On October 15 2011 15:22 Wire wrote: Just curious to see the flavors of answers to this question:
why is hydralisk not tier 1?
I don't know, but given how bad it is I'm glad it isn't :p at least we're not forced to make any.
Seriously, roaches are good for ZvZ, and make the matchup more stable. They're also needed to deal with gateway pushes. If the hydralisk stays what it is, a weak high DPS unit that can shoot up and down, I don't see any reason why it would be better than roaches at T1.
And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz.
What about the immortal buff? Blizz specifically said 1-1-1 was a problem. I think they did the right move in trying to let the metagame work it out, but giving a small nudge.
For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as big as the roach buff for several reasons:
- 5 to 6 is a smaller % increase than 3 to 4 - You can't make that many immortals, it's not a staple unit like the roach
I'm not saying it sucks, but it's not a very large buff and it does not address the problem at all. So what if your handful of immortals will shoot 1cm further? How does that relate to stopping banshee + Raven + marines + siege tanks?
And, sure, Blizzard is "nudging" toward potential 1-1-1 solutions. But as Toadvine indicated earlier, if this is their general policy, then they sure have a funny way of applying it across the board, with the gigantic nerfs Protoss has received.
Why didn't they apply this "soft nudge" policy to warpgates, or blink rush, instead of delaying them by half a minute? Did Void Rays get a soft nudge? Did KA warrant full on removal, instead of a value nerf?
Blizzard has no problem taking a hammer to things. And yet they are only nudging at a solution to 1-1-1. Why the double standard? The very same patch which is "nudging" against 1-1-1 just wrecked blink rush.
I don't like the way David Kim operates, especially if things like Catz' influence (mentioned in Toadvine's post) are true.
On October 15 2011 15:22 Wire wrote: Just curious to see the flavors of answers to this question:
why is hydralisk not tier 1?
I don't know, but given how bad it is I'm glad it isn't :p at least we're not forced to make any.
Seriously, roaches are good for ZvZ, and make the matchup more stable. They're also needed to deal with gateway pushes. If the hydralisk stays what it is, a weak high DPS unit that can shoot up and down, I don't see any reason why it would be better than roaches at T1.
From a practical standpoint, if hydras were teir one they could snipe the buildings that are used to wall in with the assistance of an overlord. Since they can range 6, there would always be an angle that the hydra could attack the wall, but the other player could not shot back. If you combo this with a solid zergling run-by, it would be a pretty awesome opening. The other two races do not get a flying unit that allows them to see high ground so early, so its less of any issue.
Hydras roll gateway units, like all of them with almost no issues. A single hydra double the damage of a marine at the same rate of fire, and protoss don't exactly roll marines in large numbers. They would need to be a vastly changed unit if they were going to be in teir 1. I'm not against it, but the roach is a solid teir one ranged unit, if limited. The hydra just needs to be made more robust where it is.
And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz.
What about the immortal buff? Blizz specifically said 1-1-1 was a problem. I think they did the right move in trying to let the metagame work it out, but giving a small nudge.
For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as big as the roach buff for several reasons:
- 5 to 6 is a smaller % increase than 3 to 4 - You can't make that many immortals, it's not a staple unit like the roach
I'm not saying it sucks, but it's not a very large buff and it does not address the problem at all. So what if your handful of immortals will shoot 1cm further? How does that relate to stopping banshee + Raven + marines + siege tanks?
And, sure, Blizzard is "nudging" toward potential 1-1-1 solutions. But as Toadvine indicated earlier, if this is their general policy, then they sure have a funny way of applying it across the board, with the gigantic nerfs Protoss has received.
Why didn't they apply this "soft nudge" policy to warpgates, or blink rush, instead of delaying them by half a minute? Did Void Rays get a soft nudge? Did KA warrant full on removal, instead of a value nerf?
Blizzard has no problem taking a hammer to things. And yet they are only nudging at a solution to 1-1-1. Why the double standard? The very same patch which is "nudging" against 1-1-1 just wrecked blink rush.
I don't like the way David Kim operates, especially if things like Catz' influence (mentioned in Toadvine's post) are true.
Surely the reason they're "nudging" is because the 1-1-1 problem isn't about any one unit being too good, it's about a combination of units at a timing being too good, and all of the units are used in other terran matchups, so nerfing marines, tanks ravens or banshees can have far reaching implications.
