
BSL Open Qualifier
BSL Open Qualifier
OSC
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
