|
On March 21 2014 10:34 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2014 10:29 Faust852 wrote:On March 21 2014 10:21 veilchen wrote:On March 21 2014 07:32 Talack wrote:
...... removing the engineering requirement of turrets would do wonders for this matchup. Yeah and the Zerg scouts with Wiener Würstchen then....what a crap idea. Yeah because blind 100 mineral turret for trying to kill an overlord that can see it from far away and just not getting in range ? Wtf. It would just help against fast oracle and maybe DT. Won't change a shit against Z, perhaps vs muta off 2 bases when you go mech. Only problem against Z that i could see is that it would limit Z early aggression against meching terran and make it easier to reach the 3-4 base panzer death ball.
How? Turrets are already going up at timing with engineering bay that coincides with mutas comming out. That or thors will have been made. 125 minerals saved doesn't exactly equal completely safe from muta harassment.
The arguement seems to be "well we cant just "catch them offguard" with a standard timing"
|
On March 21 2014 10:55 Talack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2014 10:34 RaFox17 wrote:On March 21 2014 10:29 Faust852 wrote:On March 21 2014 10:21 veilchen wrote:On March 21 2014 07:32 Talack wrote:
...... removing the engineering requirement of turrets would do wonders for this matchup. Yeah and the Zerg scouts with Wiener Würstchen then....what a crap idea. Yeah because blind 100 mineral turret for trying to kill an overlord that can see it from far away and just not getting in range ? Wtf. It would just help against fast oracle and maybe DT. Won't change a shit against Z, perhaps vs muta off 2 bases when you go mech. Only problem against Z that i could see is that it would limit Z early aggression against meching terran and make it easier to reach the 3-4 base panzer death ball. How? Turrets are already going up at timing with engineering bay that coincides with mutas comming out. That or thors will have been made. 125 minerals saved doesn't exactly equal completely safe from muta harassment. The arguement seems to be "well we cant just "catch them offguard" with a standard timing"
You said it. That would limit one timing that zerg has against mech. I´m not saying that it would make a huge impact (read my post again) but there is a possibility. I´m talking about 2-base mutas, not the normal 3-base muta play. Also i don´t think that limiting certain small timings is a particularly good idea, it only diminishes the strategies you can use.
|
On March 19 2014 22:05 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 21:36 VieuxSinge wrote:
what about a change so that blink is equivalent to the blink dagger in DotA2 : everytime the unit takes some damage, the blink cooldown is set at 3sec This would make blink micro literally impossible. The whole point is you wait for them to take shield damage then blink them back. If you can't blink them once they've taken damage they will just continue to take damage and die. Need I remind you what happens to anyone in Dota who relies on Blink as an escape against slow/stun.
But what if it's "real damage" thus "shield damage" doesn't count; this means you have to blink while you still have some shield if you want to escape, else you can't blink. This would ask more risk to blink in base
|
On March 21 2014 23:03 VieuxSinge wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 22:05 DinoMight wrote:On March 19 2014 21:36 VieuxSinge wrote:
what about a change so that blink is equivalent to the blink dagger in DotA2 : everytime the unit takes some damage, the blink cooldown is set at 3sec This would make blink micro literally impossible. The whole point is you wait for them to take shield damage then blink them back. If you can't blink them once they've taken damage they will just continue to take damage and die. Need I remind you what happens to anyone in Dota who relies on Blink as an escape against slow/stun. But what if it's "real damage" thus "shield damage" doesn't count; this means you have to blink while you still have some shield if you want to escape, else you can't blink. This would ask more risk to blink in base
Would still be basically devastating to the idea of blink micro. Stalkers exist within very, very fine margins of damage, health and effectiveness. Fully half their health is in "real health" (as you put it), which means for fully half the time you're going to be unable to blink micro them. If you wreck the one ability that gives them any kind of staying power in a longer engagement then Blink is going to be largely pointless except as a suicide teleport in for attack. It loses a gigantic amount of utility and makes Stalkers almost useless for their cost.
