|
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 14 2012 21:22 s3rp wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 21:20 Dalavita wrote:On February 14 2012 21:18 s3rp wrote:On February 14 2012 21:14 Dalavita wrote: Here's a unit that could actually work in lategame TvP rather than Battlecruisers, and it's speed reapers.
The why's: You already have all the required tech/upgrades, a shitton of barracks with tech labs, all dat floaty gas. They are extremely supply efficient and cheap on minerals. They can kill off twice the supply of chargelots with kiting (10 reapers with perfect kiting vs 10 chargelots and the reapers win astoundingly) meaning that chargelot reinforcements are weaker, especially with marauder and medivac support. They can jump into bases and snipe expansions and probes faster than anything else without requiring any medivac backup, while dealing with any realistic gateway reinforcement. (10 supply of reapers trade very well with 10 supply worth of stalkers), or else escape if victory is not possible.
You can combine them into your main army, and they can keep up with stimmed bio while destroying zealots.
Cons: Their slow build time. This is it really. They're not particularly fragile, but they build slowIn a remaxing war you can't really afford going mass reapers. The key timing to use them is after you win a big engagement and expect mass zealot reinforcements, or if you are at 190/200 food and need to fill those last supply out. Get ten reapers, roam around and wreak havoc with them, join them in the battle against the enemy to kill off zealots faster, and rape zealot reinforcements.
Reapers have their issues, but they're a lot more viable than battlecruisers for TvP in the endgame.
Now, can we stop derailing the discussion. Let's go back to discussing patch changes and not the TvP matchup.
You do know that they have less HP then Combat Shielded Marines ? By five, yes. You do know this changes none of my points? Well if a Unit with less Hp then a Marine isn't fragile i don't know what else is ... They die if you only looked at them the wrong way.
By that reasoning marines aren't useful to get either, since they also die in tvp if looked at funny. You're not supposed to use the reapers in a main battle. You can and should use them if needed, but they have other uses on top of that.
The issue with reapers is that they take forever to get. For cost and supply they are extremely efficient.
That said, I think I'm gonna make a new topic on the subject so I won't derail the thread further.
Edit: found this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=278157
|
The stats (and also my subjective impressions) are saying this:
early game(5-13 min): T>Z, T>P, Z=P mid game(13-20 min): T=Z, T>P(T=P after 15min), Z<P late game (20plus min): T<Z, T<P, Z>P
Overall maybe the game is balanced, however, patch by patch terran is forced to win until 16 min or die, while zerg has nearly no options in early and early mid game and is forced into late game.
Patch 1.4.3 changes
Ghost : making terran late game vs zerg again harder Phoenix: not sure, but in my eyes it will not change much vs zerg Mule: weaks terrans late game...if there is a late game for terran.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
On February 14 2012 21:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 21:12 Ganseng wrote:On February 14 2012 20:39 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 20:27 SevenShots wrote:On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 19:50 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 14 2012 18:26 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 18:23 GreatestThreat wrote:On February 14 2012 18:17 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 18:06 GreatestThreat wrote: [quote]
Yeah but have you looked at its DPS for cost? BCs need some kind of buff, they're almost as unused as carriers in high level play. No, because it is an endgame unit. You have to look at its dps per supply as well as the supply cap is one of the most limiting factors at that time. (and you want supplyefficient armies at that time... noone cares about the roach being one of the most costefficient units if you fight 200 vs 200 with it) Also the dps is not the only great thing about the cruiser. 3armor and 550HP as an air unit, that's beefier than an ultralisk. Then add Yamato Canon... There is a reason why a lot of people go mass BC in noncompetetive areas: it's already the best unit in the game statswise and can only be beaten by 1unit per race. If you make the BC only some kind of costefficient as well, you just give Terran an ultimate goal: "get 20cruiser, lift your buildings and you win". I guess the air/ground simultanous attack would not change that BCs could get countered by Corruptor/Voidray/Viking, but it would just make going battlecruise so costefficient, that anytime an opponent uses ground, you would just go BC. If he goes air as well, the costefficieny of the BC investment would go through the roof. If he stays ground... mass BCs and win. Noncompetitive games mean less than nothing for balance purposes. And if the unit is such an "I win" button as you're making it sound, why then is it still almost completely unused in pro tournaments? Edit: Sorry misread that. You were saying it would be that good if given the simultaneous ground and air attack. I'm not convinced that's the case but your argument makes sense. It wouldn't hurt to test it in a PTR though would it? ofc it wouldn't really hurt. But would it hurt to buff hydralisks, carriers, reaper... nerf marines, marauder, banelings, colossi, stalker, roaches.. as well? The question is, does the game need this kind of every unit is available costefficiently? I'm not even sure if the game would be really good, if every unit was balanced in a way that it is evenly good (in some way), because then there would be no real downside of going random units all game long. The actual point I was trying to make initially is that the BC switch praised before in TvP is utter bullshit and it's even more bullshit in TvZ, as in TvZ there is ALWAYS either infestors or corruptors - most likely both - out by the time you make battlecruisers. Yes, in a vacuum, where the terran can spam a ton of BC with full upgrades, they are very good. In a real game situation where things like "how fast can I produce a unit", "how is the likely upgrade situation" and "how much of a reaction does this force out of my opponent" are important, the BC just sucks unbelievably hard. The secondary post (the one that mattered less) with the suggestions that might players lead to consider using battle cruisers got picked up. Even if those suggestions are picked up, I really doubt that in competitive play you would see BCs so much more, because the MOST IMPORTANT drawback of battlecruisers is not adressed. By the time you can field them, they will have 0-1 attack upgrade while its targets will have 2-3 armor upgrades. Suddenly your mighty DPS sucks hard. While we are at the "OMG BC! SO MUCH DPS!" argument: Usually the damage efficiency of a unit is given in DPSPF (damage per second per food). The BC has on equal upgrades against an unarmored target 5.9DPSPF. The zealot has 6.65. The hydralisk has 7.25. Yes, that's right. 3 Zealots deal more dmg to ground targets than 1 battlecruiser, even when on equal upgrades. Three stalkers need 18.7 seconds to kill a carrier. A battlecruiser takes 28.1 seconds to kill that carrier. Same upgrades and all. So spare me with the "OMG BC NO BUFF OR IMBA" howling. You are reinforcing the zerg cliche. No, the damage efficiency is not usually given in DPSPF. Usually things are being argued in terms of supply or costefficiency. What you want is an overall index to determine how strong a unit universally in a maxed scenario is. I can't give you one, but I can assure you that the BC beats every other unit in high supply apart from the viking, the void ray and the corruptor. For the upgrades and how fast you can produce them... actually read my post on the top of the map. I didn't say anything about it in the post you quoted, so you better don't give me shit about that if you want to sound anything but a usual "meh meh meh; now Terran might become balanced but I'm too bad to play it" whiner. Thats just not true. For example bcs lose like hell to blink stalker + ht. I remember a sick 50 Minute game Happy vs some protoss (i believe it was ToD) on Tal'Darim where the toss kills > 10 BC with < 20 stalkers and some hts without losing ANYTHING. And BC/Ghost beats that. I was talking monocompositions, but yeah, in a real game even the battlecruiser is a unit which has to be properly supported. "even the battlecruiser" that sounds so funny. sorry for off-top. yeah I know. Reading about Terrans who think that going their "ultimate weapon" and nothing else should be a good strategy is really funny. actually i meant your words "even the battlecruiser" in that particular context and not anything else. "even the battlecruiser" can sound reasonable, but in a different context, like even the battlecruiser can kill a creep tumor; even the battlecruiser is a good unit if you are up 100 supply; even the battlecruiser is seen more often than carrier; etc.
