|
@da_head
I don't even know how to respond to that...
You ramble on about 2 base timings and something about lings being efficient/not efficient, then say I'm want my midgame army to be as efficient as the Protoss army, then tell me to stay on topic...
Ok...
Just to clarify... I haven't said shit about 2 base timings or Mutas losing to Stalkers or anything remotely close to that.
I am talking about LATE GAME ZvP. This generally means Protoss is on 3 or more bases and Zerg is on 5 or more. Both armies are maxed, and you are most likely 3/3 on your ground army, there is a mothership and Broodlords floating around, and you are filling out the odds and ends of your tech, replacing lower cost units with higher cost units as engagements allow.
It is my understanding that Blizzard saw fit to add a +2 range upgrade to the fleet beacon to allow for Phoenixes to aptly counter Mutalisks. They justified this change with the argument that massing Mutas should not be viable into the late game, and this should force Zerg to pursue other tech as the game progresses on.
I am saying that Blizzard forgot half the matchup. The Stalker fills the same exact harass/map control role for Protoss that the Muta does for Zerg while ALSO acting as the meat of the deathball. If Protoss deserves a +2 range upgrade to stop muta harass, Zerg needs an upgrade somewhere to stop the Stalker harass. The obvious answer is to buff the roach when you consider its relationship with the Stalker. Much the same as how the Phoenix shits on the muta and dies to pretty much everything else, roaches SHOULD slaughter Stalkers and die to everything else. Unfortunately that is not the case. Roaches currently lose to Blink Stalkers in straight-up fights and lose to everything else as well.
This is what has lead to the massive spine walls we are currently seeing in late game ZvP. Spines are not made because they are imba, they are made because they are the only option Zerg has that can support Brood Lords against an endgame Protoss army without exploding in the first 2 seconds of the fight.
This highly immobile composition of Broodlords and spine crawlers acting as the core, augmented with infestors, generally waiting in the back, leaves Zerg open to counter attacks to which they have no answer (why we're seeing Zergs sacrifice their main/natural/third and turtling up in the corner by their freshest bases with the most plentiful resources).
I believe 6 range roaches in the late game of ZvP would solve this immobility problem by allowing late game roaches to fight Stalkers and not lose outright. I don't think this would adversely affect ZvT as Ultras are generally superior to roaches in that MU.
Every post I have made thus far supports this argument, and all the responses have been dealt with in a logical manner, only pulling out insults when people bring up inane shit or use an obvious argument that I have already dealt with (showing that they can't bother to read the conversation before typing).
Either way, my point has been made. I see no realistic counter arguments and don't feel like typing in circles forever.
Good day sirs.
|
On April 10 2012 07:17 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:58 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 06:53 HobNob wrote:
I like the theoretical balance discussions as much as the next guy, but at some point you have to realise you're just going around in circles.
1 unit cannot be compared to 1 unit. With the latest debate of stalker vs roach the point is meaningless. They were never meant to be balanced against each other. The races are meant to be balanced. For example: stalker + zealot vs roach is much worse than roach + zergling vs stalker. So this must be taken into account when discussing the balance between these 2 units, as does strength of upgrades, scaling, synergy, micro-ability, etc. No 2 units can be directly compared in terms of balance. This is like complaining rock is too strong if you play scissors.
If a unit is too weak or too strong in a given match-up that is where balance discussions come in. Are roaches too weak? Maybe, maybe not, but comparing them to 1 unit is not reason enough to buff them.
Carriers on the other hand...
Carriers are fine, make 1 or 2 after your mothership in PvZ, then make 3 or 4 voids to support them. Now you just forced Zerg to make 15 or so corruptors to deal with your air army. In a match where both sides are constantly supply capped, forcing useless units is quite good I hear especially when you get a +50% supply bonus on your investment. lol, why are units that kill ur mothership and carriers "useless"
Because 30 supply is a lot more than 8, 14, or 20 depending on how many carriers you make (more than 2 is quite bad).