And I hate to even think of how it would effect Stalker vs Roach interactions.
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 22 2014 00:45 -Celestial- wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2014 23:03 VieuxSinge wrote:On March 19 2014 22:05 DinoMight wrote:On March 19 2014 21:36 VieuxSinge wrote:
what about a change so that blink is equivalent to the blink dagger in DotA2 : everytime the unit takes some damage, the blink cooldown is set at 3sec This would make blink micro literally impossible. The whole point is you wait for them to take shield damage then blink them back. If you can't blink them once they've taken damage they will just continue to take damage and die. Need I remind you what happens to anyone in Dota who relies on Blink as an escape against slow/stun. But what if it's "real damage" thus "shield damage" doesn't count; this means you have to blink while you still have some shield if you want to escape, else you can't blink. This would ask more risk to blink in base Would still be basically devastating to the idea of blink micro. Stalkers exist within very, very fine margins of damage, health and effectiveness. Fully half their health is in "real health" (as you put it), which means for fully half the time you're going to be unable to blink micro them. If you wreck the one ability that gives them any kind of staying power in a longer engagement then Blink is going to be largely pointless except as a suicide teleport in for attack. It loses a gigantic amount of utility and makes Stalkers almost useless for their cost. And I hate to even think of how it would effect Stalker vs Roach interactions.
People mostly forget that stalkers, in terms of cost efficiency, are one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) unit in the game. Blink temporarily makes them vastly more efficient, but that disappears quickly once tech is brought onto the field. Blink stalker timings are strong because Protoss is putting everything into a huge attack which tends to have more units than the enemy, and they use blink plus vision to get a positional advantage, not because the stalker is strong. Stalkers are, for example, the lowest dps to cost ratio unit in the game.
You can't really nerf stalkers or blink any further without overdoing it. The solution to the blink all-in problem needs to be found elsewhere: maps may solve the issue. If not, maybe some kind of buff to terran in some way could be justified.
|
On March 22 2014 14:36 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 00:45 -Celestial- wrote:On March 21 2014 23:03 VieuxSinge wrote:On March 19 2014 22:05 DinoMight wrote:On March 19 2014 21:36 VieuxSinge wrote:
what about a change so that blink is equivalent to the blink dagger in DotA2 : everytime the unit takes some damage, the blink cooldown is set at 3sec This would make blink micro literally impossible. The whole point is you wait for them to take shield damage then blink them back. If you can't blink them once they've taken damage they will just continue to take damage and die. Need I remind you what happens to anyone in Dota who relies on Blink as an escape against slow/stun. But what if it's "real damage" thus "shield damage" doesn't count; this means you have to blink while you still have some shield if you want to escape, else you can't blink. This would ask more risk to blink in base Would still be basically devastating to the idea of blink micro. Stalkers exist within very, very fine margins of damage, health and effectiveness. Fully half their health is in "real health" (as you put it), which means for fully half the time you're going to be unable to blink micro them. If you wreck the one ability that gives them any kind of staying power in a longer engagement then Blink is going to be largely pointless except as a suicide teleport in for attack. It loses a gigantic amount of utility and makes Stalkers almost useless for their cost. And I hate to even think of how it would effect Stalker vs Roach interactions. People mostly forget that stalkers, in terms of cost efficiency, are one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) unit in the game. Blink temporarily makes them vastly more efficient, but that disappears quickly once tech is brought onto the field. Blink stalker timings are strong because Protoss is putting everything into a huge attack which tends to have more units than the enemy, and they use blink plus vision to get a positional advantage, not because the stalker is strong. Stalkers are, for example, the lowest dps to cost ratio unit in the game. You can't really nerf stalkers or blink any further without overdoing it. The solution to the blink all-in problem needs to be found elsewhere: maps may solve the issue. If not, maybe some kind of buff to terran in some way could be justified.