|
On February 14 2012 21:40 Ganseng wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 21:18 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 21:12 Ganseng wrote:On February 14 2012 20:39 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 20:27 SevenShots wrote:On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 19:50 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 14 2012 18:26 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 18:23 GreatestThreat wrote:On February 14 2012 18:17 Big J wrote: [quote]
No, because it is an endgame unit. You have to look at its dps per supply as well as the supply cap is one of the most limiting factors at that time. (and you want supplyefficient armies at that time... noone cares about the roach being one of the most costefficient units if you fight 200 vs 200 with it) Also the dps is not the only great thing about the cruiser. 3armor and 550HP as an air unit, that's beefier than an ultralisk. Then add Yamato Canon... There is a reason why a lot of people go mass BC in noncompetetive areas: it's already the best unit in the game statswise and can only be beaten by 1unit per race. If you make the BC only some kind of costefficient as well, you just give Terran an ultimate goal: "get 20cruiser, lift your buildings and you win". I guess the air/ground simultanous attack would not change that BCs could get countered by Corruptor/Voidray/Viking, but it would just make going battlecruise so costefficient, that anytime an opponent uses ground, you would just go BC. If he goes air as well, the costefficieny of the BC investment would go through the roof. If he stays ground... mass BCs and win. Noncompetitive games mean less than nothing for balance purposes. And if the unit is such an "I win" button as you're making it sound, why then is it still almost completely unused in pro tournaments? Edit: Sorry misread that. You were saying it would be that good if given the simultaneous ground and air attack. I'm not convinced that's the case but your argument makes sense. It wouldn't hurt to test it in a PTR though would it? ofc it wouldn't really hurt. But would it hurt to buff hydralisks, carriers, reaper... nerf marines, marauder, banelings, colossi, stalker, roaches.. as well? The question is, does the game need this kind of every unit is available costefficiently? I'm not even sure if the game would be really good, if every unit was balanced in a way that it is evenly good (in some way), because then there would be no real downside of going random units all game long. The actual point I was trying to make initially is that the BC switch praised before in TvP is utter bullshit and it's even more bullshit in TvZ, as in TvZ there is ALWAYS either infestors or corruptors - most likely both - out by the time you make battlecruisers. Yes, in a vacuum, where the terran can spam a ton of BC with full upgrades, they are very good. In a real game situation where things like "how fast can I produce a unit", "how is the likely upgrade situation" and "how much of a reaction does this force out of my opponent" are important, the BC just sucks unbelievably hard. The secondary post (the one that mattered less) with the suggestions that might players lead to consider using battle cruisers got picked up. Even if those suggestions are picked up, I really doubt that in competitive play you would see BCs so much more, because the MOST IMPORTANT drawback of battlecruisers is not adressed. By the time you can field them, they will have 0-1 attack upgrade while its targets will have 2-3 armor upgrades. Suddenly your mighty DPS sucks hard. While we are at the "OMG BC! SO MUCH DPS!" argument: Usually the damage efficiency of a unit is given in DPSPF (damage per second per food). The BC has on equal upgrades against an unarmored target 5.9DPSPF. The zealot has 6.65. The hydralisk has 7.25. Yes, that's right. 3 Zealots deal more dmg to ground targets than 1 battlecruiser, even when on equal upgrades. Three stalkers need 18.7 seconds to kill a carrier. A battlecruiser takes 28.1 seconds to kill that carrier. Same upgrades and all. So spare me with the "OMG BC NO BUFF OR IMBA" howling. You are reinforcing the zerg cliche. No, the damage efficiency is not usually given in DPSPF. Usually things are being argued in terms of supply or costefficiency. What you want is an overall index to determine how strong a unit universally in a maxed scenario is. I can't give you one, but I can assure you that the BC beats every other unit in high supply apart from the viking, the void ray and the corruptor. For the upgrades and how fast you can produce them... actually read my post on the top of the map. I didn't say anything about it in the post you quoted, so you better don't give me shit about that if you want to sound anything but a usual "meh meh meh; now Terran might become balanced but I'm too bad to play it" whiner. Thats just not true. For example bcs lose like hell to blink stalker + ht. I remember a sick 50 Minute game Happy vs some protoss (i believe it was ToD) on Tal'Darim where the toss kills > 10 BC with < 20 stalkers and some hts without losing ANYTHING. And BC/Ghost beats that. I was talking monocompositions, but yeah, in a real game even the battlecruiser is a unit which has to be properly supported. "even the battlecruiser" that sounds so funny. sorry for off-top. yeah I know. Reading about Terrans who think that going their "ultimate weapon" and nothing else should be a good strategy is really funny. actually i meant your words "even the battlecruiser" in that particular context and not anything else. "even the battlecruiser" can sound reasonable, but in a different context, like even the battlecruiser can kill a creep tumor; even the battlecruiser is a good unit if you are up 100 supply; even the battlecruiser is seen more often than carrier; etc.
oh rly, you meant me? That's sooo surprising, lol.
|
On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:No, the damage efficiency is not usually given in DPSPF. Usually things are being argued in terms of supply or costefficiency. What you want is an overall index to determine how strong a unit universally in a maxed scenario is. I can't give you one, but I can assure you that the BC beats every other unit in high supply apart from the viking, the void ray and the corruptor.
For the upgrades and how fast you can produce them... actually read my post on the top of the map. I didn't say anything about it in the post you quoted, so you better don't give me shit about that if you want to sound anything but a usual "meh meh meh; now Terran might become balanced but I'm too bad to play it" whiner.
You argue that the BC has SO much DPS and is SO cost-efficient. Then someone actually points out the cost of battle cruisers and you reply:
On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:No, because it is an endgame unit. You have to look at its dps per supply as well as the supply cap is one of the most limiting factors at that time. (and you want supplyefficient armies at that time... noone cares about the roach being one of the most costefficient units if you fight 200 vs 200 with it)
Upon which I compare the amount of DPS you get per point of supply. Sadly the BC loses to such awesome high tech units like the zealot or the hydralisk. All you reply to that is just semantics between damage efficiency (which isn't really defined), supply efficiency and cost efficiency.
You acted as if buffing the battle cruiser is outright preposterous. And you even suggested buffing the hydralisk long before the battle cruiser.
The reason hydras are not so often used is because of their limited mobility and because often their counters are either already deployed or easily available. Guess what - the battle cruiser suffers from the same problems much more, while dealing less damage for their supply, having much higher tech prerequisites and costing much more. Also they are much more reliant on upgrades while using an upgrade tree that is much less likely to be pre-invested in.
So why would you buff the hydra before the BC?
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
On February 14 2012 21:46 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 21:40 Ganseng wrote:On February 14 2012 21:18 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 21:12 Ganseng wrote:On February 14 2012 20:39 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 20:27 SevenShots wrote:On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 19:50 Thrombozyt wrote:On February 14 2012 18:26 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 18:23 GreatestThreat wrote: [quote]
Noncompetitive games mean less than nothing for balance purposes.
And if the unit is such an "I win" button as you're making it sound, why then is it still almost completely unused in pro tournaments?
Edit: Sorry misread that. You were saying it would be that good if given the simultaneous ground and air attack. I'm not convinced that's the case but your argument makes sense. It wouldn't hurt to test it in a PTR though would it? ofc it wouldn't really hurt. But would it hurt to buff hydralisks, carriers, reaper... nerf marines, marauder, banelings, colossi, stalker, roaches.. as well? The question is, does the game need this kind of every unit is available costefficiently? I'm not even sure if the game would be really good, if every unit was balanced in a way that it is evenly good (in some way), because then there would be no real downside of going random units all game long. The actual point I was trying to make initially is that the BC switch praised before in TvP is utter bullshit and it's even more bullshit in TvZ, as in TvZ there is ALWAYS either infestors or corruptors - most likely both - out by the time you make battlecruisers. Yes, in a vacuum, where the terran can spam a ton of BC with full upgrades, they are very good. In a real game situation where things like "how fast can I produce a unit", "how is the likely upgrade situation" and "how much of a reaction does this force out of my opponent" are important, the BC just sucks unbelievably hard. The secondary post (the one that mattered less) with the suggestions that might players lead to consider using battle cruisers got picked up. Even if those suggestions are picked up, I really doubt that in competitive play you would see BCs so much more, because the MOST IMPORTANT drawback of battlecruisers is not adressed. By the time you can field them, they will have 0-1 attack upgrade while its targets will have 2-3 armor upgrades. Suddenly your mighty DPS sucks hard. While we are at the "OMG BC! SO MUCH DPS!" argument: Usually the damage efficiency of a unit is given in DPSPF (damage per second per food). The BC has on equal upgrades against an unarmored target 5.9DPSPF. The zealot has 6.65. The hydralisk has 7.25. Yes, that's right. 3 Zealots deal more dmg to ground targets than 1 battlecruiser, even when on equal upgrades. Three stalkers need 18.7 seconds to kill a carrier. A battlecruiser takes 28.1 seconds to kill that carrier. Same upgrades and all. So spare me with the "OMG BC NO BUFF OR IMBA" howling. You are reinforcing the zerg cliche. No, the damage efficiency is not usually given in DPSPF. Usually things are being argued in terms of supply or costefficiency. What you want is an overall index to determine how strong a unit universally in a maxed scenario is. I can't give you one, but I can assure you that the BC beats every other unit in high supply apart from the viking, the void ray and the corruptor. For the upgrades and how fast you can produce them... actually read my post on the top of the map. I didn't say anything about it in the post you quoted, so you better don't give me shit about that if you want to sound anything but a usual "meh meh meh; now Terran might become balanced but I'm too bad to play it" whiner. Thats just not true. For example bcs lose like hell to blink stalker + ht. I remember a sick 50 Minute game Happy vs some protoss (i believe it was ToD) on Tal'Darim where the toss kills > 10 BC with < 20 stalkers and some hts without losing ANYTHING. And BC/Ghost beats that. I was talking monocompositions, but yeah, in a real game even the battlecruiser is a unit which has to be properly supported. "even the battlecruiser" that sounds so funny. sorry for off-top. yeah I know. Reading about Terrans who think that going their "ultimate weapon" and nothing else should be a good strategy is really funny. actually i meant your words "even the battlecruiser" in that particular context and not anything else. "even the battlecruiser" can sound reasonable, but in a different context, like even the battlecruiser can kill a creep tumor; even the battlecruiser is a good unit if you are up 100 supply; even the battlecruiser is seen more often than carrier; etc. oh rly, you meant me? That's sooo surprising, lol. yeah sometimes postmodernism is bordering on vulgar trolling, you know.
|
Is this going out with season 6 or??