As for your examples, everything you listed is an example of something that was only too good in one situation (such as KA - templar were rarely used in PvZ and never in PvP) and so could be changed without causing imbalance in other matchups, or things that they deemed too good across the board (blink rushes). Void rays weren't so much nerfed as redesigned.
tl;dr 1-1-1 is far more complicated to balance than the things you listed, which is why they're being "slow" about it
And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz.
What about the immortal buff? Blizz specifically said 1-1-1 was a problem. I think they did the right move in trying to let the metagame work it out, but giving a small nudge.
For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as big as the roach buff for several reasons:
- 5 to 6 is a smaller % increase than 3 to 4 - You can't make that many immortals, it's not a staple unit like the roach
I'm not saying it sucks, but it's not a very large buff and it does not address the problem at all. So what if your handful of immortals will shoot 1cm further? How does that relate to stopping banshee + Raven + marines + siege tanks?
And, sure, Blizzard is "nudging" toward potential 1-1-1 solutions. But as Toadvine indicated earlier, if this is their general policy, then they sure have a funny way of applying it across the board, with the gigantic nerfs Protoss has received.
Why didn't they apply this "soft nudge" policy to warpgates, or blink rush, instead of delaying them by half a minute? Did Void Rays get a soft nudge? Did KA warrant full on removal, instead of a value nerf?
Blizzard has no problem taking a hammer to things. And yet they are only nudging at a solution to 1-1-1. Why the double standard? The very same patch which is "nudging" against 1-1-1 just wrecked blink rush.
I don't like the way David Kim operates, especially if things like Catz' influence (mentioned in Toadvine's post) are true.
Surely the reason they're "nudging" is because the 1-1-1 problem isn't about any one unit being too good, it's about a combination of units at a timing being too good, and all of the units are used in other terran matchups, so nerfing marines, tanks ravens or banshees can have far reaching implications.
As for your examples, everything you listed is an example of something that was only too good in one situation (such as KA - templar were rarely used in PvZ and never in PvP) and so could be changed without causing imbalance in other matchups, or things that they deemed too good across the board (blink rushes). Void rays weren't so much nerfed as redesigned.
tl;dr 1-1-1 is far more complicated to balance than the things you listed, which is why they're being "slow" about it
Blink rush was not too good against Terran at the very least, and yet the "far reaching consequences" of this huge nerf on PvT don't seem to have been considered. 4gate was never too good against Terran, and the same applies.
You think balancing a matchup without considering other matchups is bad? Blizzard balanced TWO vs fucking TWO without considering 1v1! They took away Flux Vanes because it was imbalanced "in team games." Double standards FTW!
On October 15 2011 23:18 Destructicon wrote: If Warp Gate Tech was moved to Twilight Council or, if Warp Gate tech required a TC or a Templar Archives, then you could safely buff GW units for the early game without worrying about Warp being too strong, by the mid game it should turn out well enough.
Absolutely agree. I said something similar earlier in the thread.
warpgates are MANDATORY for any kind of 1gate or 3gate expand vs terran OR zerg, as when warpgate research completes you finish your units making and then instantly get a second round of units, essentially skipping 30+ seconds of production time for that first warp in per gateway.
Without that, protoss will have 3-4 units instead of 7-8 when terran early pressure comes, and no amount of buffing will let them survive that in current expand builds
On October 15 2011 23:18 Destructicon wrote: If Warp Gate Tech was moved to Twilight Council or, if Warp Gate tech required a TC or a Templar Archives, then you could safely buff GW units for the early game without worrying about Warp being too strong, by the mid game it should turn out well enough.
Absolutely agree. I said something similar earlier in the thread.
warpgates are MANDATORY for any kind of 1gate or 3gate expand vs terran OR zerg, as when warpgate research completes you finish your units making and then instantly get a second round of units, essentially skipping 30+ seconds of production time for that first warp in per gateway.
Without that, protoss will have 3-4 units instead of 7-8 when terran early pressure comes, and no amount of buffing will let them survive that in current expand builds
And yet with Gateway units being stronger, Protoss wouldn't have to expand so early against Terran to be safe against 1-1-1.
On October 15 2011 20:57 Chaosvuistje wrote: Seriously, it's absolutely disgusting watching 15 marauders with 8 medivacs just forcing themselves down over the Protoss gateway force with relative ease just because Stalkers can't do anything to the MM ball in even numbers. In my opinion it is so blatantly appearant that the main gateway bulk like Zealots and Stalkers are nothing more than a meat shield that provides cover for the sentries, high templar and Collosus. That's why I dislike playing against or playing protoss right now but will probably love it once they fix the issue of overly strong 'support' units and relatively weak gateway armies in HotS ( I have hopes ).