Again, ZvP is all about keeping that 200 supply as efficient as possible, throwing 30 supply worth of corruptors at a Protoss army on the off chance that you MIGHT kill his mothership, carriers, and void rays is incredibly risky and not very rewarding.
Even Tyler agrees with me on this one, watch SotG a few episodes back.
|
Mutalisks and Stalkers fulfill the same role? Surely you jest.
|
On April 10 2012 07:41 Shiori wrote:
Mutalisks and Stalkers fulfill the same role? Surely you jest.
Tired of dealing with your pointless one-liners. You win the internet bro.
|
On April 10 2012 07:35 Jermstuddog wrote:
@da_head
I don't even know how to respond to that...
You ramble on about 2 base timings and something about lings being efficient/not efficient, then say I'm want my midgame army to be as efficient as the Protoss army, then tell me to stay on topic...
Ok...
Just to clarify... I haven't said shit about 2 base timings or Mutas losing to Stalkers or anything remotely close to that.
I am talking about LATE GAME ZvP. This generally means Protoss is on 3 or more bases and Zerg is on 5 or more. Both armies are maxed, and you are most likely 3/3 on your ground army, there is a mothership and Broodlords floating around, and you are filling out the odds and ends of your tech, replacing lower cost units with higher cost units as engagements allow.
It is my understanding that Blizzard saw fit to add a +2 range upgrade to the fleet beacon to allow for Phoenixes to aptly counter Mutalisks. They justified this change with the argument that massing Mutas should not be viable into the pate game, and this should force Zerg to pursue other tech as the game progresses on.
I am saying that Blizzard forgot half the matchup. The Stalker fills the same exact harass/map control role for Protoss that the Muta does for Zerg while ALSO acting as the meat of the deathball. If Protoss deserves a +2 range upgrade to stop muta harass, Zerg needs an upgrade somewhere to stop the Stalker harass. The obvious answer is to buff the roach when you consider its relationship with the Stalker. Much the same as how the Phoenix shits on the muta and dies to pretty much everything else, roaches SHOULD slaughter Stalkers and die to everything else. Unfortunately that is not the case. Roaches currently lose to Blink Stalkers in straight-up fights and lose to everything else as well.
This is what has lead to the massive spine walls we are currently seeing in late game ZvP. Spines are not made because they are imba, they are made because they are the only option Zerg has that can support Brood Lords against an endgame Protoss army without exploding in the first 2 seconds of the fight.
This highly immobile composition of Broodlords and spine crawlers acting as the core, augmented with infestors, generally waiting in the back, leaves Zerg open to counter attacks to which they have no answer (why we're seeing Zergs sacrifice their main/natural/ and turtling up in the corner by their freshest bases with the most plentiful resources).
I believe 6 range roaches in the late game of ZvP would solve this immobility problem by allowing late game roaches to fight Stalkers and not lose outright. I don't think this would adversely affect ZvT as Ultras are generally superior to roaches in that MU.
Every post I have made thus far supports this argument, and all the responses have been dealt with in a logical manner, only pulling out insults when people bring up inane shit or use an obvious argument that I have already dealt with (showing that they can't bother to read the conversation before typing).
Either way, my point has been made. I see no realistic counter arguments and don't feel like typing in circles forever.
Good day sirs.
You clearly never played toss. Stalker do not have the same role as mutas. Stalkers can't pin you in your base, they usually don't evaporate mineral lines in seconds and lack the mobility of mutas. They are fast, yes, but only in comparison to their tech counterparts (marauders and roaches). They tend to overkill because of their slow firing mechanics, which basically means stalker dmg is kind of linear, whereas muta dmg increases faster the more mutas you have . Once you reach a critical mass of mutas, you can outright kill equal amounts of stalkers. This was not intended (as the patch stated). Mutas should be an addition to armys nothing more.
Stalkers, on the other hand, belong to the allround units. They're quite good anti air, they can beat roaches when microed and are overall the better PvZ unit than zealots. Zealot and DT are the harassing units of PvZ since they do not serve a greater surpose in the late game death ball. They're easily countered by banelings, fungals, roaches and Blords.