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
To the guy using DPS per Food to analyze how strong a unit is, guess what units has the most DPS per food? The un-upgraded Zergling. So please stop with this silly way of analyzing which unit is better, and stop comparing ranged units DPS to Melee units. So wrong for so many obvious reasons.
|
On February 14 2012 21:58 _Darwin_ wrote: Is this going out with season 6 or??
As s6 is already live on sea and should be in the next couple mins on NA, I'd say it's safe to say: Nope.
|
On February 14 2012 21:51 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:No, the damage efficiency is not usually given in DPSPF. Usually things are being argued in terms of supply or costefficiency. What you want is an overall index to determine how strong a unit universally in a maxed scenario is. I can't give you one, but I can assure you that the BC beats every other unit in high supply apart from the viking, the void ray and the corruptor.
For the upgrades and how fast you can produce them... actually read my post on the top of the map. I didn't say anything about it in the post you quoted, so you better don't give me shit about that if you want to sound anything but a usual "meh meh meh; now Terran might become balanced but I'm too bad to play it" whiner. You argue that the BC has SO much DPS and is SO cost-efficient. Then someone actually points out the cost of battle cruisers and you reply: Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:No, because it is an endgame unit. You have to look at its dps per supply as well as the supply cap is one of the most limiting factors at that time. (and you want supplyefficient armies at that time... noone cares about the roach being one of the most costefficient units if you fight 200 vs 200 with it)
Upon which I compare the amount of DPS you get per point of supply. Sadly the BC loses to such awesome high tech units like the zealot or the hydralisk. All you reply to that is just semantics between damage efficiency (which isn't really defined), supply efficiency and cost efficiency. You acted as if buffing the battle cruiser is outright preposterous. And you even suggested buffing the hydralisk long before the battle cruiser. The reason hydras are not so often used is because of their limited mobility and because often their counters are either already deployed or easily available. Guess what - the battle cruiser suffers from the same problems much more, while dealing less damage for their supply, having much higher tech prerequisites and costing much more. Also they are much more reliant on upgrades while using an upgrade tree that is much less likely to be pre-invested in. So why would you buff the hydra before the BC? Stop it, you are using real numbers and logic while discussing balance on forum, making to much sense. There is no place for it here.
|
i wish they would patch battlecruisers and thors in a way that they only get a energybar when the Research on Yamatocannon or the thor stun-thing-cannon is done. And if you don't research those they won't have energybars.
That would solve so many problems with terran t3 units and balance the thors stun ability against imortals because you could only start akkumulating energy after the reseatch is done and from that point on it would be the same as today...
|
+ Show Spoiler +On February 13 2012 00:34 TheDwf wrote:High Master Terran on Europe here, sometimes playing GMs. Since I'm usually only a spectator for the PvZ match-up, I will not talk about the Phoenix change. MULEs now harvest the same amount of minerals on both high yield minerals and normal minerals.This change is somewhat ok, though gold and MULE-haters should remember that Terran players gain little “more” by taking their fourth and fifth bases, unlike Zergs and Protosses who have then access to their precious 8/10 gases to build gas-heavy powerful units en masse. Since Terran do not benefit as much as the other races from 8/10 gases compared to 6 gases, is it that imbalanced that they're rewarded with a temporary income boost in the ressource that matters the most for them, i.e. minerals? People should remember that faster mining also means the base will be mined out earlier than normal, which means Terrans will have to (over)extend again to maintain the same income, something which is not easy to do on some maps. Now, talking about maps—I think this is the main issue with gold bases. Take Antiga for instance; gold bases were removed in recent tournament versions: did it change anything to the fact that, in ZvT, once the Terran player controls the center, the Zerg player is in deep trouble anyway? Snipe damage changed from 45 to 25 +25 PsionicThis is a terrible and very poorly thought change. As long as neither flying Banelings (read: Ravens) nor BattleCruisers are really viable, Terrans will still need some kind of “universal unit” against Zerg tier3. Reasons are known—thanks to the way their race works, Zergs are able to remax on Ultralisks after they've traded their Broodlords, and vice versa. Since Vikings don't do well against Ultralisks, nor Marauders are particularly hot against Broodlords, and with Terran having the slowest production in the game, the Zerg possibility to tech switch in a little more than a minut (55 sec for Ultralisks, 74 for Broodlords) without the Terran being able to know which unit the Zerg chose until he sees eggs spawning (this is of the utmost importance, because it means Terran is forced to wait at least 40 sec before starting his “counter units”) means that Terrans have to be able to rely on units that are good against one option, and at least “ok” against the other option—not to mention that at this point, Zergs should have banked enough larvae to be able to quickly build a Zergling swarm. Thors are somewhat ok against both Broodlords and Ultralisks, but their anti-air low rate of fire simply prevents them from killing Broodlords efficiently, especially with Queens being able to negate many shots in a single Transfuse. Besides, Thors are slow to replenish, and they cost 6 supply whereas Broodlords cost only 4. Macro OCs allow the Terran player to have a bigger army, but since Broodlords are air units while Thors are clumsy and bulky ground units, the more Thors you have the worst they will perform against high Broodlords count (and, once again, let us not forget the Broodlings swarm that comes with Broodlords, which at some point may simply prevent some Thors to reach Broodlords). So, we have the tech switch issue, but we also have the “mass Broodlords with Infests” issue. Unlike Ultralisks, which are melee ground units and cost 6 supply anyway, Broodlords do not become weaker the more you have of them; actually, thanks to the Broodlings mechanic, it's quite the contrary. Terrans need a realistic answer to mass Broodlords/Infestors (of course with Corruptor support if needed) armies that inevitably come with late late game. So Terran bro, wut u got? Marines?By lategame, though Marines are still useful, they cannot be played en masse the same way they are played by midgame since Infestors' Fungal Growths literally stop them dead. Marines would do fine against Broodlords on their own, but unfortunately Infestor support prevents them from ever reaching Broodlords, not to mention the Broodlings swarm that immediately spawns to surround them should they attempt to close the distance with Broodlords. Thors?Talked about them above. Vikings?Possible tech switch problem aside, in the end Vikings are simply not enough against Corruptors/Infestors. Even with the best splitting in the world (humanly speaking, I mean), Vikings inevitably tend to clump up when attacking, which means Fungal Growths will catch at least some of them, and then they will be food for Corruptors / Infested Terrans / more Fungals. Basically, Fungal Growth prevents Vikings to use their strength which is their long range; because speaking of values, it is not hard to see that the Corruptor does better in the toughness department (200 hps vs 125, 2 native armor vs 0). Flying Banelings—I mean, Ravens?So, the Raven—this “amazing unit of the future” which, strangely enough, is seldom seen outside of mirrors. For those who read those forums, you will always see that Raven guy who comes and teaches Terrans that “they bank 3k gas by lategame anyway,” so why not use that amazing HSM thing which will blow up your opponent's army (read: provided he's stupid enough not to micro his units[/strike)? Though you sometimes see Ravens in lategame TvZ play (don't know if Beastyqt still plays them sometimes, but this was one of the few players I saw using them; TLO was using them too), there are obvious and blatant issues which make it very hard to use them on a consistent basis. TimeRemember the part above about Terrans having the slowest production? Typically, when playing Marine/Tanks/Medivacs in midgame, Terrans will enter lategame with one Reactor Starport—maybe with 2 Starports if you have spared resources and scout the Broodlords transition. It means that to build your Raven fleet, you will have to build several Starports with Lab attached, all while holding your line (because the Zerg player will try to break your line with his Broodlords), then research HSM and Corvid Reactor, then build Ravens, then wait 90 sec for them to have enough energy to launch a single HSM. Now compare to Ghosts: they only require a Ghost Academy (40 sec) and Tech Labs on Barracks you already have, and depending on whether or not you have Moebius Reactor they come with 2 or 3 Snipes ready ( i. e. they can be useful as soon as they spawn, not at T+90s). What this means is that you can't really transition right away into Ravens off a standard Marines/Tank/Medivac midgame (even a mech midgame will seldom have more than 2 Starports, but they may have a Lab, so it could be a little bit easier for mech players); as costly and time-consuming as they are, in a standard game they're only viable in split map scenarii (or maybe past 4 bases for mech players who planned for a Raven transition). But then you run into the next issue: HSM rangeHSM range = 6 Fungal Growth range = 9 This simple fact makes it very difficult to use Ravens more than once, and this is why you see some people call them “flying Banelings”. Each time one of your Ravens moves forward to launch a HSM, he is at risk, because he enters the Zerg anti-air zone which is 9 range around the Infestors position. And 200 gas