Problem is, if they make the Gateway army stronger, wont Warp Gate tech be too strong?
It will, which is why they're so weak in the first place. Blizzard has to rethink some design choices they made with sc2 like warpgate, MULE, salvaging, addon swapping and some of the units. I'm guessing most of us are putting our hopes in HotS, I know I am.
I think they will try to fix a lot of stuff with HotS and experiment some, but the "real" esports expansion will be LoTV, as by then, most of the "casual" players will have left, and the remaining fanbase will be those dedicated to the game and esports.
Only then can we see LAN, clan support, and potentially changes that would for example make terran harder to play than toss and zerg at low level in order to balance them out with the micro skillcap we are starting to see in tournaments
Blizzard will support the game as "that cool new thing" until most of the fans get bored and leave, and then fall back to the dedicated esports crowd when they are the only people left, i think
On October 16 2011 02:39 SeaSwift wrote: Not to mention the Flux Vanes removal.
You think balancing a matchup without considering other matchups is bad? Blizzard balanced TWO vs fucking TWO without considering 1v1! They took away Flux Vanes because it was imbalanced "in team games." Double standards FTW!
It feels like when making changes to toss David Kim threw away his surgeon's scalpel and took out a giant rusty ax- *hack* flux vanes completely removed! *thwack* KA completely removed! *thunk* 30 seconds added to blink stalker upgrade! What happened to the 'gentle nudges' and 'waiting for the metagame to sort things out' then? It's funny how people conveniently forget this stuff.
On October 15 2011 15:22 Wire wrote: Just curious to see the flavors of answers to this question:
why is hydralisk not tier 1?
Because Blizzard forgot that in order to preserve racial identity and feel 'swarmy', the zerg needed a 1 supply unit. Now most racial unit counts are the same, besides lings.
I feel like with hydralisk at tier 1 the dynamic of the game would definitely shift, here are some of my thoughts on it:
1. One of the reasons blizzard took out the lurker was because with hydras at tier 2, lurkers would need to be at tier 3, at which point there is already no use for them seeing ultralisks and broodlords. If hydras get moved to tier one, we can definitely see the possible reintroduction of a tier 2 siege unit, which, as the general consensus is right now, would be great
2. Roach hydra at tier 1 would stand off fairly evenly vs both T and P tier 1. hydra > marauder, hydra > stalker, it would force more creative play than mass stalker timing push or marauder + hellion push.
3. Very importantly, hydralisks would provide the AA that zerg desperately needs. Queens just don't cut it when it comes to voidray or banshees, and having hydras at tier 1 would allow zerg to defend without sacrificing as much eco to make spores. This also somewhat balances out the fact that ovie scouting early game really sucks =/
There are obviously some potential problems, and here's what I think they are:
1. A very obvious concern is that with such a wide variety of units at t1 (ling, bane, roach, hydra) there is even more reason for zerg to heavily delay lair in favor of hatchery level play. I could definitely see 3 base mass t1 pushes being a problem, but I think with the current state of the game this can be solved with good play. Since terrans already open up with factory tech, it is a brief transition to tanks, or even blue flame, which still rips hydra apart. Thus the introduction of hydra to tier 1 should not change game play significantly in that stance. If a scan shows very delayed lair, terran should be suspicious and produce more units rather than drone up so much. For protoss, it would promote more robo play. More observers would be required to scout the more variable zerg options, and collosi play would definitely still be viable.
Note that I'm discussing a lot of tier 2 options against what is potentially zerg t1. The point is that it forces zerg to tech up, which I think is reasonable as far as race dynamics, since zergs should just be able to whore out units in a combat situation, not constantly have to reinvent themselves.
2. No siege unit. What that means is that this change definitely cannot be implemented right now. Heart of the swarm? maybe. But it would definitely have to wait.
On October 15 2011 15:22 Wire wrote: Just curious to see the flavors of answers to this question:
why is hydralisk not tier 1?
Because Blizzard forgot that in order to preserve racial identity and feel 'swarmy', the zerg needed a 1 supply unit. Now most racial unit counts are the same, besides lings.
I feel like with hydralisk at tier 1 the dynamic of the game would definitely shift, here are some of my thoughts on it:
1. One of the reasons blizzard took out the lurker was because with hydras at tier 2, lurkers would need to be at tier 3, at which point there is already no use for them seeing ultralisks and broodlords. If hydras get moved to tier one, we can definitely see the possible reintroduction of a tier 2 siege unit, which, as the general consensus is right now, would be great
2. Roach hydra at tier 1 would stand off fairly evenly vs both T and P tier 1. hydra > marauder, hydra > stalker, it would force more creative play than mass stalker timing push or marauder + hellion push.