Cost effectiveness alone is not really interesting in early game.
1. Stalkers do have quite a lot of HP even for the cost and regenerate shields.
2. They are quite fast
3. and most important: Warpgates are pretty cheap and more cost effective then any terran production building. They put army on the field very rapidly, while terran production needs a lot of time to produce stuff
Building one rax + techlab + a marauder takes 65+25+30=120 seconds
In 120 seconds toss can build a gateway, turn it into a warpgate and produce 3 stalkers:
65+10+2*21.3(chrono'd)=117.6
Blink was fine in WOL because high ground vision was expensive. The real problem is the mothershipcore. It provides cheap vision and on top of that makes scvs and bio far less effective against stalkers with timewarp. IMHO timewarp is not needed and has to go. Toss already has forcefields to control space and recall to retreat. The mothershipcore does not need to have this spell with huge aggressive potential. Let terrans micro against blink stalkers and the game will be fine!
|
On March 22 2014 20:24 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 14:36 Whitewing wrote:On March 22 2014 00:45 -Celestial- wrote:On March 21 2014 23:03 VieuxSinge wrote:On March 19 2014 22:05 DinoMight wrote:On March 19 2014 21:36 VieuxSinge wrote:
what about a change so that blink is equivalent to the blink dagger in DotA2 : everytime the unit takes some damage, the blink cooldown is set at 3sec This would make blink micro literally impossible. The whole point is you wait for them to take shield damage then blink them back. If you can't blink them once they've taken damage they will just continue to take damage and die. Need I remind you what happens to anyone in Dota who relies on Blink as an escape against slow/stun. But what if it's "real damage" thus "shield damage" doesn't count; this means you have to blink while you still have some shield if you want to escape, else you can't blink. This would ask more risk to blink in base Would still be basically devastating to the idea of blink micro. Stalkers exist within very, very fine margins of damage, health and effectiveness. Fully half their health is in "real health" (as you put it), which means for fully half the time you're going to be unable to blink micro them. If you wreck the one ability that gives them any kind of staying power in a longer engagement then Blink is going to be largely pointless except as a suicide teleport in for attack. It loses a gigantic amount of utility and makes Stalkers almost useless for their cost. And I hate to even think of how it would effect Stalker vs Roach interactions. People mostly forget that stalkers, in terms of cost efficiency, are one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) unit in the game. Blink temporarily makes them vastly more efficient, but that disappears quickly once tech is brought onto the field. Blink stalker timings are strong because Protoss is putting everything into a huge attack which tends to have more units than the enemy, and they use blink plus vision to get a positional advantage, not because the stalker is strong. Stalkers are, for example, the lowest dps to cost ratio unit in the game. You can't really nerf stalkers or blink any further without overdoing it. The solution to the blink all-in problem needs to be found elsewhere: maps may solve the issue. If not, maybe some kind of buff to terran in some way could be justified. Cost effectiveness alone is not really interesting in early game. 1. Stalkers do have quite a lot of HP even for the cost and regenerate shields. 2. They are quite fast 3. and most important: Warpgates are pretty cheap and more cost effective then any terran production building. They put army on the field very rapidly, while terran production needs a lot of time to produce stuff Building one rax + techlab + a marauder takes 65+25+30=120 seconds In 120 seconds toss can build a gateway, turn it into a warpgate and produce 3 stalkers: 65+10+2*21.3(chrono'd)=117.6 Blink was fine in WOL because high ground vision was expensive. The real problem is the mothershipcore. It provides cheap vision and on top of that makes scvs and bio far less effective against stalkers with timewarp. IMHO timewarp is not needed and has to go. Toss already has forcefields to control space and recall to retreat. The mothershipcore does not need to have this spell with huge aggressive potential. Let terrans micro against blink stalkers and the game will be fine!