for possibly a single Missile which is not even guaranteed to hit a clump of units (remember: against HSM, Zerg players can still micro/spread their units) is simply too much. So, aside from the infrastructure/time problem, the main, critical issue with Ravens is that they simply lose the caster war. Both Infestors and High Templars are able to outrange Ravens with deadly spells which kills them in some way. And this is a very serious problem, because on every map resources are limited: at some point, you must trade cost-efficiently or you will simply end up losing the split map scenario. BattleCruisers?Corruptors + Fungal Growth (and even Neural Parasite). Enough said. Yes, I did see this very nice Polt vs [don't remember the Zerg, maybe an IM player] ladder game @ Shattered Temple, but he could probably have won with mass SCVs, and anyway Ghosts would have netted him the kill earlier and more efficiently. So… Ghosts.First, we need to dismiss the idea that Ghosts are an auto-win button against lategame Zerg. This is simply false. As proven in the Fin/fOrGG vs Leenock game @ Daybreak in GSL Code S Ro32, you have to carefully manage your Ghost squad, else one bad Fungal Growth goes through and you're in deep trouble. Ghosts have 100 hit points, so they're frail units for their high cost—which is fine given their potential, but I'm merely reminding you that Ghosts are neither immortal nor invincible. They take a lot of micro to use, and the more Broodlords there is, the harder it becomes to manage your Ghost squad. I'm also tired to hear that “Ghosts hard-counter tier3 Zerg”. This is not true. Immortals hard-counter Siege Tanks. The truth is Ghosts are a soft-counter: “Enough Ghosts with enough energy and careful micro are able to deal efficiently with Zerg tier3.” Which is very different from the usual “trololol Ghost auto-win button eznb” that you sometimes read on Live Report threads. As a Terran player, I say to Zerg players who are not convinced by this to play Terran against their own race (offracing against your own race really is a good experience anyway). You will quickly notice how fast your Ghosts fall each time you mismicro them. You will see that it takes a lot of resources and time to bank enough energy to be able to snipe a lot of Broodlords (or Ultralisks) and EMP Infestors. I mean, each time I enter lategame against Zerg, my purpose is to get this Ghost squad, but I can tell you it simply looks much easier when Mvp does it. Watching GSL, you may say “lol Ghost ez,” but then you can try it, even in a Unit test map, and you will see how hard it is to pull off, and how hard you will actually fail in a real game, desperately trying to micro your Ghost in a Broodlings sea while Broodlords relentlessly rain down death on your position. Are Ghosts too efficient against Ultralisks? The thing is, a lot of Zerg players (including progamers) simply have a terrible Ultralisks use, making either too much of them ( i. e. not enough support) or sending them to death in heavily fortified positions and then complaining about them being “horrible” or something. Like Broodlords, Ultralisks need support (Banelings and/or Infestors, and most importantly Zerglings) to do their job—but anyway, in the end, you likely won't win a split map scenario (and I'm talking about real split map, not 4/5 bases vs 3/4) against Terran with only Ultralisks, simply because, well, all melee units can be defended quite easily using chokes and mass ranged units behind defences; whether death comes from Snipes or something else is irrelevant at this point, I think you simply have to transition to Broodlords in a split map scenario, just as Protosses simply cannot afford to keep running on pure Blink Stalkers + Colossi against a mass Broodlords/Infestors/Spines split map scenario. I know, Ultralisks are tier3 while Blink Stalkers are not; still, regardless of tiers, there simply is some point beyond which some compositions are no more playable in some scenarii. For Ultralisks, the reason is quite self-explanatory: ranged units (especially air ones) get exponentially better while ground melee units do not (partly due to collision size issues). So basically, when looking at Ghosts vs Ultralisks skirmishes, you have to wonder if using Ultralisks was the right thing to do given the state of the game, i. e. if the Terran had enough time to bank full energy on 20+ Ghosts, it was probably not a good choice anyway to head this way. Ultralisks' effectiveness simply starts decreasing beyond some point. While they're viable at the beginning of the late game, I'm not convinced about their uses in split map scenarii in which both players are allowed to bank mass resources. Killing Infestors with 2 Snipes, down to 3, is basically irrelevant since Infestors will safely stand behind Broodlords if you can no longer kill them as fast and efficiently as now. I mean, even with the current Snipe, facing 15+ Broodlords with Infestor (and Overseers!) support is still a challenge even for the best players in the world—so how are Terrans supposed to deal with this if this silly change goes through? As stated above, even tech switch problems aside, Vikings, Thors and Ravens all have obvious problems. Sniping is a bit like a race against the clock anyway, since the longer your Ghosts take to kill Broodlords, the more Broodlords, Broodlings and your own Siege Tanks hurt them, so going up to 10 hits from 6 is simply stupid. Once again, even with the current Snipe, a lot of Terrans have difficulties in late game, because as stated above managing your Ghost squad is not easy at all—even pros fail it sometimes, so how are people with only two arms supposed to deal with this? And for people who will answer “don't let this happen,” do you realize how stupid it would be if one race had close to no chance by late game against some armies? All races should have fair chances to win by lategame, even against “the ultimate army”. This Snipe change simply means that Zergs will now be able to turtle into 20+ Broodlords with Corruptors/Infestors support, and then laugh at you because you won't have any efficient tool to deal with this.
Very nice and reasonable post. Zerg has other units that can overwhelm a heavy ghost army such as a swarm of zerglings/banelings/roaches to counter the terran,instead of blindly going T3. It's also easier for zerg to scout what terran is preparing mid-late game than it is for terran with the fast switches zerg can do.
Anyway I just wanted to add that in order to nerf snipe then Infestors need to change as well. If we want ghost to only be an anti-caster unit instead of acting as our T3 Terran equivalent in TvZ,then something else has to change to fill the missing piece. Infestors synergise extremely well with Ultralisks and Broodlords, allowing zerg to counter their counters(Maurauders and Vikings),while also providing an excellent tool against both mech and bio with all three of their spells. Not to mention harrassment and base killing with infested terrans. They are a very versatile,multipurpose unit, which is why we see zergs mass this unit mid to late game against Terrans. Why shouldn't ghosts be versatile too if it's the only option terran has available late game?
Fungal growth should change from an immobilise spell to a slow spell OR to a spell that can only target ground units. For the first option,change fungal growth to a 75% movement speed reduction ,allowing units a chance to spread. This will help with vikings and maurauders not dying instantly the moment one Fungal growth hits them.
It will allow terrans to have a fair battle with vikings against broodlords/corruptors and maurauders against ultralisks,without hindering micro play.With one problem solved, ghosts are no longer required to be so good against T3 zerg units. Alternatively they can just make Terran late game units better .
|
On February 14 2012 21:51 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:No, the damage efficiency is not usually given in DPSPF. Usually things are being argued in terms of supply or costefficiency. What you want is an overall index to determine how strong a unit universally in a maxed scenario is. I can't give you one, but I can assure you that the BC beats every other unit in high supply apart from the viking, the void ray and the corruptor.
For the upgrades and how fast you can produce them... actually read my post on the top of the map. I didn't say anything about it in the post you quoted, so you better don't give me shit about that if you want to sound anything but a usual "meh meh meh; now Terran might become balanced but I'm too bad to play it" whiner. You argue that the BC has SO much DPS and is SO cost-efficient. Then someone actually points out the cost of battle cruisers and you reply: Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 20:21 Big J wrote:No, because it is an endgame unit. You have to look at its dps per supply as well as the supply cap is one of the most limiting factors at that time. (and you want supplyefficient armies at that time... noone cares about the roach being one of the most costefficient units if you fight 200 vs 200 with it)
Upon which I compare the amount of DPS you get per point of supply. Sadly the BC loses to such awesome high tech units like the zealot or the hydralisk. All you reply to that is just semantics between damage efficiency (which isn't really defined), supply efficiency and cost efficiency. You acted as if buffing the battle cruiser is outright preposterous. And you even suggested buffing the hydralisk long before the battle cruiser. The reason hydras are not so often used is because of their limited mobility and because often their counters are either already deployed or easily available. Guess what - the battle cruiser suffers from the same problems much more, while dealing less damage for their supply, having much higher tech prerequisites and costing much more. Also they are much more reliant on upgrades while using an upgrade tree that is much less likely to be pre-invested in. So why would you buff the hydra before the BC?
You are interpreting what I wrote the way you want, instead of taking it for what I said.
Did I say a Battlecruiser has the second most dps in the game? Yes I have. Is it true? As far as I know only the Thor has more dps. Did I say that Battlecruisers have more dps/cost than marines? No I haven't. Did I say that Battlecruisers have more dps/supply than hydralisks? No I haven't.
