|
Please DISCUSS the changes and the impact they will have on gameplay.
Straight up whining and bitching will get you a ban, no exceptions. |
On February 12 2012 03:27 duct_TAPE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 03:13 -Duderino- wrote:On February 12 2012 03:04 duct_TAPE wrote:On February 12 2012 02:36 -Duderino- wrote:
I think a misconception is people seeing someone snipe all of zergs late game broodlords or ultras and thinking thats op, but in order to have enough ghosts and support to do that the terran has to be ahead. Also ghosts are terrans best late game unit.
A broodlord costs 300/200 to build, its takes 2 ghost(1 with full energy) to kill a brood lord, 2 ghost cost 400/200.
An ultralisk costs 300/200 to build, it takes 3 ghost(2 with full energy) to kill an ultralisk, 3 ghost cost 600/300.
Yes ghost beat both ultralisk and broodlords, but why is this such a shock???? they cost more than then both of them, and they have to sit for a couple mins to get full energy, and they have to be microed like a madman, and once out of energy ghosts are useless in a big fight. Like of course they should beat zerg late game units that cost less then them and require way less micro. Zerg has to scout late game (i know big shock) and go banelings instead of infestor if they go ghost. (make tanks unsiege with broodlords then roll ghosts with banes, and remax instant on cheap banes.)
I never all ined b4 emp nerf, now I am forced to 1/1/1 everyother game vs toss to keep a consistent win ratio.
Looks like im going to have to learn all ins vs zerg cause terran won't stand a chance late game without snipe.
At least I will always have tvt for macro games. A broodlord costs 300/250, not 300/200. 150 min 150 gas for corruptor/150 min 100 gas for broodlord. this makes it more expensive than 2 ghosts, 100 min vs 50 gas lategame, gas is more important. What do you mean that broodlords and ultralisks cost less than ghosts? 3 ghosts cost more than 1 ultralisk, how is that a logical statement? I don't get it, so 2 ultralisk cost more than 4 ghost? You just choose x number of a unit and say that they combined cost more than one other unit. Dude lol, im describing how many ghosts it takes to kill ultra. 2 ultra cost 600/400 but it takes 6 ghost to kill 2 ultra which is 1200/600 lol so like double, my point being ya you nubs see snipe killing ultras and broodlords, but ya obviously because i paid more for the ghosts they should win the fight. not counting amp needed and everything else ghosts are balanced, unless you wanna make the agrument that they shouldnt counter both broodlords and ultras but with tech switching being so ez for zerg terran needs an all around unit. Also ghost is terran best late game unit why is it a shock that terrans best late game unit counters zerg best late game units?? It goes toss>terran>zerg in regards to unit strength, yes bl/utlra is weaker then the right number of ghosts but zerg should have more bl/ultra than terran has ghosts unless terran is ahead. You're describing how many ghosts are required to obliterate one unit, I mean no trade is happening, you still have all your ghosts remaining (with low energy that will regen over time). I'm totally fine with x number of ghosts, of a greater cost than one other unit, killing that one other unit. If you're trying to describe how the cost of ghosts compare to zerg in order to win against an ultralisk/broodlord, though, you're doing it wrong. You conclude that ghosts are of a greater cost than another unit based upon one utility (snipe) of the ghosts 3 utilities. Ghosts can do more than snipe. When you compare the cost to win a 1v1 battle unit vs unit there is always going to be very non-interesting results. Roach vs Hellion, 'oh my 3 hellions can't even beat 1 Roach eventhough they cost more'.
That would be a valid argument if hellions were used to counter roaches, but they don't, while ghosts are used as a counter to broodlords and ultralisks and one would expect counter unit to be cost-effective against unit it counter, after patch ghosts will not be cost effective against bl/ultra anymore, therefore will no longer be a counter unit which was his argument to begin with.
|
Mb since voids used to be range 7, they should've made the fleet beacon upgrade, a +1 for both phoenix and voids? what u think?