Buffing roaches in order to let them crush stalkers would totally break the game. Zealots may win a direct 1on1, but simple micro renders them useless which means, the only units to counter roaches would be immortals, void rays and archons. All of those units you cannot mass.
Phoenix are the intended counter to mutas, (mutas counter void rays, void rays counter corruptors, corruptor counter phoenixes, phoenixes counter mutas) but they suck agaisnt them just like stalkers once the muta count gets o high. That's because phoenixes shoot while moving which renders magic box useless since they wouldn't have an advantage towards mutas then (kiting them with speed). You cannot build up equal numbers of phoenixes because otherwise protoss ground army lacks firepower. Lings cost no gas, roaches cost 25 gas while stalkers cost 25 more gas and 50 more minerals. Building more zealots is no solution because, as already stated, they suck agaisnt microed roaches.
|
On April 10 2012 07:51 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 07:41 Shiori wrote:
Mutalisks and Stalkers fulfill the same role? Surely you jest. Tired of dealing with your pointless one-liners. You win the internet bro.
If you're just going to say something that's plainly false, you're going to get a one liner.
|
On April 10 2012 06:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:08 meltingmykohchoo wrote:On April 10 2012 01:19 Destructicon wrote:On April 10 2012 00:56 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 00:42 david0925 wrote:
So do people have any ideas to buff Terran at lower level without making them overpowered at professional level?
Or are we just bitching for the sake of bitching?
We "could" increase marine HP and lower their DPS, but would you really want that. (as an example)
If you want to adjust a race's weakness at lower level without making them ridiculous at higher level you have to adjust the race's attributes that makes it so, not nerfing the other 2 races. The answer has always been simple, make marines less good and buff in other areas. Siege tanks and ravens could both use meaningful buffs without ruining any MU right now. Better hellions would be nice so long as they could somehow avoid the worker rape. Essentially, you balance out the skill curve on Terran by removing their massive micro potential and bring them in line with the rest of the game. Hell no, that is the single worst suggestion in the history of SC2. Terrans don't need to be nerfed to be put on foot with the rest of the races, the rest of the races need to be given micro potential to be on the same level of difficulty as terran. That suggestion is idiotic, it reduces the depth of the game, by reducing micro potential. The real culprits are FG and FF, because they really reduce micro potential. Once they are cast it limits the in combat options you have. I'd rather them be removed and the two races rebalanced to produce more micro potential. As for your other issues like Stalkers I think its more a learn to play issue rather then a balance issue. I see pro players handle toss pushes well enough if they engage in the right places and force the toss to waste FF. A typical toss push will involve 10 sentries with either mass blink stalkers or 3-4 immortals. The key is to engage the toss early before he reaches the base of the zerg, and do it in open areas, do it as many times as possible until his FF are spent, then you can go in, flank and he will die. No amount of blink micro can help against speed roaches that outnumber the toss army 2-3 times. If you are struggling versus blink stalkers with roaches then you either over droned and couldn't pump out enough roaches in time to hold, your injects where terrible and you didn't have the larva to reinforce, or you failed to hold in one of his light pressures, lost too many drones and the follow up killed you. You also don't understand how mutas work. Mutas are a bulk units, they become stronger and stronger the more you have, mostly due to bounce of the attack. Stalkers have nothing on mutas, they need sight to blink up cliffs and they move pathetically slow compared to mutas, which can dart around the map and cause serious damage. Mutas can go into a base, do damage and fly out quickly. Stalkers if they blink in, they can't go out for another 10 seconds, that's the perfect time to