Stalkers' hp for their cost is actually pretty bad. 30 marine hits kills a stalker, 25 kills a marauder, yet a stalker costs significantly more than 20% more than a marauder does. The comparison to roaches or zealots is much much worse, and it's not even favourable compared to marines or zerglings.+ Show Spoiler +(though blah-blah-blah per cost is not a good measure of something's strength. If there was a 10 supply, 500 mineral ubermarine with 550hp and 60 damage it'd op as hell, despite the same dps and hp per cost. Per square root of cost might be a better comparison. They're still worse than roaches and zealots by a mile through that measure, and very similar to marauders - but the latter are better thanks to their armour point applying to everything. Regardless, their stats are not at all good, and that's a secret to nobody. Blink and warpgate are what make them viable units)
2.95 is good for the first few minutes, but once relevant research is done... lings, roaches, marines and marauders are all faster with their speed upgrades or stim.
Production comparison has factual errors (namely you're neglecting the 5s warp in, so add another 15 seconds to that), but even without that it's fallacious. Of course the time to make a single unit is going to be shorter on front-loaded production especially when you include chronoboost. Particularly for the two-base variant of the blink allin (the much stronger one, going by statistics) the time to produce one unit is irrelevant. The 2nd and 3rd rax go down at about what, the 4 minute mark? By the ~8:30 mark when the allin actually hits they've caught up. As for counting chrono, for the allin it's spent on workers to start then saved for blink - not on gateways. Even then, I mean mules can pay for extra raxes.
As you say, the allin was fine in WoL. Stalkers haven't changed since then, and they're still a unit protosses don't like to make after about 10 minutes unless forced to kicking and screaming. Focus should be on the mothership core and map pool, because they are what have changed.
|
The Stalker isn't worse than other early game units. It excels in categories like speed, range, antiair and has great regenerative and deathavoidance potential through shields and blink.
If you wanted it to be more costefficient in combat (so either stronger or cheaper), it would have to lose some of those attributes (like lower range, speedupgrade requirement, no antiair, terrible supply/unit ratio to put it more in line with the roach) or gain other weaknesses as well.
The only reason why Protoss even builds other units is because despite being a capable of everything, stalkers actually have trouble against timing attacks and some specific counterunits (due to costefficiency reasons).
|
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away.
|
On March 22 2014 21:39 dainbramage wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 20:24 submarine wrote:On March 22 2014 14:36 Whitewing wrote:On March 22 2014 00:45 -Celestial- wrote:On March 21 2014 23:03 VieuxSinge wrote:On March 19 2014 22:05 DinoMight wrote:On March 19 2014 21:36 VieuxSinge wrote:
what about a change so that blink is equivalent to the blink dagger in DotA2 : everytime the unit takes some damage, the blink cooldown is set at 3sec This would make blink micro literally impossible. The whole point is you wait for them to take shield damage then blink them back. If you can't blink them once they've taken damage they will just continue to take damage and die. Need I remind you what happens to anyone in Dota who relies on Blink as an escape against slow/stun. But what if it's "real damage" thus "shield damage" doesn't count; this means you have to blink while you still have some shield if you want to escape, else you can't blink. This would ask more risk to blink in base Would still be basically devastating to the idea of blink micro. Stalkers exist within very, very fine margins of damage, health and effectiveness. Fully half their health is in "real health" (as you put it), which means for fully half the time you're going to be unable to blink micro them. If you wreck the one ability that gives them any kind of staying power in a longer engagement then Blink is going to be largely pointless except as a suicide teleport in for attack. It loses a gigantic amount of utility and makes Stalkers almost useless for their cost. And I hate to even think of how it would effect Stalker vs Roach interactions. People mostly forget that stalkers, in terms of cost efficiency, are one of the weakest (if not THE weakest) unit in the game. Blink temporarily makes them vastly more efficient, but that disappears quickly