I only said their dps/unit is great. And you know why I said this? Because it is a simplyfication. Of course we can argue how good dps/supply, dps/cost, dps/space, dps/health, dps/armor, dps/speed, dps/tech investment, dps/build time, dps/gas, dps/minerals, dps/range etc are. But you won't get a good picture of the unit, because in a lot of those categories, units like the zergling will win, but they are absolut crap due to the other categories. dps/unit is flawed as well, but at least we can say that the BC is amongst the top of same cost, same supply units in this regard.
You know why this is important? Because in a real scenario you have to add the space the units need to fight and the armor of the opponent and the speed in which dps drops due to unit losses in a battle in your calculation which unit is better. Or you can just go and test yourself whether 10 BCs or 30hydras/60marines win a battle. (hint, the BCs get a few scratches)
Where did I say the hydralisk should be buffed before the BC? I said it wouldn't hurt to buff units like hydraliks, carriers, reapers as well then, if we talk about how the BC could get buffed. And then I said I'm not sure whether this would be good gamedesignwise, if making random units was good no matter what, as long as one controls them properly.
But if you want my opinion on that hydra/BC topic (it's my opinion; if you want to reply to it, do so, but I'm not gonna discuss it further): Hydralisks suck harder than BCs, but zerg doesn't need them right now, so they should not buff them as long as the one nonmirror matchup in which they are being used, isn't balanced/Protoss favored. Also the pure fact that Zerg has larva production gives every zerg the chance to always use hydralisks in appropriate numbers if they really want to/need to. BCs as they are now suck as well, but as long as Terran winrates are over 50% in all nonmirror matchups and BCs have a role (in the mirror matchup), they should not buff it. Especially not in ways that emphasize on the one thing which they are already good at: direct combat.
|
On February 14 2012 22:34 Afterstar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 13 2012 00:34 TheDwf wrote:High Master Terran on Europe here, sometimes playing GMs. Since I'm usually only a spectator for the PvZ match-up, I will not talk about the Phoenix change. MULEs now harvest the same amount of minerals on both high yield minerals and normal minerals.This change is somewhat ok, though gold and MULE-haters should remember that Terran players gain little “more” by taking their fourth and fifth bases, unlike Zergs and Protosses who have then access to their precious 8/10 gases to build gas-heavy powerful units en masse. Since Terran do not benefit as much as the other races from 8/10 gases compared to 6 gases, is it that imbalanced that they're rewarded with a temporary income boost in the ressource that matters the most for them, i.e. minerals? People should remember that faster mining also means the base will be mined out earlier than normal, which means Terrans will have to (over)extend again to maintain the same income, something which is not easy to do on some maps. Now, talking about maps—I think this is the main issue with gold bases. Take Antiga for instance; gold bases were removed in recent tournament versions: did it change anything to the fact that, in ZvT, once the Terran player controls the center, the Zerg player is in deep trouble anyway? Snipe damage changed from 45 to 25 +25 PsionicThis is a terrible and very poorly thought change. As long as neither flying Banelings (read: Ravens) nor BattleCruisers are really viable, Terrans will still need some kind of “universal unit” against Zerg tier3. Reasons are known—thanks to the way their race works, Zergs are able to remax on Ultralisks after they've traded their Broodlords, and vice versa. Since Vikings don't do well against Ultralisks, nor Marauders are particularly hot against Broodlords, and with Terran having the slowest production in the game, the Zerg possibility to tech switch in a little more than a minut (55 sec for Ultralisks, 74 for Broodlords) without the Terran being able to know which unit the Zerg chose until he sees eggs spawning (this is of the utmost importance, because it means Terran is forced to wait at least 40 sec before starting his “counter units”) means that Terrans have to be able to rely on units that are good against one option, and at least “ok” against the other option—not to mention that at this point, Zergs should have banked enough larvae to be able to quickly build a Zergling swarm. Thors are somewhat ok against both Broodlords and Ultralisks, but their anti-air low rate of fire simply prevents them from killing Broodlords efficiently, especially with Queens being able to negate many shots in a single Transfuse. Besides, Thors are slow to replenish, and they cost 6 supply whereas Broodlords cost only 4. Macro OCs allow the Terran player to have a bigger army, but since Broodlords are air units while Thors are clumsy and bulky ground units, the more Thors you have the worst they will perform against high Broodlords count (and, once again, let us not forget the Broodlings swarm that comes with Broodlords, which at some point may simply prevent some Thors to reach Broodlords). So, we have the tech switch issue, but we also have the “mass Broodlords with Infests” issue. Unlike Ultralisks, which are melee ground units and cost 6 supply anyway, Broodlords do not become weaker the more you have of them; actually, thanks to the Broodlings mechanic, it's quite the contrary. Terrans need a realistic answer to mass Broodlords/Infestors (of course with Corruptor support if needed) armies that inevitably come with late late game. So Terran bro, wut u got? Marines?By lategame, though Marines are still useful, they cannot be played en masse the same way they are played by midgame since Infestors' Fungal Growths literally stop them dead. Marines would do fine against Broodlords on their own, but unfortunately Infestor support prevents them from ever reaching Broodlords, not to mention the Broodlings swarm that immediately spawns to surround them should they attempt to close the distance with Broodlords. Thors?Talked about them above. Vikings?Possible tech switch problem aside, in the end Vikings are simply not enough against Corruptors/Infestors. Even with the best splitting in the world (humanly speaking, I mean), Vikings inevitably tend to clump up when attacking, which means Fungal Growths will catch at least some of them, and then they will be food for Corruptors / Infested Terrans / more Fungals. Basically, Fungal Growth prevents Vikings to use their strength which is their long range; because speaking of values, it is not hard to see that the Corruptor does better in the toughness department (200 hps vs 125, 2 native armor vs 0). Flying Banelings—I mean, Ravens?So, the Raven—this “amazing unit of the future” which, strangely enough, is seldom seen outside of mirrors. For those who read those forums, you will always see that Raven guy who comes and teaches Terrans that “they bank 3k gas by lategame anyway,” so why not use that amazing HSM thing which will blow up your opponent's army (read: provided he's stupid enough not to micro his units[/strike)? Though you sometimes see Ravens in lategame TvZ play (don't know if Beastyqt still plays them sometimes, but this was one of the few players I saw using them; TLO was using them too), there are obvious and blatant issues which make it very hard to use them on a consistent basis. TimeRemember the part above about Terrans having the slowest production? Typically, when playing Marine/Tanks/Medivacs in midgame, Terrans will enter lategame with one Reactor Starport—maybe with 2 Starports if you have spared resources and scout the Broodlords transition. It means that to build your Raven fleet, you will have to build several Starports with Lab attached, all while holding your line (because the Zerg player will try to break your line with his Broodlords), then research HSM and Corvid Reactor, then build Ravens, then wait 90 sec for them to have enough energy to launch a single HSM. Now compare to Ghosts: they only require a Ghost Academy (40 sec) and Tech Labs on Barracks you already have, and depending on whether or not you have Moebius Reactor they come with 2 or 3 Snipes ready ( i. e. they can be useful as soon as they spawn, not at T+90s). What this means is that you can't really transition right away into Ravens off a standard Marines/Tank/Medivac midgame (even a mech midgame will seldom have more than 2 Starports, but they may have a Lab, so it could be a little bit easier for mech players); as costly and time-consuming as they are, in a standard game they're only viable in split map scenarii (or maybe past 4 bases for mech players who planned for a Raven transition). But then you run into the next issue: HSM rangeHSM range = 6 Fungal Growth range = 9 This simple fact makes it very difficult to use Ravens more than once, and this is why you see some people call them “flying Banelings”. Each time one of your Ravens moves forward to launch a HSM, he is at risk, because he enters the Zerg anti-air zone which is 9 range around the Infestors position. And 200 gas for possibly a single Missile which is not even guaranteed to hit a clump of units (remember: against HSM, Zerg players can still micro/spread their units) is simply too much. So, aside from the infrastructure/time problem, the main, critical issue with Ravens is that they simply lose the caster war. Both Infestors and High Templars are able to outrange Ravens with deadly spells which kills them in some way. And this is a very serious problem, because on every map resources are limited: at some point, you must trade cost-efficiently or you will simply end up losing the split map scenario. BattleCruisers?Corruptors + Fungal Growth (and even Neural Parasite). Enough said. Yes, I did see this very nice Polt vs [don't remember the Zerg, maybe an IM player] ladder game @ Shattered Temple, but he could probably have won with mass SCVs, and anyway Ghosts would have netted him the kill earlier and more efficiently. So… Ghosts.First, we need to dismiss the idea that Ghosts are an auto-win button against lategame Zerg. This is simply false. As proven in the Fin/fOrGG vs Leenock game @ Daybreak in GSL Code S Ro32, you have to carefully manage your Ghost squad, else one bad Fungal Growth goes through and you're in deep trouble. Ghosts have 100 hit points, so they're frail units for their high cost—which is fine given their potential, but I'm merely reminding you that Ghosts are neither immortal nor invincible. They take a lot of micro to use, and the more Broodlords there is, the harder it becomes to manage your Ghost squad. I'm also tired to hear that “Ghosts hard-counter tier3 Zerg”. This is not true. Immortals hard-counter Siege Tanks. The truth is Ghosts are a soft-counter: “Enough Ghosts with enough energy and careful micro are able to deal