pounce and kill them, provided you have roaches and also some lings in position (which you should if you know he has blink, and because you have overlords to watch them come). It's just that now a days Protoss have learned better how to defend against mutas, leave cannons and HT behind and thus minimize economic damage. It doesn't mean mutas aren't good, if you give them an opening they will tear you apart and can put you on the back foot so much it is hard to recover. Edit: Hilarious, stalkers actually scale terribly with upgrades compared to roaches. A stalker only gets +1 attack from weapons upgrade while a roach gets + 2 attack per upgrade. And armor upgrades are only half as effective for stalkers, because shield upgrades don't come into the game until late game. Also, a stalker has a base damage of 10 (14 vs armored), 1.44 attack speed, roach has 145 HP and 1 base armor, that means that it takes 12 shots for a stalker to kill a roach. A roach has 16 damage and 2 sec attack speed, it takes only 11 shots to kill a stalker. After they get 1 attack upgrade it only takes 10 shots to kill a stalker, even with 1 armor upgrade, because roach will do 18 damage, while a stalker will only have 2 armor. So the faster attack speed of stalkers and range is counter-acted somewhat by the high damage and high speed of roaches themselves. 1 Stalker costs as much as 2 roaches, if you inject correctly you should always be able to overwhelm a stalker force. You sir are a boss and deserve even the respect of david kim na he is not. though i agree with his basic argument that they should straight up increase the micro potential of some units in the game, a lot of his statements are simply untrue. Fungals for example are way less micro reducing then 13range siege tanks. Why do zergs crash blings into whatever is in their way? because it is better to just sacrife them on the tank/marauder then to let 5 of them die without doing any damage at all to anything. The list of "microreducing" stuff in the game is long and most of it is in the Terran arsenal, hidden behind insane dps, range and microability that prevents the other races micro to become even half as useful as theirs. also zhr thing with mutas... theit bounce doesnt add up at all. once there are >3 enemys, every bounce hits no matter what. thry get better in masses because they are mobile flyers that can choose weak targets and simply have less diwntime than rather inactive units, but statswise and in battles they sum up extremly poorly. and yeah, roaches are pretty costefficient, but with blinkmicro alone even cost stalkers become pretty even.
i feel like you probably play zerg and terran. and what is your arguement? fungals are an example of reducing micro vs tank range reducing micro?? having tanks range increases your micro potential from both sides?? amirite? without tanks you a move you ling bling army into their mm and win just cause u got alot more stuff. with tanks you have to split up your lings and blings before an engage, run in with a small group of 1 or 2 lings to absorb the damage with a infested terran egg to follow up with more tank damage soaking. not the most micro intensive thing but better than a moved splingbling vs marinesplit. Tanks in no way reduce micro potential they just offer different forms of micro potential. fungals i think are very good for micro in zvt. makes u position your tanks and gives more potential for marine micro because they are extremely fast w/ stim. but in pvz all protoss units are pretty slow with the exception of stalkers and pheonixes and pheonixes are just god awful. stalkers just get raped by fungal and fungals are almost impossible to dodge in pvz.
what in the terran arsenal reduces micro??? maybe conc shells a little... Tanks dont, marines dont, stim doesnt, hellions dont, ravens dont, banshees dont, medivacs dont, thors... maybe they dont have any micro potential other than focus firing vs split mutas and maybe a medivac lift to prevent damage or death (yeah there might be more but thors cant really be microed to well).
mutas idk wtf ur talking about.. the bounce does add up lol. not infinitely but it does add up alot versus protoss
and versus roaches... go in a micro tester... get 10 or 20 stalkers and then get double the amount of roaches and see how cost effective you can get versus roaches lol.