once tech is brought onto the field. Blink stalker timings are strong because Protoss is putting everything into a huge attack which tends to have more units than the enemy, and they use blink plus vision to get a positional advantage, not because the stalker is strong. Stalkers are, for example, the lowest dps to cost ratio unit in the game. You can't really nerf stalkers or blink any further without overdoing it. The solution to the blink all-in problem needs to be found elsewhere: maps may solve the issue. If not, maybe some kind of buff to terran in some way could be justified. Cost effectiveness alone is not really interesting in early game. 1. Stalkers do have quite a lot of HP even for the cost and regenerate shields. 2. They are quite fast 3. and most important: Warpgates are pretty cheap and more cost effective then any terran production building. They put army on the field very rapidly, while terran production needs a lot of time to produce stuff Building one rax + techlab + a marauder takes 65+25+30=120 seconds In 120 seconds toss can build a gateway, turn it into a warpgate and produce 3 stalkers: 65+10+2*21.3(chrono'd)=117.6 Blink was fine in WOL because high ground vision was expensive. The real problem is the mothershipcore. It provides cheap vision and on top of that makes scvs and bio far less effective against stalkers with timewarp. IMHO timewarp is not needed and has to go. Toss already has forcefields to control space and recall to retreat. The mothershipcore does not need to have this spell with huge aggressive potential. Let terrans micro against blink stalkers and the game will be fine! Stalkers' hp for their cost is actually pretty bad. 30 marine hits kills a stalker, 25 kills a marauder, yet a stalker costs significantly more than 20% more than a marauder does. The comparison to roaches or zealots is much much worse, and it's not even favourable compared to marines or zerglings. + Show Spoiler +(though blah-blah-blah per cost is not a good measure of something's strength. If there was a 10 supply, 500 mineral ubermarine with 550hp and 60 damage it'd op as hell, despite the same dps and hp per cost. Per square root of cost might be a better comparison. They're still worse than roaches and zealots by a mile through that measure, and very similar to marauders - but the latter are better thanks to their armour point applying to everything. Regardless, their stats are not at all good, and that's a secret to nobody. Blink and warpgate are what make them viable units) 2.95 is good for the first few minutes, but once relevant research is done... lings, roaches, marines and marauders are all faster with their speed upgrades or stim. Production comparison has factual errors (namely you're neglecting the 5s warp in, so add another 15 seconds to that), but even without that it's fallacious. Of course the time to make a single unit is going to be shorter on front-loaded production especially when you include chronoboost. Particularly for the two-base variant of the blink allin (the much stronger one, going by statistics) the time to produce one unit is irrelevant. The 2nd and 3rd rax go down at about what, the 4 minute mark? By the ~8:30 mark when the allin actually hits they've caught up. As for counting chrono, for the allin it's spent on workers to start then saved for blink - not on gateways. Even then, I mean mules can pay for extra raxes. As you say, the allin was fine in WoL. Stalkers haven't changed since then, and they're still a unit protosses don't like to make after about 10 minutes unless forced to kicking and screaming. Focus should be on the mothership core and map pool, because they are what have changed.
The cooldown does start right when you start the warp in. You therefore may add 5 seconds to the 118 seconds, but terran also has to walk his units somewhere. But that has nothing to do with the point i made. What i wanted to say is that toss can have far higher army values in the early game because their production is cheaper and faster. If you look at pro replays it is not uncommon that toss has twice or even more army value then a defending terran when an all in hits, despite flawless macro on the terran side. The game is balanced around that fact. Often people complain about the low cost effectiveness of gateway units, without recognizing this simple fact. IMHO the combination of cheap high ground vision, timewarp and the ability to circumvent static defense with blink is a bit too much in HOTS right now. Redesigning all the maps around that seems to be a bad idea.
|
On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away.
Compared to stim bio and no storm?