efficiently with Zerg tier3.” Which is very different from the usual “trololol Ghost auto-win button eznb” that you sometimes read on Live Report threads. As a Terran player, I say to Zerg players who are not convinced by this to play Terran against their own race (offracing against your own race really is a good experience anyway). You will quickly notice how fast your Ghosts fall each time you mismicro them. You will see that it takes a lot of resources and time to bank enough energy to be able to snipe a lot of Broodlords (or Ultralisks) and EMP Infestors. I mean, each time I enter lategame against Zerg, my purpose is to get this Ghost squad, but I can tell you it simply looks much easier when Mvp does it. Watching GSL, you may say “lol Ghost ez,” but then you can try it, even in a Unit test map, and you will see how hard it is to pull off, and how hard you will actually fail in a real game, desperately trying to micro your Ghost in a Broodlings sea while Broodlords relentlessly rain down death on your position. Are Ghosts too efficient against Ultralisks? The thing is, a lot of Zerg players (including progamers) simply have a terrible Ultralisks use, making either too much of them ( i. e. not enough support) or sending them to death in heavily fortified positions and then complaining about them being “horrible” or something. Like Broodlords, Ultralisks need support (Banelings and/or Infestors, and most importantly Zerglings) to do their job—but anyway, in the end, you likely won't win a split map scenario (and I'm talking about real split map, not 4/5 bases vs 3/4) against Terran with only Ultralisks, simply because, well, all melee units can be defended quite easily using chokes and mass ranged units behind defences; whether death comes from Snipes or something else is irrelevant at this point, I think you simply have to transition to Broodlords in a split map scenario, just as Protosses simply cannot afford to keep running on pure Blink Stalkers + Colossi against a mass Broodlords/Infestors/Spines split map scenario. I know, Ultralisks are tier3 while Blink Stalkers are not; still, regardless of tiers, there simply is some point beyond which some compositions are no more playable in some scenarii. For Ultralisks, the reason is quite self-explanatory: ranged units (especially air ones) get exponentially better while ground melee units do not (partly due to collision size issues). So basically, when looking at Ghosts vs Ultralisks skirmishes, you have to wonder if using Ultralisks was the right thing to do given the state of the game, i. e. if the Terran had enough time to bank full energy on 20+ Ghosts, it was probably not a good choice anyway to head this way. Ultralisks' effectiveness simply starts decreasing beyond some point. While they're viable at the beginning of the late game, I'm not convinced about their uses in split map scenarii in which both players are allowed to bank mass resources. Killing Infestors with 2 Snipes, down to 3, is basically irrelevant since Infestors will safely stand behind Broodlords if you can no longer kill them as fast and efficiently as now. I mean, even with the current Snipe, facing 15+ Broodlords with Infestor (and Overseers!) support is still a challenge even for the best players in the world—so how are Terrans supposed to deal with this if this silly change goes through? As stated above, even tech switch problems aside, Vikings, Thors and Ravens all have obvious problems. Sniping is a bit like a race against the clock anyway, since the longer your Ghosts take to kill Broodlords, the more Broodlords, Broodlings and your own Siege Tanks hurt them, so going up to 10 hits from 6 is simply stupid. Once again, even with the current Snipe, a lot of Terrans have difficulties in late game, because as stated above managing your Ghost squad is not easy at all—even pros fail it sometimes, so how are people with only two arms supposed to deal with this? And for people who will answer “don't let this happen,” do you realize how stupid it would be if one race had close to no chance by late game against some armies? All races should have fair chances to win by lategame, even against “the ultimate army”. This Snipe change simply means that Zergs will now be able to turtle into 20+ Broodlords with Corruptors/Infestors support, and then laugh at you because you won't have any efficient tool to deal with this. Very nice and reasonable post. Zerg has other units that can overwhelm a heavy ghost army such as a swarm of zerglings/banelings/roaches to counter the terran,instead of blindly going T3. It's also easier for zerg to scout what terran is preparing mid-late game than it is for terran with the fast switches zerg can do. Anyway I just wanted to add that in order to nerf snipe then Infestors need to change as well. If we want ghost to only be an anti-caster unit instead of acting as our T3 Terran equivalent in TvZ,then something else has to change to fill the missing piece.Infestors synergise extremely well with Ultralisks and Broodlords, allowing zerg to counter their counters(Maurauders and Vikings),while also providing an excellent tool against both mech and bio with all three of their spells.Not to mention harrassment and base killing with infested terrans. They are a very versatile,multipurpose unit, which is why we see zergs mass this unit mid to late game against Terrans.Why shouldn't ghosts be versatile too if it's the only option terran has available late game? Fungal growth should change from an immobilise spell to a slow spell OR to a spell that can only target ground units. For the first option,change fungal growth to a 75% movement speed reduction ,allowing units a chance to spread. This will help with vikings or maurauders not dying instantly the moment one Fungal growth hits them. It will allow terrans to have a fair battle with vikings against broodlords/corruptors and maurauders against ultralisks,without hindering micro play.With one problem solved, ghosts are no longer required to be so good against T3 zerg units. Alternatively they can just make Terran late game units better data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" .
well, that's the aim of a nerf isn't it. Making things weaker. I do very well agree that the nerf is too much, but saying you want something else buffed so that things stay the same means that nothing will change, which means that you wouldn't need to nerf/buff in the first place.
Also ghosts are amazing vs roaches.
|
On February 14 2012 22:51 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 22:34 Afterstar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 13 2012 00:34 TheDwf wrote:High Master Terran on Europe here, sometimes playing GMs. Since I'm usually only a spectator for the PvZ match-up, I will not talk about the Phoenix change. MULEs now harvest the same amount of minerals on both high yield minerals and normal minerals.This change is somewhat ok, though gold and MULE-haters should remember that Terran players gain little “more” by taking their fourth and fifth bases, unlike Zergs and Protosses who have then access to their precious 8/10 gases to build gas-heavy powerful units en masse. Since Terran do not benefit as much as the other races from 8/10 gases compared to 6 gases, is it that imbalanced that they're rewarded with a temporary income boost in the ressource that matters the most for them, i.e. minerals? People should remember that faster mining also means the base will be mined out earlier than normal, which means Terrans will have to (over)extend again to maintain the same income, something which is not easy to do on some maps. Now, talking about maps—I think this is the main issue with gold bases. Take Antiga for instance; gold bases were removed in recent tournament versions: did it change anything to the fact that, in ZvT, once the Terran player controls the center, the Zerg player is in deep trouble anyway? Snipe damage changed from 45 to 25 +25 PsionicThis is a terrible and very poorly thought change. As long as neither flying Banelings (read: Ravens) nor BattleCruisers are really viable, Terrans will still need some kind of “universal unit” against Zerg tier3. Reasons are known—thanks to the way their race works, Zergs are able to remax on Ultralisks after they've traded their Broodlords, and vice versa. Since Vikings don't do well against Ultralisks, nor Marauders are particularly hot against Broodlords, and with Terran having the slowest production in the game, the Zerg possibility to tech switch in a little more than a minut (55 sec for Ultralisks, 74 for Broodlords) without the Terran being able to know which unit the Zerg chose until he sees eggs spawning (this is of the utmost importance, because it means Terran is forced to wait at least 40 sec before starting his “counter units”) means that Terrans have to be able to rely on units that are good against one option, and at least “ok” against the other option—not to mention that at this point, Zergs should have banked enough larvae to be able to quickly build a Zergling swarm. Thors are somewhat ok against both Broodlords and Ultralisks, but their anti-air low rate of fire simply prevents them from killing Broodlords efficiently, especially with Queens being able to negate many shots in a single Transfuse. Besides, Thors are slow to replenish, and they cost 6 supply whereas Broodlords cost only 4. Macro OCs allow the Terran player to have a bigger army, but since Broodlords are air units while Thors are clumsy and bulky ground units, the more Thors you have the worst they will perform against high Broodlords count (and, once again, let us not forget the Broodlings swarm that comes with Broodlords, which at some point may simply prevent some Thors to reach Broodlords). So, we have the tech switch issue, but we also have the “mass Broodlords with Infests” issue. Unlike Ultralisks, which are melee ground units and cost 6 supply anyway, Broodlords do not become weaker the more you have of them; actually, thanks to the Broodlings mechanic, it's quite the contrary. Terrans need a realistic answer to mass Broodlords/Infestors (of course with Corruptor support if needed) armies that inevitably come with late late game. So Terran bro, wut u got? Marines?By lategame, though Marines are still useful, they cannot be played en masse the same way they are played by midgame since Infestors' Fungal Growths literally stop them dead. Marines would do fine against Broodlords on their own, but unfortunately Infestor support prevents them from ever reaching Broodlords, not to mention the Broodlings swarm that immediately spawns to surround them should they attempt to close the distance with Broodlords. Thors?Talked about them above. Vikings?Possible tech switch problem aside, in the end Vikings are simply not enough against Corruptors/Infestors. Even with the best splitting in the world (humanly speaking, I mean), Vikings inevitably tend to clump up when attacking, which means Fungal Growths will catch at least some of them, and