Brood Lords having the high ground bonus - Page 6

On August 09 2011 16:02 BobTheLob wrote:
thats the thing air units always count as being spotted D:

On August 09 2011 12:43 darkscream wrote:


No, it doesn't. You always want to put your brood lords up on a ledge where it's harder for ground units to hit them, anyways.

On August 09 2011 17:24 dogabutila wrote:
You wouldnt want the broodlords up there anyways. Towers, plus they can only control one path from the ledges.

It might be a factor in the future, on other maps. but that example is not one.

On August 09 2011 10:15 figq wrote:
Interesting find, thanks. The reason, I suppose, could be that carrier's interceptors return to the carrier, and thus remain associated with it in some common class of objects, while broodlings once launched become fully autonomous units unrelated to the brood lord anymore, because they just die shortly. At least that's the only difference I can see.

/offtopic: zerg players really don't use broodlings well enough yet. It's surprisingly rare that someone would actually control them separately. As a result, very often you see broodlings not doing anything.

P.S. The proper comparison would be with Infested Terrans. Shooting them from high ground does not reveal the infestors, because the infested terrans are fully autonomous - unlike interceptors.

Another proof of this difference is:
- When you kill a carrier, all interceptors die immediately
- When you kill a brood lord, his launched broodlings don't die immediately
- When you kill an infestor, his launched infested terrans don't die immediately

So no, it's not a bug, clearly. You won't see interceptors living without a carrier, ever; they are associated. But you would see broodlings living without a brood lord; they are separate. Working as intended.

On August 09 2011 17:35 Intricate1 wrote:
To highlight the concept once again,



So what your saying is there no situation in Starcraft where you maximize your advantage by positioning a broodlord on the highlighted high ground and using the mechanic in the OP?

Obviously not so plz refer to the previous post,

"Not considering the OP in the everyday use of your broodlords is just wasting advantage."

On August 09 2011 15:52 MandoRelease wrote:
I don't see how this could be game changing. Even if blizzard make it so that it shows the broodlord when the broodlord attack, you still would not be able to attack the broodlord unless you actually have vision. Doesn't change a thing.

Plus, about the broodlord attack. As far as I understand it, here is how it works. The broolord throws a broodling and make 20 damage, then the broodling attack and deal something like 4 damage (am i correct on that ?). That means, when the broodlord has 2 broodlings behind him, when he attacks, he launches 2 broodlings and deals an immediate 40 damage and brings 2 broodlings on the field, then has to wait for a broodling to respawn behind him before attacking again.
So it just may be that the 20 initial damage are tied to the broodling (which makes sense, since the broodlord can't attack unless he has at least one broodling ready behind him). And thus would explain why we don't see the broodlord on the high ground.

How does it differ from a weapon of, let's say, a vicking ? Well, there are differences in the fact that the wiking always deal the same amount of damage every y.xx seconds (help me on that one), while the broodlord's attack depends on the amount of broodling he has ready to be thrown.

But maybe blizzard will decide that they don't like that anymore, and will show the broodlord. It won't change a thing though, since you need actual vision the attack it, like for every other unit attacking from the high ground.

EDIT : After looking at the picture in the first post, I have to wonder why the carrier lost some HP. I mean you can't attack tanks or canons from the low ground if you don't have vision of them. That would be a bug if you could attack the carrier without vision. Nothing to do with the broodlord. The carrier thing is the bug here, as far as i'm concerned.

EDIT 2 : OK I misunderstood a few things originally. I thought the issue was that the broodlord was not revealed, i did not read that the carrier could be attacked. My mistake. Well, I don't think the issue here lies with the broodlord. The carrier should not be attacked.