I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad
|
On March 22 2014 23:33 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away. Compared to stim bio and no storm? I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad
that's terran's timing though. you can't call a unit bad just because it's weak to a natural timing. roach/hydra is weak to colossus timings, that doesn't mean roach/hydra is "bad zvp". you don't keep building mass roach/hydra in the lategame (unless you're tefel), but that doesn't mean they're bad units. same goes for stalkers.
|
On March 22 2014 23:33 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away. Compared to stim bio and no storm? I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad
Stimmed bio doesn't even beat basic gate units ("basic" because for some reason people forget that Templars and Archons are gate units too) before a certain amount of supply/Medivacs...
|
On March 22 2014 23:43 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 23:33 ETisME wrote:On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away. Compared to stim bio and no storm? I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad Stimmed bio doesn't even beat basic gate units ("basic" because for some reason people forget that Templars and Archons are gate units too) before a certain amount of supply/Medivacs...
when people define gateway units, they usually mean zealot stalker and sentry because ht and dt are of higher tech, just like chargelots and blink stalkers.
they didn't forget, they just put advanced gateway units on separate qualifications.
and so until terran stim bio can kill off protoss gateway with a much lower amount of supply/medivacs then gateway units would you consider them as bad?
not every units are like roaches where they can lose engagements even with a massive supply lead
|
And i'm pretty sure without upgrade, gate > rax units.
And only gate unit vs only Rax unit, i'm pretty sure zealot stalker sentries beat marine marauders. If zealot have charge, stalker blink, and stim/shield/concussive for the bio.
|
On March 22 2014 23:56 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 23:43 TheDwf wrote:On March 22 2014 23:33 ETisME wrote:On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away. Compared to stim bio and no storm? I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad Stimmed bio doesn't even beat basic gate units ("basic" because for some reason people forget that Templars and Archons are gate units too) before a certain amount of supply/Medivacs... when people define gateway units, they usually mean zealot stalker and sentry because ht and dt are of higher tech, just like chargelots and blink stalkers. they didn't forget, they just put advanced gateway units on separate qualifications.
So what? Stim, CS and Medivacs are of a higher tech than basic unupgraded Marines; yet when people talk about "bio," they don't think about unupgraded Marines/Marauders. It makes zero sense to reduce "gate units" to unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers + Sentries and call them "bad" because they would lose against Marines/Marauders/Medivacs with CS, Stim, Concussive and +1...
|
Amove - No upgrades:
Marines win when they have 40 versus zealots
With micro:
Marins win with 20 over zealots
Amove - Upgrades(charge, stim, hp marine)
Marines win with 20marines versus zealots
If toss adds forcefields it will not do any different when they have upgrades:
Bio wins piss easy.
However, with guardian shield toss can win. Didnt test that thing very much but its super effective initself.
I believe ghost=templar. They kinda take eachother out(?)
1archon+10zealots
vs
20marines+3marauders
With upgrades
Amove: Toss wins
with micr: Terran wins
I would call gateway units weak but not bad.
Its more the macro from toss that powers through terran imo and not to add terran have new widowmine.
|
On March 23 2014 00:01 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 23:56 ETisME wrote:On March 22 2014 23:43 TheDwf wrote:On March 22 2014 23:33 ETisME wrote:On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away. Compared to stim bio and no storm? I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad Stimmed bio doesn't even beat basic gate units ("basic" because for some reason people forget that Templars and Archons are gate units too) before a certain amount of supply/Medivacs... when people define gateway units, they usually mean zealot stalker and sentry because ht and dt are of higher tech, just like chargelots and blink stalkers. they didn't forget, they just put advanced gateway units on separate qualifications. So what? Stim, CS and Medivacs are of a higher tech than basic unupgraded Marines; yet when people talk about "bio," they don't think about unupgraded Marines/Marauders. It makes zero sense to reduce "gate units" to unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers + Sentries and call them "bad" because they would lose against Marines/Marauders/Medivacs with CS, Stim, Concussive and +1...
then should people start calling sentries and stalkers more advanced gateway unit because it requires a cybercore? lol
Cybercore 4 warp gate timing?
Or Cybercore chargelot storm templar timing?
does that sound good to you?
Most of the community is fine with it.