then they will be food for Corruptors / Infested Terrans / more Fungals. Basically, Fungal Growth prevents Vikings to use their strength which is their long range; because speaking of values, it is not hard to see that the Corruptor does better in the toughness department (200 hps vs 125, 2 native armor vs 0). Flying Banelings—I mean, Ravens?So, the Raven—this “amazing unit of the future” which, strangely enough, is seldom seen outside of mirrors. For those who read those forums, you will always see that Raven guy who comes and teaches Terrans that “they bank 3k gas by lategame anyway,” so why not use that amazing HSM thing which will blow up your opponent's army (read: provided he's stupid enough not to micro his units[/strike)? Though you sometimes see Ravens in lategame TvZ play (don't know if Beastyqt still plays them sometimes, but this was one of the few players I saw using them; TLO was using them too), there are obvious and blatant issues which make it very hard to use them on a consistent basis. TimeRemember the part above about Terrans having the slowest production? Typically, when playing Marine/Tanks/Medivacs in midgame, Terrans will enter lategame with one Reactor Starport—maybe with 2 Starports if you have spared resources and scout the Broodlords transition. It means that to build your Raven fleet, you will have to build several Starports with Lab attached, all while holding your line (because the Zerg player will try to break your line with his Broodlords), then research HSM and Corvid Reactor, then build Ravens, then wait 90 sec for them to have enough energy to launch a single HSM. Now compare to Ghosts: they only require a Ghost Academy (40 sec) and Tech Labs on Barracks you already have, and depending on whether or not you have Moebius Reactor they come with 2 or 3 Snipes ready ( i. e. they can be useful as soon as they spawn, not at T+90s). What this means is that you can't really transition right away into Ravens off a standard Marines/Tank/Medivac midgame (even a mech midgame will seldom have more than 2 Starports, but they may have a Lab, so it could be a little bit easier for mech players); as costly and time-consuming as they are, in a standard game they're only viable in split map scenarii (or maybe past 4 bases for mech players who planned for a Raven transition). But then you run into the next issue: HSM rangeHSM range = 6 Fungal Growth range = 9 This simple fact makes it very difficult to use Ravens more than once, and this is why you see some people call them “flying Banelings”. Each time one of your Ravens moves forward to launch a HSM, he is at risk, because he enters the Zerg anti-air zone which is 9 range around the Infestors position. And 200 gas for possibly a single Missile which is not even guaranteed to hit a clump of units (remember: against HSM, Zerg players can still micro/spread their units) is simply too much. So, aside from the infrastructure/time problem, the main, critical issue with Ravens is that they simply lose the caster war. Both Infestors and High Templars are able to outrange Ravens with deadly spells which kills them in some way. And this is a very serious problem, because on every map resources are limited: at some point, you must trade cost-efficiently or you will simply end up losing the split map scenario. BattleCruisers?Corruptors + Fungal Growth (and even Neural Parasite). Enough said. Yes, I did see this very nice Polt vs [don't remember the Zerg, maybe an IM player] ladder game @ Shattered Temple, but he could probably have won with mass SCVs, and anyway Ghosts would have netted him the kill earlier and more efficiently. So… Ghosts.First, we need to dismiss the idea that Ghosts are an auto-win button against lategame Zerg. This is simply false. As proven in the Fin/fOrGG vs Leenock game @ Daybreak in GSL Code S Ro32, you have to carefully manage your Ghost squad, else one bad Fungal Growth goes through and you're in deep trouble. Ghosts have 100 hit points, so they're frail units for their high cost—which is fine given their potential, but I'm merely reminding you that Ghosts are neither immortal nor invincible. They take a lot of micro to use, and the more Broodlords there is, the harder it becomes to manage your Ghost squad. I'm also tired to hear that “Ghosts hard-counter tier3 Zerg”. This is not true. Immortals hard-counter Siege Tanks. The truth is Ghosts are a soft-counter: “Enough Ghosts with enough energy and careful micro are able to deal efficiently with Zerg tier3.” Which is very different from the usual “trololol Ghost auto-win button eznb” that you sometimes read on Live Report threads. As a Terran player, I say to Zerg players who are not convinced by this to play Terran against their own race (offracing against your own race really is a good experience anyway). You will quickly notice how fast your Ghosts fall each time you mismicro them. You will see that it takes a lot of resources and time to bank enough energy to be able to snipe a lot of Broodlords (or Ultralisks) and EMP Infestors. I mean, each time I enter lategame against Zerg, my purpose is to get this Ghost squad, but I can tell you it simply looks much easier when Mvp does it. Watching GSL, you may say “lol Ghost ez,” but then you can try it, even in a Unit test map, and you will see how hard it is to pull off, and how hard you will actually fail in a real game, desperately trying to micro your Ghost in a Broodlings sea while Broodlords relentlessly rain down death on your position. Are Ghosts too efficient against Ultralisks? The thing is, a lot of Zerg players (including progamers) simply have a terrible Ultralisks use, making either too much of them ( i. e. not enough support) or sending them to death in heavily fortified positions and then complaining about them being “horrible” or something. Like Broodlords, Ultralisks need support (Banelings and/or Infestors, and most importantly Zerglings) to do their job—but anyway, in the end, you likely won't win a split map scenario (and I'm talking about real split map, not 4/5 bases vs 3/4) against Terran with only Ultralisks, simply because, well, all melee units can be defended quite easily using chokes and mass ranged units behind defences; whether death comes from Snipes or something else is irrelevant at this point, I think you simply have to transition to Broodlords in a split map scenario, just as Protosses simply cannot afford to keep running on pure Blink Stalkers + Colossi against a mass Broodlords/Infestors/Spines split map scenario. I know, Ultralisks are tier3 while Blink Stalkers are not; still, regardless of tiers, there simply is some point beyond which some compositions are no more playable in some scenarii. For Ultralisks, the reason is quite self-explanatory: ranged units (especially air ones) get exponentially better while ground melee units do not (partly due to collision size issues). So basically, when looking at Ghosts vs Ultralisks skirmishes, you have to wonder if using Ultralisks was the right thing to do given the state of the game, i. e. if the Terran had enough time to bank full energy on 20+ Ghosts, it was probably not a good choice anyway to head this way. Ultralisks' effectiveness simply starts decreasing beyond some point. While they're viable at the beginning of the late game, I'm not convinced about their uses in split map scenarii in which both players are allowed to bank mass resources. Killing Infestors with 2 Snipes, down to 3, is basically irrelevant since Infestors will safely stand behind Broodlords if you can no longer kill them as fast and efficiently as now. I mean, even with the current Snipe, facing 15+ Broodlords with Infestor (and Overseers!) support is still a challenge even for the best players in the world—so how are Terrans supposed to deal with this if this silly change goes through? As stated above, even tech switch problems aside, Vikings, Thors and Ravens all have obvious problems. Sniping is a bit like a race against the clock anyway, since the longer your Ghosts take to kill Broodlords, the more Broodlords, Broodlings and your own Siege Tanks hurt them, so going up to 10 hits from 6 is simply stupid. Once again, even with the current Snipe, a lot of Terrans have difficulties in late game, because as stated above managing your Ghost squad is not easy at all—even pros fail it sometimes, so how are people with only two arms supposed to deal with this? And for people who will answer “don't let this happen,” do you realize how stupid it would be if one race had close to no chance by late game against some armies? All races should have fair chances to win by lategame, even against “the ultimate army”. This Snipe change simply means that Zergs will now be able to turtle into 20+ Broodlords with Corruptors/Infestors support, and then laugh at you because you won't have any efficient tool to deal with this. Very nice and reasonable post. Zerg has other units that can overwhelm a heavy ghost army such as a swarm of zerglings/banelings/roaches to counter the terran,instead of blindly going T3. It's also easier for zerg to scout what terran is preparing mid-late game than it is for terran with the fast switches zerg can do. Anyway I just wanted to add that in order to nerf snipe then Infestors need to change as well. If we want ghost to only be an anti-caster unit instead of acting as our T3 Terran equivalent in TvZ,then something else has to change to fill the missing piece.Infestors synergise extremely well with Ultralisks and Broodlords, allowing zerg to counter their counters(Maurauders and Vikings),while also providing an excellent tool against both mech and bio with all three of their spells.Not to mention harrassment and base killing with infested terrans. They are a very versatile,multipurpose unit, which is why we see zergs mass this unit mid to late game against Terrans.Why shouldn't ghosts be versatile too if it's the only option terran has available late game? Fungal growth should change from an immobilise spell to a slow spell OR to a spell that can only target ground units. For the first option,change fungal growth to a 75% movement speed reduction ,allowing units a chance to spread. This will help with vikings or maurauders not dying instantly the moment one Fungal growth hits them. It will allow terrans to have a fair battle with vikings against broodlords/corruptors and maurauders against ultralisks,without hindering micro play.With one problem solved, ghosts are no longer required to be so good against T3 zerg units. Alternatively they can just make Terran late game units better data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" . well, that's the aim of a nerf isn't it. Making things weaker. I do very well agree that the nerf is too much, but saying you want something else buffed so that things stay the same means that nothing will change, which means that you wouldn't need to nerf/buff in the first place. Also ghosts are amazing vs roaches. Read the post he quoted. And no, ghosts are not amazing vs. roaches.