3. Very importantly, hydralisks would provide the AA that zerg desperately needs. Queens just don't cut it when it comes to voidray or banshees, and having hydras at tier 1 would allow zerg to defend without sacrificing as much eco to make spores. This also somewhat balances out the fact that ovie scouting early game really sucks =/
There are obviously some potential problems, and here's what I think they are:
1. A very obvious concern is that with such a wide variety of units at t1 (ling, bane, roach, hydra) there is even more reason for zerg to heavily delay lair in favor of hatchery level play. I could definitely see 3 base mass t1 pushes being a problem, but I think with the current state of the game this can be solved with good play. Since terrans already open up with factory tech, it is a brief transition to tanks, or even blue flame, which still rips hydra apart. Thus the introduction of hydra to tier 1 should not change game play significantly in that stance. If a scan shows very delayed lair, terran should be suspicious and produce more units rather than drone up so much. For protoss, it would promote more robo play. More observers would be required to scout the more variable zerg options, and collosi play would definitely still be viable.
Note that I'm discussing a lot of tier 2 options against what is potentially zerg t1. The point is that it forces zerg to tech up, which I think is reasonable as far as race dynamics, since zergs should just be able to whore out units in a combat situation, not constantly have to reinvent themselves.
2. No siege unit. What that means is that this change definitely cannot be implemented right now. Heart of the swarm? maybe. But it would definitely have to wait.
Second opinions?
Concern #1 is what bugs me the most, because Zerg as a race is now structured around a flawed design. I don't see hydras being T1 unless some serious retcons or redesigns take place.
But I'd love the Hydra to make a comeback. It still bothers me that it was relegated to such a weird role.
PS - While we're discussing hydras - I don't care if the "original intent" was for hydras to shoot spines. In SC1, they spit acid, period. I want that back! We shouldn't have to care about the designer's pride, just as I don't care about George Lucas' pride.
An interesting fact about SC1 was that the first showing of it received very negative comments. It was called "too cartoony" and "warcraft in space." Blizzard then revamped it because they had to. Now that they're big shots, they seem to have lost touch with some of the basics. Hydralisk is the most iconic zerg unit, damn it!
And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz.
What about the immortal buff? Blizz specifically said 1-1-1 was a problem. I think they did the right move in trying to let the metagame work it out, but giving a small nudge.
For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as big as the roach buff for several reasons:
- 5 to 6 is a smaller % increase than 3 to 4 - You can't make that many immortals, it's not a staple unit like the roach
I'm not saying it sucks, but it's not a very large buff and it does not address the problem at all. So what if your handful of immortals will shoot 1cm further? How does that relate to stopping banshee + Raven + marines + siege tanks?
And, sure, Blizzard is "nudging" toward potential 1-1-1 solutions. But as Toadvine indicated earlier, if this is their general policy, then they sure have a funny way of applying it across the board, with the gigantic nerfs Protoss has received.
Why didn't they apply this "soft nudge" policy to warpgates, or blink rush, instead of delaying them by half a minute? Did Void Rays get a soft nudge? Did KA warrant full on removal, instead of a value nerf?
Blizzard has no problem taking a hammer to things. And yet they are only nudging at a solution to 1-1-1. Why the double standard? The very same patch which is "nudging" against 1-1-1 just wrecked blink rush.
I don't like the way David Kim operates, especially if things like Catz' influence (mentioned in Toadvine's post) are true.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that Catz has some sort of nefarious influence over David Kim. If I remember correctly, it was a game between Kiwikaki and Machine on Lost Temple in some tournament, with Catz co-casting it, and commenting upon Kiwi's build, which he obviously faced in practice a fair bit. In no way am I claiming that I know who holds the most influence with David Kim and his balancing ideas.
Still, that was the first time I heard about the notion of removing Flux Vanes.
On the topic of hydras, I would love it if they swapped hydras and roaches (IE, roaches are lair tech, hydras hatchery), nerfed hydras (keep range at Lair tech) so they don't demolish gateway units one to one, but got rid of their light classification so they could deal with hellions. It would solve early game anti-air for zerg. It would make them somewhat of a "jack of all trades, master of none" unit, kinda like the stalker or marine (an ideal marine that isn't so good, the current one is the master of everything).