|
On April 10 2012 06:55 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:54 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 06:49 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:55 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:41 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:36 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 04:26 Shiori wrote:On April 10 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
If roaches aren't supposed to counter Stalkers, or at least be able to trade cost-effectively, I don't even know what to say... We must not be playing the same game. They cost essentially half as much. You find me a scenario where 1 Stalker beats 2 Roaches and I'll believe you. Reading comprehension bro, get some... I'm saying roaches DO counter Stalkers and it SHOULD be that way. The problem is that once blink comes into play, all this goes out the window. While that is fine for timing attacks and such, roaches should have a +2 range upgrade to put them back on top of that exchange because between supply caps, range differences, and blink, roaches don't stand a chance. Lings already do just fine against non-blink Stalkers. If anything, Protoss are the ones without any real offensive Gateway options against large Roach armies. That's why you see us resorting to Immortals or fast Blink plays. Honestly, it just seems like you want to be able to build a unit and then just write off another unit for the rest of the game. This is Starcraft and it doesn't work that way. Never thought I'd see the day someone complains about the Roach being too weak against Toss. Alright, now work on keeping the argument on topic. I am talking about LATE GAME BLINK STALKERS being too mobile while simultaneously acting as the meat to the Protoss deathballs. The phoenix was given a +2 upgrade at the fleet beacon to deal with the harass that Mutas are capable of in the late-game. I am simply stating that Zerg should have a similar upgrade to deal with the Stalkers. What's good for goose is good for the gander. Spine Crawlers. Infestors. Creep Spread. All of these things will either kill Stalkers or allow you to murder any Protoss stupid enough to send 20 Blink stalkers at a hatchery. Woot, bringing up other arguments that have already been shot down. Awesome. It's hard to murder someone when you can't fucking move. Give me a single Zerg composition that can move out to attack into a Protoss army without creep and 30 spine crawlers already in place. I can't even fathom how bad you must be at this game. Do you even watch pro Sc2?
I am not even sure what game he is playing, because I have never seen of the things he describes. More importantly other zergs are coming in and arguing with him that roaches are fine. He also keeps dodging the point that professional zergs appear to be having no issues at all.
|
I think a problem with his post and a mentality that should be maintained throughout the thread is thinking about how whatever change to the problem you see would affect the ability of the other race to win.
I still think the ability of fungal growth to do effectively the same damage of storm and kill off airplay is somewhat silly. That said changing it would just kill off zergs en masse. It keeps the momentum of blink stalkers in check and gives zergs a viable way of dealing with drop play without diverting off to a bunch of different tech paths.
|
Honestly, he should be posting replays of his ZvP which would show the issue of him having problem with stalkers late game (lol) rather than post nonsense all over this thread. I am 100% sure that the problem lies elsewhere. As the old internet saying goes: no pics, no proof. Right guys?
|
On April 10 2012 10:18 Sabu113 wrote:
I think a problem with his post and a mentality that should be maintained throughout the thread is thinking about how whatever change to the problem you see would affect the ability of the other race to win.
I still think the ability of fungal growth to do effectively the same damage of storm and kill off airplay is somewhat silly. That said changing it would just kill off zergs en masse. It keeps the momentum of blink stalkers in check and gives zergs a viable way of dealing with drop play without diverting off to a bunch of different tech paths.
it's much more than that.
Fungal growth is the only spell that could make the zerg 200/200 cost efficient against a high food cost toss army.
It is the only AoE spell that we have, while toss has colossus and storm
|
On April 10 2012 08:21 meltingmykohchoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 06:31 Big J wrote:On April 10 2012 06:08 meltingmykohchoo wrote:On April 10 2012 01:19 Destructicon wrote:On April 10 2012 00:56 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 10 2012 00:42 david0925 wrote:
So do people have any ideas to buff Terran at lower level without making them overpowered at professional level?
Or are we just bitching for the sake of bitching?