|
On February 12 2012 02:38 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 02:03 p1cKLes wrote:On February 12 2012 01:39 NeoGeoOdin wrote:So, we wont gona see this again... so bad ![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/25f7nud.png) While I do agree that ghost snipe was extremely strong and probably borderline too strong, I think the patch goes too far. In a situation like this, I never understood why zerg didn't change their unit composition when ghosts are on the field in that number. There are a lot of things that can handle ghosts... zerglings and banelings for example. This is real time strategy where you have to constantly counter your opponent. They go one unit, you go with a countering unit. The idea is not to climb the tech ladder and when you get to the top you're done. Most of the games that ended up in this situation was zerg trying to go in with nothing but broodlords when they should have been getting rid of supply slowly and transitioning into something that can handle ghosts. Ghosts are basically a direct counter to broodlords as pointed out right on blizzards website. Taken right off blizzards website "The biggest strength of Brood Lords is their ability to create massive numbers of Broodlings. Take Brood Lords out instantly using ghosts and their snipe ability to prevent this." I personally think they went a little to far with it. The website also says "take out dangerous units such as siege tanks and collosi with neural parasite" can't do that anymore with the range nerf. Just putting that out there since you seem to want to nitpick everything. "nitpick?" How did you get that from my post? If I was really wanting to nitpick, I could say that you can still use neural parasite on collosi and that you are obviously throwing out a false statement. Now you could argue that it might not make sense, because of the range, but that's not what you said. You said "can't" meaning cannot, which can also be defined as not possible... indefinitely.
All I was simply saying is that Blizzard designed ghost to take out broodlords and it was too big of a nerf. Should they have? Yes, but the nerf proposed is a little too much.
|
Sweet, I love the proposed phoenix changes. I think it's solid to give the toss player a chance for some micro intensive play to pay off.
|
Meh I'm not whining but I really hope BLIZ fixes BCs. Zerg can use all their tier 3 while protoss, collosus. Thors are good but it's like if you go T3 vs Zerg they neural it. Ghost fix?? Makes no sense to me. Why not just make the damage lower or have a cool down so you couldn't spam it. Mule change seems unnecessary as it won't change a thing. And how are terrans going to beat a ultra, brood, infestor ling comp now?? I saw a thread saying don't let Zerg do that?? That's stupid all races should have the same chance at all times. Like I say all the time, Terran units have to be strong, if not Terran macro mechanics are too fragile. It takes ALL Terran units to walk over to the base unlike Zerg who have creep advantage, and warp gates for toss.
I really disagree with nerfing so much. Instead if they buff units to counter it would seem like a big deal. But I still think ghost should have a cool down and decreased power. Mules don't make a difference.
How come every patch is Terran nerf?? Why not give Zerg buff?? It's discouraging to know that your race is getting nerfed all the time. I wouldn't mind other races getting buff, but come on... Blizzard seems to only care the whines not the argument
|
On February 12 2012 04:00 p1cKLes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 02:38 hunts wrote:On February 12 2012 02:03 p1cKLes wrote:On February 12 2012 01:39 NeoGeoOdin wrote:So, we wont gona see this again... so bad While I do agree that ghost snipe was extremely strong and probably borderline too strong, I think the patch goes too far. In a situation like this, I never understood why zerg didn't change their unit composition when ghosts are on the field in that number. There are a lot of things that can handle ghosts... zerglings and banelings for example. This is real time strategy where you have to constantly counter your opponent. They go one unit, you go with a countering unit. The idea is not to climb the tech ladder and when you get to the top you're done. Most of the games that ended up in this situation was zerg trying to go in with nothing but broodlords when they should have been getting rid of supply slowly and transitioning into something that can handle ghosts. Ghosts are basically a direct counter to broodlords as pointed out right on blizzards website. Taken right off blizzards website "The biggest strength of Brood Lords is their ability to create massive numbers of Broodlings. Take Brood Lords out instantly using ghosts and their snipe ability to prevent this." I personally think they went a little to far with it. The website also says "take out dangerous units such as siege tanks and collosi with neural parasite" can't do that anymore with the range nerf. Just putting that out there since you seem to want to nitpick everything. "nitpick?" How did you get that from my post? If I was really wanting to nitpick, I could say that you can still use neural parasite on collosi and that you are obviously throwing out a false statement. Now you could argue that it might not make sense, because of the range, but that's not what you said. You said "can't" meaning cannot, which can also be defined as not possible... indefinitely. All I was simply saying is that Blizzard designed ghost to take out broodlords and it was too big of a nerf. Should they have? Yes, but the nerf proposed is a little too much.
The point he's making is that Blizzard is not above redesigning the purpose of a unit if it makes the balance better. Neural is no longer a cost-effective way to deal with Siege Tanks and Colossi. And so forth.
|
They're fixing the wrong thing about the Phoenix.
Giving phoenix +1 range in the late game is not going to make them slightly better vs mutas, it's going to make them unstoppable.