We DO seperate the upgrade timings if the terran is doing a timing.
CS +1 for example.
I mean should I be upset that community doesn't call burrow movement speed roaches when roaches beat gateway units?
stim is a research that spread onto marines and marauders.
unlike blink stalker, chargelots, or burrow roaches, have distinctive different in their function with upgrades
We call speed banelings as a baneling too
just because in an engagement, the speed function is the same as speedlings.
|
On March 23 2014 00:01 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 23:56 ETisME wrote:On March 22 2014 23:43 TheDwf wrote:On March 22 2014 23:33 ETisME wrote:On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away. Compared to stim bio and no storm? I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad Stimmed bio doesn't even beat basic gate units ("basic" because for some reason people forget that Templars and Archons are gate units too) before a certain amount of supply/Medivacs... when people define gateway units, they usually mean zealot stalker and sentry because ht and dt are of higher tech, just like chargelots and blink stalkers. they didn't forget, they just put advanced gateway units on separate qualifications. So what? Stim, CS and Medivacs are of a higher tech than basic unupgraded Marines; yet when people talk about "bio," they don't think about unupgraded Marines/Marauders. It makes zero sense to reduce "gate units" to unupgraded Zealots/Stalkers + Sentries and call them "bad" because they would lose against Marines/Marauders/Medivacs with CS, Stim, Concussive and +1...
Yes, and again, even when we accept that zealot/stalker loses to MM eventually (which comes quite late without medivacs and is a pretty theoretical construct), that doesn't make those bad units. They have strong roles, especially stalkers have strong roles outside of direct deathball combat.
If stalkers were actually bad units, then they wouldn't be the number one or number two unit every Protoss produces in any matchup. Units don't define themselves only by combat stats and costefficiency. Else mutalisks would be the worst unit in the game, but as is, they are probably top3.
|
On March 22 2014 23:56 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2014 23:43 TheDwf wrote:On March 22 2014 23:33 ETisME wrote:On March 22 2014 22:26 TheDwf wrote:
Some myths like "gate units are bad" will just never go away. Compared to stim bio and no storm? I would say they are more than qualified to be called bad Stimmed bio doesn't even beat basic gate units ("basic" because for some reason people forget that Templars and Archons are gate units too) before a certain amount of supply/Medivacs... when people define gateway units, they usually mean zealot stalker and sentry because ht and dt are of higher tech, just like chargelots and blink stalkers. they didn't forget, they just put advanced gateway units on separate qualifications. and so until terran stim bio can kill off protoss gateway with a much lower amount of supply/medivacs then gateway units would you consider them as bad? not every units are like roaches where they can lose engagements even with a massive supply lead
This is 2010 WoL beta talk. As you know, the game is a bit more complex. I have seen far more games ended by pure gateway units then by pure bio. Gateway units are not bad. The idea that gateway units are somehow bad or not costeffective was created back in the beta, when some guys did random tests with equal cost or equal supply armies in the unit tester. This has nothing to do with the in game situation. Due to warpgate, toss can have far more expensive armies in the early game.
EDIT:
Wow, thx Foxxan this is a good example for unrealistic crap tests that have nothing to do with the situation in the game!
+ Show Spoiler +On March 23 2014 00:10 Foxxan wrote:
Amove - No upgrades:
Marines win when they have 40 versus zealots
With micro:
Marins win with 20 over zealots
Amove - Upgrades(charge, stim, hp marine)
Marines win with 20marines versus zealots
If toss adds forcefields it will not do any different when they have upgrades:
Bio wins piss easy.
However, with guardian shield toss can win. Didnt test that thing very much but its super effective initself.
I believe ghost=templar. They kinda take eachother out(?)
1archon+10zealots
vs
20marines+3marauders
With upgrades
Amove: Toss wins
with micr: Terran wins
I would call gateway units weak but not bad.
Its more the macro from toss that powers through terran imo and not to add terran have new widowmine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