We "could" increase marine HP and lower their DPS, but would you really want that. (as an example)
If you want to adjust a race's weakness at lower level without making them ridiculous at higher level you have to adjust the race's attributes that makes it so, not nerfing the other 2 races. The answer has always been simple, make marines less good and buff in other areas. Siege tanks and ravens could both use meaningful buffs without ruining any MU right now. Better hellions would be nice so long as they could somehow avoid the worker rape. Essentially, you balance out the skill curve on Terran by removing their massive micro potential and bring them in line with the rest of the game. Hell no, that is the single worst suggestion in the history of SC2. Terrans don't need to be nerfed to be put on foot with the rest of the races, the rest of the races need to be given micro potential to be on the same level of difficulty as terran. That suggestion is idiotic, it reduces the depth of the game, by reducing micro potential. The real culprits are FG and FF, because they really reduce micro potential. Once they are cast it limits the in combat options you have. I'd rather them be removed and the two races rebalanced to produce more micro potential. As for your other issues like Stalkers I think its more a learn to play issue rather then a balance issue. I see pro players handle toss pushes well enough if they engage in the right places and force the toss to waste FF. A typical toss push will involve 10 sentries with either mass blink stalkers or 3-4 immortals. The key is to engage the toss early before he reaches the base of the zerg, and do it in open areas, do it as many times as possible until his FF are spent, then you can go in, flank and he will die. No amount of blink micro can help against speed roaches that outnumber the toss army 2-3 times. If you are struggling versus blink stalkers with roaches then you either over droned and couldn't pump out enough roaches in time to hold, your injects where terrible and you didn't have the larva to reinforce, or you failed to hold in one of his light pressures, lost too many drones and the follow up killed you. You also don't understand how mutas work. Mutas are a bulk units, they become stronger and stronger the more you have, mostly due to bounce of the attack. Stalkers have nothing on mutas, they need sight to blink up cliffs and they move pathetically slow compared to mutas, which can dart around the map and cause serious damage. Mutas can go into a base, do damage and fly out quickly. Stalkers if they blink in, they can't go out for another 10 seconds, that's the perfect time to pounce and kill them, provided you have roaches and also some lings in position (which you should if you know he has blink, and because you have overlords to watch them come). It's just that now a days Protoss have learned better how to defend against mutas, leave cannons and HT behind and thus minimize economic damage. It doesn't mean mutas aren't good, if you give them an opening they will tear you apart and can put you on the back foot so much it is hard to recover. Edit: Hilarious, stalkers actually scale terribly with upgrades compared to roaches. A stalker only gets +1 attack from weapons upgrade while a roach gets + 2 attack per upgrade. And armor upgrades are only half as effective for stalkers, because shield upgrades don't come into the game until late game. Also, a stalker has a base damage of 10 (14 vs armored), 1.44 attack speed, roach has 145 HP and 1 base armor, that means that it takes 12 shots for a stalker to kill a roach. A roach has 16 damage and 2 sec attack speed, it takes only 11 shots to kill a stalker. After they get 1 attack upgrade it only takes 10 shots to kill a stalker, even with 1 armor upgrade, because roach will do 18 damage, while a stalker will only have 2 armor. So the faster attack speed of stalkers and range is counter-acted somewhat by the high damage and high speed of roaches themselves. 1 Stalker costs as much as 2 roaches, if you inject correctly you should always be able to overwhelm a stalker force. You sir are a boss and deserve even the respect of david kim na he is not. though i agree with his basic argument that they should straight up increase the micro potential of some units in the game, a lot of his statements are simply untrue. Fungals for example are way less micro reducing then 13range siege tanks. Why do zergs crash blings into whatever is in their way? because it is better to just sacrife them on the tank/marauder then to let 5 of them die without doing any damage at all to anything. The list of "microreducing" stuff in the game is long and most of it is in the Terran arsenal, hidden behind insane dps, range and microability that prevents the other races micro to become even half as useful as theirs. also zhr thing with mutas... theit bounce doesnt add up at all. once there are >3 enemys, every bounce hits no matter what. thry get better in masses because they are mobile flyers that can choose weak targets and simply have less diwntime than rather inactive units, but statswise and in battles they sum up extremly poorly. and yeah, roaches are pretty costefficient, but with blinkmicro alone even cost stalkers become pretty even. i feel like you probably play zerg and terran. and what is your arguement? fungals are an example of reducing micro vs tank range reducing micro?? having tanks range increases your micro potential from both sides?? amirite? without tanks you a move you ling bling army into their mm and win just cause u got alot more stuff. with tanks you have to split up your lings and blings before an engage, run in with a small group of 1 or 2 lings to absorb the damage with a infested terran egg to follow up with more tank damage soaking. not the most micro intensive thing but better than a moved splingbling vs marinesplit. Tanks in no way reduce micro potential they just offer different forms of micro potential. fungals i think are very good for micro in zvt. makes u position your tanks and gives more potential for marine micro because they are extremely fast w/ stim. but in pvz all protoss units are pretty slow with the exception of stalkers and pheonixes and pheonixes are just god awful. stalkers just get raped by fungal and fungals are almost impossible to dodge in pvz. what in the terran arsenal reduces micro??? maybe conc shells a little... Tanks dont, marines dont, stim doesnt, hellions dont, ravens dont, banshees dont, medivacs dont, thors... maybe they dont have any micro potential other than focus firing vs split mutas and maybe a medivac lift to prevent damage or death (yeah there might be more but thors cant really be microed to well). mutas idk wtf ur talking about.. the bounce does add up lol. not infinitely but it does add up alot versus protoss and versus roaches... go in a micro tester... get 10 or 20 stalkers and then get double the amount of roaches and see how cost effective you can get versus roaches lol.