If they would just give Phoenix +1 base armor, they would be slightly better vs mutas (while still allowing for 30 2/2 mutas to win a fight vs 6 0/0 phoenix) AND they would be more useful in PvT as marines wouldn't burn them down so fast.
The way they're heading, mutas are going to be completely useless in ZvP.
As far as the ghost nerf, not only is that also a horrible idea, but their justification for doing so is equally bad. Do the math on their Ultralisk numbers and cry as you realize that Blizz doesn't even know why they're making the change.
|
On February 12 2012 04:00 ejozl wrote:
Mb since voids used to be range 7, they should've made the fleet beacon upgrade, a +1 for both phoenix and voids? what u think?
I'd much rather see flux back at the Fleetbeacon. Even with 7 range they can't beat vikings who kite so I'm not sure it's purpose. They removed 7 range because 3 gate VR was an auto lose for terran since even bunkers could not even hit VR. +1 for phoenix actually makes sense because with good micro you should be able to beat muta.
|
As a Zerg player I'm good with this. I couldn't keep up with Terran players with ANY composition once they got enough tanks/thors/ghosts on the field so I often felt lost in games, so it's good to see that T3 is gonna be more helpful now.
Phoenix range seems like an odd change. Phoenix already counter mutalisks super hard, the reason players don't often build them as a reaction to mutalisks is because they're very, very expensive in terms of opportunity cost.
This range upgrade will probably make reactive phoenix a LITTLE more useful, but frankly it's just gonna mean the Zerg player will attack random places with mutas and just deal some damage while the phoenix are on their way. Once mutas reach a large enough number they'll still be able to pretty much indefinitely deny a third, with ling support. Still game ending. This works for me 
MULE change is obvious and needed.
|
On February 12 2012 04:04 Kakoon wrote:
Meh I'm not whining but I really hope BLIZ fixes BCs. Zerg can use all their tier 3 while protoss, collosus. Thors are good but it's like if you go T3 vs Zerg they neural it. Ghost fix?? Makes no sense to me. Why not just make the damage lower or have a cool down so you couldn't spam it. Mule change seems unnecessary as it won't change a thing. And how are terrans going to beat a ultra, brood, infestor ling comp now?? I saw a thread saying don't let Zerg do that?? That's stupid all races should have the same chance at all times. Like I say all the time, Terran units have to be strong, if not Terran macro mechanics are too fragile. It takes ALL Terran units to walk over to the base unlike Zerg who have creep advantage, and warp gates for toss.
I really disagree with nerfing so much. Instead if they buff units to counter it would seem like a big deal. But I still think ghost should have a cool down and decreased power. Mules don't make a difference.
How come every patch is Terran nerf?? Why not give Zerg buff?? It's discouraging to know that your race is getting nerfed all the time. I wouldn't mind other races getting buff, but come on... Blizzard seems to only care the whines not the argument
To address your last paragraph. Blizzard gives Terran Nerfs because Terran needs them. They didn't give Zerg a buff because Zerg doesn't need one atm. I don't get your last sentence so can't mention for that.
Mule change is not unnecessary, that's a huge change that's been needed. Now gold bases can be part of the meta game. Every change made makes compete sense. The only thing they didn't do was nerf infestor/brood, but they may want to to fix other issues to see how that changes the meta game.
|
I am sad about the Ghost nerf. It's not because I love Ghosts. It's not because my lowly diamond play relies on Ghosts or because I think all the pros I love will be out of a job without Ghosts. I just think they are nerfing the Ghost to uselesness other than anti-spellcaster. Really they might as well just remove snipe and give it some other spell. EMP is plenty good at dealing with spellcasters. Then we will have snipe that is really only good against Psionic+Biological units. The only decision when using a ghost now is how many units are in a clump. One High Templar? Snipe. 3 High Templar? Emp. Pretty boring.
|
On February 12 2012 04:08 UmiNotsuki wrote:As a Zerg player I'm good with this. I couldn't keep up with Terran players with ANY composition once they got enough tanks/thors/ghosts on the field so I often felt lost in games, so it's good to see that T3 is gonna be more helpful now. Phoenix range seems like an odd change. Phoenix already counter mutalisks super hard, the reason players don't often build them as a reaction to mutalisks is because they're very, very expensive in terms of opportunity cost. This range upgrade will probably make reactive phoenix a LITTLE more useful, but frankly it's just gonna mean the Zerg player will attack random places with mutas and just deal some damage while the phoenix are on their way. Once mutas reach a large enough number they'll still be able to pretty much indefinitely deny a third, with ling support. Still game ending. This works for me MULE change is obvious and needed.