The problem with the hydra in SC2 is the damage model, because Blizzard switched to an absolute number rather than the percentage system. The hydra in BW only did 5 damage to light units; you can imagine the massive difference in having a 12dmg unit vs a 5dmg unit in the early game that you could spam for 75/25.
I believe the hydra is absolutely needed and possible at T1, I don't understand why blizzard cannot just rework the stats of the unit to fit for the game. In a way I feel its just their trademark stubbornness, the hydra would make the banshee and even the roach look like completely dumb units.
I'm no game designer but maybe....just maybe....requiring 100 gas to make an orbital would solve everything....
That is exactly why you are not and will never be a game designer. 100 gas for OC? where would you get that amount of gas in the early game? There is no CB and no larva for Terran. It would mean they will be behind in worker count until that first 100 gas.
How about you cool it with the personal attacks and try to adhere to some teamliquid standards. 100 gas isn't very much, where do zergling speed come from? 100 gas Where do lair come from? 100 gas.
It's just one way to slow down terran tech and income. OC requiring 100 gas would punish early aggression that fails instead of the bullcrap that is 1/1/1 or the 11/11 which has relatively small to zero drawbacks.
And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz.
What about the immortal buff? Blizz specifically said 1-1-1 was a problem. I think they did the right move in trying to let the metagame work it out, but giving a small nudge.
For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as big as the roach buff for several reasons:
- 5 to 6 is a smaller % increase than 3 to 4 - You can't make that many immortals, it's not a staple unit like the roach
I'm not saying it sucks, but it's not a very large buff and it does not address the problem at all. So what if your handful of immortals will shoot 1cm further? How does that relate to stopping banshee + Raven + marines + siege tanks?
And, sure, Blizzard is "nudging" toward potential 1-1-1 solutions. But as Toadvine indicated earlier, if this is their general policy, then they sure have a funny way of applying it across the board, with the gigantic nerfs Protoss has received.
Why didn't they apply this "soft nudge" policy to warpgates, or blink rush, instead of delaying them by half a minute? Did Void Rays get a soft nudge? Did KA warrant full on removal, instead of a value nerf?
Blizzard has no problem taking a hammer to things. And yet they are only nudging at a solution to 1-1-1. Why the double standard? The very same patch which is "nudging" against 1-1-1 just wrecked blink rush.
I don't like the way David Kim operates, especially if things like Catz' influence (mentioned in Toadvine's post) are true.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that Catz has some sort of nefarious influence over David Kim. If I remember correctly, it was a game between Kiwikaki and Machine on Lost Temple in some tournament, with Catz co-casting it, and commenting upon Kiwi's build, which he obviously faced in practice a fair bit. In no way am I claiming that I know who holds the most influence with David Kim and his balancing ideas.
Still, that was the first time I heard about the notion of removing Flux Vanes.
And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz.
What about the immortal buff? Blizz specifically said 1-1-1 was a problem. I think they did the right move in trying to let the metagame work it out, but giving a small nudge.
For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as big as the roach buff for several reasons:
- 5 to 6 is a smaller % increase than 3 to 4 - You can't make that many immortals, it's not a staple unit like the roach
I'm not saying it sucks, but it's not a very large buff and it does not address the problem at all. So what if your handful of immortals will shoot 1cm further? How does that relate to stopping banshee + Raven + marines + siege tanks?
And, sure, Blizzard is "nudging" toward potential 1-1-1 solutions. But as Toadvine indicated earlier, if this is their general policy, then they sure have a funny way of applying it across the board, with the gigantic nerfs Protoss has received.
Why didn't they apply this "soft nudge" policy to warpgates, or blink rush, instead of delaying them by half a minute? Did Void Rays get a soft nudge? Did KA warrant full on removal, instead of a value nerf?
Blizzard has no problem taking a hammer to things. And yet they are only nudging at a solution to 1-1-1. Why the double standard? The very same patch which is "nudging" against 1-1-1 just wrecked blink rush.
I don't like the way David Kim operates, especially if things like Catz' influence (mentioned in Toadvine's post) are true.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that Catz has some sort of nefarious influence over David Kim. If I remember correctly, it was a game between Kiwikaki and Machine on Lost Temple in some tournament, with Catz co-casting it, and commenting upon Kiwi's build, which he obviously faced in practice a fair bit. In no way am I claiming that I know who holds the most influence with David Kim and his balancing ideas.
Still, that was the first time I heard about the notion of removing Flux Vanes.