Yeah, tanks can increase the micro in a battle, just like fungals do (keeping your army split and out of infestor range, target fire infestors).
The example should only show, how something that can increase micro, can also take away micro (you stim your marines away, my banelings all go to amove on tanks because it is more efficient than chasing the marines and then having just as many banelings getting shelled while the tanks are still alive). I just think it is pretty dumb to say fungal and FF straight up reduce micro. Ever gotten a baneling shelled by a tank? That is micro reducing. (baneling dead == no micro possible anymore)
And the point with Terran's micro reducing arsenal is not that Terran does not have to micro. It's that the other races micro becomes way less important and way less useful, if a Terran micros well. The disparity between Terran micro potential and the other races micro potential is just to big. Probably the best way to introduce more micro would be to straight up buff the other races possibilities on the cost of unit stats, yet it's not like the other races would completly lack those possibilities.
Ling/bling micro, blink micro, colossus micro, yeah even burrow micro (in ZvZ) and hydralisks that pull behind roach/ling walls... become possible if the other race can't just stim/shoot/run against anything you have and "glass canon"- design (+medivacs) of your opponents units doesn't make disengaging the worst possible choice.
Again, some of the things lead to nice interactions, but most of them just lead to Terran microing his heart out to win a battle and the other races just trying to crush the Terran army, because in inferior numbers not even Automaton2000 can win a battle against decent bio micro.
Mutas don't add up through bounce. Just do the math:
3 stalkers vs 3 mutalisks: 1+3+9 * 3 damage = 3 + 9 + 27 damage
3 stalkers vs 10 mutalisks: 1+3+9 * 10 damage = 10 + 30 + 90 damage
10 stalkers vs 10 mutalisks: 1+3+9 * 10 damage = 10 + 30 + 90 damage
Once there are more than 3 units, the damage adds up linear, not like AoE that hits more units the more units are there (at least on average). Mutas add up for the reasons I wrote: you can choose your targets and engage weak spots and you can engage very often (so you get more damage out of them per gametime). You split your stalkers in 4 small groups? 1 big group of mutas beats that. Add to that that stalkers don't add up that well themselves due to their size and low dps (low dps per area - important when fighting stacked units like mutas) and now you have it. Mutas sometimes being able to engage stalkers efficiently.
10-20 blink stalkers are not costefficient, but the higher the costnumbers become for both sides, the better for the stalkers, due to roaches adding up even more poorly than stalkers (6range, 4range). Also realistic Terrain compared to open field unit tester makes a huge difference in that combat.
|
6 range roaches...? Do you realise how imbalanced that would be midgame PvZ?
|
Austria24422 Posts
It's funny how he thinks Corruptors are useless. They only kill every important unit in my army (Mothership, Void Rays, Carriers (if anybody ever makes them), Colossi) and can then be morphed into brood lords to kill the rest of my army. This person is funny.
|
Yeah, tanks can increase the micro in a battle, just like fungals do (keeping your army split and out of infestor range, target fire infestors).