No. Reactionary Phoenix is impossible currently and will still be impossible. If you scout muta, you can not throw down a stargate and make muta and be able to defend, you will still always be stuck on 2 base. The change is very good for stargate openers. The range upgrade comes from fleet beacon so it wont come into play untill late game if it ever does. Not a bad change, but not the greatest change. Wont fix the issue but might make stargate openings or air play into late game more valid.
|
On February 12 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
They're fixing the wrong thing about the Phoenix.
Giving phoenix +1 range in the late game is not going to make them slightly better vs mutas, it's going to make them unstoppable.
If they would just give Phoenix +1 base armor, they would be slightly better vs mutas (while still allowing for 30 2/2 mutas to win a fight vs 6 0/0 phoenix) AND they would be more useful in PvT as marines wouldn't burn them down so fast.
The way they're heading, mutas are going to be completely useless in ZvP.
As far as the ghost nerf, not only is that also a horrible idea, but their justification for doing so is equally bad. Do the math on their Ultralisk numbers and cry as you realize that Blizz doesn't even know why they're making the change.
Someone needs to add to the OP that the Phoenix upgrade is +2 range, not +1.
|
On February 12 2012 04:10 Carmine wrote:
I am sad about the Ghost nerf. It's not because I love Ghosts. It's not because my lowly diamond play relies on Ghosts or because I think all the pros I love will be out of a job without Ghosts. I just think they are nerfing the Ghost to uselesness other than anti-spellcaster. Really they might as well just remove snipe and give it some other spell. EMP is plenty good at dealing with spellcasters. Then we will have snipe that is really only good against Psionic+Biological units. The only decision when using a ghost now is how many units are in a clump. One High Templar? Snipe. 3 High Templar? Emp. Pretty boring.
It is not just an anti-caster.
It is still a unit that allows you to blanket emp the whole protoss army, as well as ht/ghost micro wars.
In TvZ it will still counter Broods as well as it has, but it wont counter the ultra switch now, which is fine because the only Ultra strat is the famous 'transition into ultras and lose strat'. The ghost shouldn't be a counter all unit, it now has all the same utilities it had before, they are just harder to do and require more work and aren't as effective.
No more shift clicking with your mouse wheel to kill everything. A CD may have been a better change, but this change doesn't break the unit by any means.
|
On February 12 2012 04:12 ohampatu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 04:08 UmiNotsuki wrote:As a Zerg player I'm good with this. I couldn't keep up with Terran players with ANY composition once they got enough tanks/thors/ghosts on the field so I often felt lost in games, so it's good to see that T3 is gonna be more helpful now. Phoenix range seems like an odd change. Phoenix already counter mutalisks super hard, the reason players don't often build them as a reaction to mutalisks is because they're very, very expensive in terms of opportunity cost. This range upgrade will probably make reactive phoenix a LITTLE more useful, but frankly it's just gonna mean the Zerg player will attack random places with mutas and just deal some damage while the phoenix are on their way. Once mutas reach a large enough number they'll still be able to pretty much indefinitely deny a third, with ling support. Still game ending. This works for me MULE change is obvious and needed. No. Reactionary Phoenix is impossible currently and will still be impossible. If you scout muta, you can not throw down a stargate and make muta and be able to defend, you will still always be stuck on 2 base. The change is very good for stargate openers. The range upgrade comes from fleet beacon so it wont come into play untill late game if it ever does. Not a bad change, but not the greatest change. Wont fix the issue but might make stargate openings or air play into late game more valid.
Have to see. But I could def see some new rush to FB builds coming out of this since MS is so good vs Zerg too. You can have a FB by 9 min that's about when mutas come.