And yet 1-1-1 is metagame apparently and not imbalanced, according to Blizz.
What about the immortal buff? Blizz specifically said 1-1-1 was a problem. I think they did the right move in trying to let the metagame work it out, but giving a small nudge.
For what it's worth, it's nowhere near as big as the roach buff for several reasons:
- 5 to 6 is a smaller % increase than 3 to 4 - You can't make that many immortals, it's not a staple unit like the roach
I'm not saying it sucks, but it's not a very large buff and it does not address the problem at all. So what if your handful of immortals will shoot 1cm further? How does that relate to stopping banshee + Raven + marines + siege tanks?
And, sure, Blizzard is "nudging" toward potential 1-1-1 solutions. But as Toadvine indicated earlier, if this is their general policy, then they sure have a funny way of applying it across the board, with the gigantic nerfs Protoss has received.
Why didn't they apply this "soft nudge" policy to warpgates, or blink rush, instead of delaying them by half a minute? Did Void Rays get a soft nudge? Did KA warrant full on removal, instead of a value nerf?
Blizzard has no problem taking a hammer to things. And yet they are only nudging at a solution to 1-1-1. Why the double standard? The very same patch which is "nudging" against 1-1-1 just wrecked blink rush.
I don't like the way David Kim operates, especially if things like Catz' influence (mentioned in Toadvine's post) are true.
For the record, I'm not suggesting that Catz has some sort of nefarious influence over David Kim. If I remember correctly, it was a game between Kiwikaki and Machine on Lost Temple in some tournament, with Catz co-casting it, and commenting upon Kiwi's build, which he obviously faced in practice a fair bit. In no way am I claiming that I know who holds the most influence with David Kim and his balancing ideas.
Still, that was the first time I heard about the notion of removing Flux Vanes.
I thought it was obvious that ROOT owned Blizzard, and they only merged with CoL to make it seem as though they had monetary issues!?
Don't be silly. I thought it was obvious that MVP and Nestea are both David Kim's smurfs, and because he's so damn good at SC2, the balance whines of players around the world bounce of his objective skull.
On October 16 2011 02:28 Plansix wrote: Hydras roll gateway units, like all of them with almost no issues. A single hydra double the damage of a marine at the same rate of fire, and protoss don't exactly roll marines in large numbers. They would need to be a vastly changed unit if they were going to be in teir 1. I'm not against it, but the roach is a solid teir one ranged unit, if limited. The hydra just needs to be made more robust where it is.
Hydralisks do not roll gateway units. They lose vs zealots, and break even with stalkers if the stalkers don't have blink and if the hydra does have range upgrade. They also do poorly vs DTs (not that it's really done), and very poorly against high templars. Obviously while they could kill a sentry, sentry really screws them over with guardian shield and even force field. I suppose they do pretty reasonable against archons though.
While hydralisks do have the same damage as 2 marines, they have effectively 30 less health than 2 marines, do not have instant-projectile attacks like marines have, only gain 1 damage per upgrade unlike 2 marines, and do not have access to stimpack or medivacs. To top it all off they cost 50 extra gas than 2 marines. The only thing they get in return is an upgrade (not particularly cheap or fast) that increases range by 1.
In my opinion moving hydras to tier 1 would be silly. It's unnecessary and still would require a bunch of balance work for it to be good. The problem is that hydralisks just suck. At the least, they need additional health or attack speed (like they used to have), but in my opinion while that might be enough to balance the unit into being used (and getting a few wins with), it doesn't actually fix one of zerg's (and the hydralisk's) core problems: Being terribly bland and/or unmicroable.
Hydralisks really need some sort of special ability instead of their range upgrade. In my opinion, something related to melee would be interesting, but it could be a huge problem, since it could very likely suck considering how weak-healthed they are. I was thinking of having a transformation where one mode would have more health and be melee, the other would be ranged, but then that removes (or substantially reduces) the role of the roach (unless blizzard had kept the roach at their original role of being somewhat easy-to-kill units which regenerate health fast) so it wouldn't really work out.
I was also thinking of a burrow ambush attack, but aside from it being melee too (big problem), it then sorta infringes on baneling territory. I think what might be the most viable overall would be to remove the hydralisk from the game and replace it with a new unit, since it's hard to come up with new ideas for the hydralisk. One such unit that I'm sure many people would like would be the lurker. This would make anti-air a bit difficult for zerg though (although I really think virtually anyone can win any matchup without hydralisks, even if they exploit air), so maybe the "morph to lurker" should just be added.
EPT