The example should only show, how something that can increase micro, can also take away micro (you stim your marines away, my banelings all go to amove on tanks because it is more efficient than chasing the marines and then having just as many banelings getting shelled while the tanks are still alive). I just think it is pretty dumb to say fungal and FF straight up reduce micro. Ever gotten a baneling shelled by a tank? That is micro reducing. (baneling dead == no micro possible anymore)
Wow, single worst point I think I have ever seen, "Oh no my unit died how am I supposed to micro now?" LOL you can't be serious right? And yes, fungal and FF ARE micro reducing, they make it so the terran cannot split/stim/kite,etc... sure it takes a tiny bit of micro on the protoss/zerg part but not much
|
On April 10 2012 19:18 DarkLordOlli wrote:
It's funny how he thinks Corruptors are useless. They only kill every important unit in my army (Mothership, Void Rays, Carriers (if anybody ever makes them), Colossi) and can then be morphed into brood lords to kill the rest of my army. This person is funny.
Yes, that is why every standard zerg build involves getting a dozen corruptors.
|
On April 10 2012 22:41 roflcopter420 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 19:18 DarkLordOlli wrote:
It's funny how he thinks Corruptors are useless. They only kill every important unit in my army (Mothership, Void Rays, Carriers (if anybody ever makes them), Colossi) and can then be morphed into brood lords to kill the rest of my army. This person is funny. Yes, that is why every standard zerg build involves getting a dozen corruptors.
Isn't that exactly what zergs do lategame?
Massing 1000 corrupters and infestors and then morph broodlords. That's all zerg has to do in any matchup
|
When people make their comments about fungal being 'as damaging as storm', it not only assumes that half of storm whiffs because of either inaccuracy or speed of the targets you are trying to hit (and the controlling player's reactions), it assumes that zerg has a lot more Infestors than protoss has High Templar. Now this assumption is fair enough, the number of each that each race would typically have is due to how the races work, what they need in different situations and how many they need of those units, but then the same protosses fail to take into account the drastically larger amount of energy pool that the zerg obviously has and how much more they've invested into storm.
If you had an unusually large number of templar, you could storm crazily, but in most situations, this is simply not practical. That doesn't mean you can just complain about it though, because you're comparing a certain amount of Psionic Storms* to two and a half times as many Fungal Growths* and then acting as if it's wrong that they're not equal in power.
*and that amount of investment in the casters
|
On April 10 2012 22:49 OmegaKnetus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2012 22:41 roflcopter420 wrote:On April 10 2012 19:18 DarkLordOlli wrote:
It's funny how he thinks Corruptors are useless. They only kill every important unit in my army (Mothership, Void Rays, Carriers (if anybody ever makes them), Colossi) and can then be morphed into brood lords to kill the rest of my army. This person is funny. Yes, that is why every standard zerg build involves getting a dozen corruptors. Isn't that exactly what zergs do lategame? Massing 1000 corrupters and infestors and then morph broodlords. That's all zerg has to do in any matchup
he said and queued 10more marines.
|
On April 10 2012 23:35 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
When people make their comments about fungal being 'as damaging as storm', it not only assumes that half of storm whiffs because of either inaccuracy or speed of the targets you are trying to hit (and the controlling player's reactions), it assumes that zerg has a lot more Infestors than protoss has High Templar. Now this assumption is fair enough, the number of each that each race would typically have is due to how the races work, what they need in different situations and how many they need of those units, but then the same protosses fail to take into account the drastically larger amount of energy pool that the zerg obviously has and how much more they've invested into storm.
If you had an unusually large number of templar, you could storm crazily, but in most situations, this is simply not practical. That doesn't mean you can just complain about it though, because you're comparing a certain amount of Psionic Storms* to two and a half times as many Fungal Growths* and then acting as if it's wrong that they're not equal in power.
*and that amount of investment in the casters
The point is that Fungal Growth is a guaranteed payoff for a decent player. Storming isn't. I'm not here to tell you that Storm is worse than fungal, or something, but it's definitely a lot more of a risk for pretty similar reward. A successful storm is one that does roughly the amount of damage that fungals do automatically. Every unit worth storming is pretty much fast enough to dodge it pretty effectively, so there's rarely a case in which the 80 damage limit actually comes into play.
The reason Zergs have more Infestors than Toss have HTs is because HTs are just too risky to mass. Infestors have the ability to spawn units and freeze things in place, which synergizes well with the surround style that Zerg units work with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