|
On February 12 2012 04:04 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 04:00 p1cKLes wrote:On February 12 2012 02:38 hunts wrote:On February 12 2012 02:03 p1cKLes wrote:On February 12 2012 01:39 NeoGeoOdin wrote:So, we wont gona see this again... so bad While I do agree that ghost snipe was extremely strong and probably borderline too strong, I think the patch goes too far. In a situation like this, I never understood why zerg didn't change their unit composition when ghosts are on the field in that number. There are a lot of things that can handle ghosts... zerglings and banelings for example. This is real time strategy where you have to constantly counter your opponent. They go one unit, you go with a countering unit. The idea is not to climb the tech ladder and when you get to the top you're done. Most of the games that ended up in this situation was zerg trying to go in with nothing but broodlords when they should have been getting rid of supply slowly and transitioning into something that can handle ghosts. Ghosts are basically a direct counter to broodlords as pointed out right on blizzards website. Taken right off blizzards website "The biggest strength of Brood Lords is their ability to create massive numbers of Broodlings. Take Brood Lords out instantly using ghosts and their snipe ability to prevent this." I personally think they went a little to far with it. The website also says "take out dangerous units such as siege tanks and collosi with neural parasite" can't do that anymore with the range nerf. Just putting that out there since you seem to want to nitpick everything. "nitpick?" How did you get that from my post? If I was really wanting to nitpick, I could say that you can still use neural parasite on collosi and that you are obviously throwing out a false statement. Now you could argue that it might not make sense, because of the range, but that's not what you said. You said "can't" meaning cannot, which can also be defined as not possible... indefinitely. All I was simply saying is that Blizzard designed ghost to take out broodlords and it was too big of a nerf. Should they have? Yes, but the nerf proposed is a little too much. The point he's making is that Blizzard is not above redesigning the purpose of a unit if it makes the balance better. Neural is no longer a cost-effective way to deal with Siege Tanks and Colossi. And so forth. Owe... I understood what he was saying. He just chose to take a snippet of my entire post and make some half hearted insult. A simple explanation would have sufficed. Besides as I said already, I'm not saying that it wasn't too strong or necessary. I just think it goes too far and that this is a game of unit counters...not a game of getting to the highest tech and then sticking with those units to the end. I've seen a lot of TvZ games where zerg just threw their broodlords away and then scream ghosts are OP, but then I see TvZ games where they get rid of some of their broodlords (knowing the situation) and transition into zerglings and banelings ripping apart all the ghosts. As I said, this is not a game of getting to t3 and then stopping...its a game of unit counters.
|
Mule Nerf is OK since mass Mules on Goldminerals were really too strong.
But why NERF Terran Lategame? It was alrdy mentioned that Terran loses the more Games the longer they go into Lategame, be it vZ or vP. Terran just doesnt have T3-Units that are not countered by Templars with Feedback (way too effective).
Compared to Infestor and Hightemplar, Ghosts are more expensive overall and dont have an AOE-ability that can instantly change the outcome of games completly. EMP's effectivity is not even close to Storm and Fungal and nerfing Snipe so that it does less DMG than normal attacks - where is the Sense here?
It may be so, that this balancechange is OK concerning the few Korean Terrans that demolish evryone else, but what about the average foreigner Pro-Level, not to mention us newbies that only reach mid-Master? I feel like i have to play so much better to have equal chances vs Protoss or Zerg in Lategames since i cant rely on a ridiculously strong T3-Unit combination like Broodlord/Infestor or Archon/Colosses.
|
On February 12 2012 04:13 Azhrei16 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 04:05 Jermstuddog wrote:
They're fixing the wrong thing about the Phoenix.
Giving phoenix +1 range in the late game is not going to make them slightly better vs mutas, it's going to make them unstoppable.
If they would just give Phoenix +1 base armor, they would be slightly better vs mutas (while still allowing for 30 2/2 mutas to win a fight vs 6 0/0 phoenix) AND they would be more useful in PvT as marines wouldn't burn them down so fast.
The way they're heading, mutas are going to be completely useless in ZvP.
As far as the ghost nerf, not only is that also a horrible idea, but their justification for doing so is equally bad. Do the math on their Ultralisk numbers and cry as you realize that Blizz doesn't even know why they're making the change. Someone needs to add to the OP that the Phoenix upgrade is +2 range, not +1.
LOL.
Yup. Having an upgrade off the fleet beacon will break the game. You realize you will have 20 muta up by the time that upgrade even finishes right? And 20 2/2 mutas will beat 6 phoenix. If the person your playing somehow micros those 6 phoenix with godlike abilities, he will be floating like 2k+ minerals because he isn't doing anything but focusing all of his apm/actions on micro. Its why stargate play is still not used a whole lot, the skill it requires to be able to still macro/expand is insane. I play toss and my friend plays zerg, he can't practice vs me anymore because literally every person he plays never uses phoenixs and i always open stargate.
Reactionary Phoenix are still not good. All this does is buff lategame air play from protoss, which is good, cause atm late game air play doesn't exist for Protoss.
|
On February 12 2012 04:00 ejozl wrote:
Mb since voids used to be range 7, they should've made the fleet beacon upgrade, a +1 for both phoenix and voids? what u think?
...why? -.-
The reason they're adding the upgrade is to help Protoss deal with Mass Mutas, something you'd hardly wish to start massing Void Rays for to counter, what would adding one range help?
|
On February 12 2012 03:58 Remi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 03:27 duct_TAPE wrote:On February 12 2012 03:13 -Duderino- wrote:On February 12 2012 03:04 duct_TAPE wrote:On February 12 2012 02:36 -Duderino- wrote:
I think a misconception is people seeing someone snipe all of zergs late game broodlords or ultras and thinking thats op, but in order to have enough ghosts and support to do that the terran has to be ahead. Also ghosts are terrans best late game unit.
A broodlord costs 300/200 to build, its takes 2 ghost(1 with full energy) to kill a brood lord, 2 ghost cost 400/200.
An ultralisk costs 300/200 to build, it takes 3 ghost(2 with full energy) to kill an ultralisk, 3 ghost cost 600/300.
Yes ghost beat both ultralisk and broodlords, but why is this such a shock???? they cost more than then both of them, and they have to sit for a couple mins to get full energy, and they have to be microed like a madman, and once out of energy ghosts are useless in a big fight. Like of course they should beat zerg late game units that cost less then them and require way less micro. Zerg has to scout late game (i know big shock) and go banelings instead of infestor if they go ghost. (make tanks unsiege with broodlords then roll ghosts with banes, and remax instant on cheap banes.)
I never all ined b4 emp nerf, now I am forced to 1/1/1 everyother game vs toss to keep a consistent win ratio.
Looks like im going to have to learn all ins vs zerg cause terran won't stand a chance late game without snipe.
At least I will always have tvt for macro games. A broodlord costs 300/250, not 300/200. 150 min 150 gas for corruptor/150 min 100 gas for broodlord. this makes it more expensive than 2 ghosts, 100 min vs 50 gas lategame, gas is more important. What do you mean that broodlords and ultralisks cost less than ghosts? 3 ghosts cost more than 1 ultralisk, how is that a logical statement? I don't get it, so 2 ultralisk cost more than 4 ghost? You just choose x number of a unit and say that they combined cost more than one other unit. Dude lol, im describing how many ghosts it takes to kill ultra. 2 ultra cost 600/400 but it takes 6 ghost to kill 2 ultra which is 1200/600 lol so like double, my point being ya you nubs see snipe killing ultras and broodlords, but ya obviously because i paid more for the ghosts they should win the fight. not counting amp needed and everything else ghosts are balanced, unless you wanna make the agrument that they shouldnt counter both broodlords and ultras but with tech switching being so ez for zerg terran needs an all around unit. Also ghost is terran best late game unit why is it a shock that terrans best late game unit counters zerg best late game units?? It goes toss>terran>zerg in regards to unit strength, yes bl/utlra is weaker then the right number of ghosts but zerg should have more bl/ultra than terran has ghosts unless terran is ahead. You're describing how many ghosts are required to obliterate one unit, I mean no trade is happening, you still have all your ghosts remaining (with low energy that will regen over time). I'm totally fine with x number of ghosts, of a greater cost than one other unit, killing that one other unit. If you're trying to describe how the cost of ghosts compare to zerg in order to win against an ultralisk/broodlord, though, you're doing it wrong. You conclude that ghosts are of a greater cost than another unit based upon one utility (snipe) of the ghosts 3 utilities. Ghosts can do more than snipe. When you compare the cost to win a 1v1 battle unit vs unit there is always going to be very non-interesting results. Roach vs Hellion, 'oh my 3 hellions can't even beat 1 Roach eventhough they cost more'. That would be a valid argument if hellions were used to counter roaches, but they don't, while ghosts are used as a counter to broodlords and ultralisks and one would expect counter unit to be cost-effective against unit it counter, after patch ghosts will not be cost effective against bl/ultra anymore, therefore will no longer be a counter unit which was his argument to begin with.
I pick Roach vs Hellion because it is excessive and easier to make a point that way. Of course Hellions are not the answer to Roach. Picking up a real scenario. It is not cost efficient to be a zerg fighting against terran or protoss. Looking at the 'units lost' tab you'll often see that zerg has lost more even though you'll judge that the zerg has the right army composition, the right engagements and the game being approximately even. The game dosn't balance around cost efficiency. It just dosn't make much sense to factor in cost efficiency like he did in his argument, were he compares x number of ghost costs against x unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