|
On February 14 2012 22:51 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 22:34 Afterstar wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 13 2012 00:34 TheDwf wrote:High Master Terran on Europe here, sometimes playing GMs. Since I'm usually only a spectator for the PvZ match-up, I will not talk about the Phoenix change. MULEs now harvest the same amount of minerals on both high yield minerals and normal minerals.This change is somewhat ok, though gold and MULE-haters should remember that Terran players gain little “more” by taking their fourth and fifth bases, unlike Zergs and Protosses who have then access to their precious 8/10 gases to build gas-heavy powerful units en masse. Since Terran do not benefit as much as the other races from 8/10 gases compared to 6 gases, is it that imbalanced that they're rewarded with a temporary income boost in the ressource that matters the most for them, i.e. minerals? People should remember that faster mining also means the base will be mined out earlier than normal, which means Terrans will have to (over)extend again to maintain the same income, something which is not easy to do on some maps. Now, talking about maps—I think this is the main issue with gold bases. Take Antiga for instance; gold bases were removed in recent tournament versions: did it change anything to the fact that, in ZvT, once the Terran player controls the center, the Zerg player is in deep trouble anyway? Snipe damage changed from 45 to 25 +25 PsionicThis is a terrible and very poorly thought change. As long as neither flying Banelings (read: Ravens) nor BattleCruisers are really viable, Terrans will still need some kind of “universal unit” against Zerg tier3. Reasons are known—thanks to the way their race works, Zergs are able to remax on Ultralisks after they've traded their Broodlords, and vice versa. Since Vikings don't do well against Ultralisks, nor Marauders are particularly hot against Broodlords, and with Terran having the slowest production in the game, the Zerg possibility to tech switch in a little more than a minut (55 sec for Ultralisks, 74 for Broodlords) without the Terran being able to know which unit the Zerg chose until he sees eggs spawning (this is of the utmost importance, because it means Terran is forced to wait at least 40 sec before starting his “counter units”) means that Terrans have to be able to rely on units that are good against one option, and at least “ok” against the other option—not to mention that at this point, Zergs should have banked enough larvae to be able to quickly build a Zergling swarm. Thors are somewhat ok against both Broodlords and Ultralisks, but their anti-air low rate of fire simply prevents them from killing Broodlords efficiently, especially with Queens being able to negate many shots in a single Transfuse. Besides, Thors are slow to replenish, and they cost 6 supply whereas Broodlords cost only 4. Macro OCs allow the Terran player to have a bigger army, but since Broodlords are air units while Thors are clumsy and bulky ground units, the more Thors you have the worst they will perform against high Broodlords count (and, once again, let us not forget the Broodlings swarm that comes with Broodlords, which at some point may simply prevent some Thors to reach Broodlords). So, we have the tech switch issue, but we also have the “mass Broodlords with Infests” issue. Unlike Ultralisks, which are melee ground units and cost 6 supply anyway, Broodlords do not become weaker the more you have of them; actually, thanks to the Broodlings mechanic, it's quite the contrary. Terrans need a realistic answer to mass Broodlords/Infestors (of course with Corruptor support if needed) armies that inevitably come with late late game. So Terran bro, wut u got? Marines?By lategame, though Marines are still useful, they cannot be played en masse the same way they are played by midgame since Infestors' Fungal Growths literally stop them dead. Marines would do fine against Broodlords on their own, but unfortunately Infestor support prevents them from ever reaching Broodlords, not to mention the Broodlings swarm that immediately spawns to surround them should they attempt to close the distance with Broodlords. Thors?Talked about them above. Vikings?Possible tech switch problem aside, in the end Vikings are simply not enough against Corruptors/Infestors. Even with the best splitting in the world (humanly speaking, I mean), Vikings inevitably tend to clump up when attacking, which means Fungal Growths will catch at least some of them, and then they will be food for Corruptors / Infested Terrans / more Fungals. Basically, Fungal Growth prevents Vikings to use their strength which is their long range; because speaking of values, it is not hard to see that the Corruptor does better in the toughness department (200 hps vs 125, 2 native armor vs 0). Flying Banelings—I mean, Ravens?So, the Raven—this “amazing unit of the future” which, strangely enough, is seldom seen outside of mirrors. For those who read those forums, you will always see that Raven guy who comes and teaches Terrans that “they bank 3k gas by lategame anyway,” so why not use that amazing HSM thing which will blow up your opponent's army (read: provided he's stupid enough not to micro his units[/strike)? Though you sometimes see Ravens in lategame TvZ play (don't know if Beastyqt still plays them sometimes, but this was one of the few players I saw using them; TLO was using them too), there are obvious and blatant issues which make it very hard to use them on a consistent basis. TimeRemember the part above about Terrans having the slowest production? Typically, when playing Marine/Tanks/Medivacs in midgame, Terrans will enter lategame with one Reactor Starport—maybe with 2 Starports if you have spared resources and scout the Broodlords transition. It means that to build your Raven fleet, you will have to build several Starports with Lab attached, all while holding your line (because the Zerg player will try to break your line with his Broodlords), then research HSM and Corvid Reactor, then build Ravens, then wait 90 sec for them to have enough energy to launch a single HSM. Now compare to Ghosts: they only require a Ghost Academy (40 sec) and Tech Labs on Barracks you already have, and depending on whether or not you have Moebius Reactor they come with 2 or 3 Snipes ready ( i. e. they can be useful as soon as they spawn, not at T+90s). What this means is that you can't really transition right away into Ravens off a standard Marines/Tank/Medivac midgame (even a mech midgame will seldom have more than 2 Starports, but they may have a Lab, so it could be a little bit easier for mech players); as costly and time-consuming as they are, in a standard game they're only viable in split map scenarii (or maybe past 4 bases for mech players who planned for a Raven transition). But then you run into the next issue: HSM rangeHSM range = 6 Fungal Growth range = 9 This simple fact makes it very difficult to use Ravens more than once, and this is why you see some people call them “flying Banelings”. Each time one of your Ravens moves forward to launch a HSM, he is at risk, because he enters the Zerg anti-air zone which is 9 range around the Infestors position. And 200 gas for possibly a single Missile which is not even guaranteed to hit a clump of units (remember: against HSM, Zerg players can still micro/spread their units) is simply too much. So, aside from the infrastructure/time problem, the main, critical issue with Ravens is that they simply lose the caster war. Both Infestors and High Templars are able to outrange Ravens with deadly spells which kills them in some way. And this is a very serious problem, because on every map resources are limited: at some point, you must trade cost-efficiently or you will simply end up losing the split map scenario. BattleCruisers?Corruptors + Fungal Growth (and even Neural Parasite). Enough said. Yes, I did see this very nice Polt vs [don't remember the Zerg, maybe an IM player] ladder game @ Shattered Temple, but he could probably have won with mass SCVs, and anyway Ghosts would have netted him the kill earlier and more efficiently. So… Ghosts.First, we need to dismiss the idea that Ghosts are an auto-win button against lategame Zerg. This is simply false. As proven in the Fin/fOrGG vs Leenock game @ Daybreak in GSL Code S Ro32, you have to carefully manage your Ghost squad, else one bad Fungal Growth goes through and you're in deep trouble. Ghosts have 100 hit points, so they're frail units for their high cost—which is fine given their potential, but I'm merely reminding you that Ghosts are neither immortal nor invincible. They take a lot of micro to use, and the more Broodlords there is, the harder it becomes to manage your Ghost squad. I'm also tired to hear that “Ghosts hard-counter tier3 Zerg”. This is not true. Immortals hard-counter Siege Tanks. The truth is Ghosts are a soft-counter: “Enough Ghosts with enough energy and careful micro are able to deal efficiently with Zerg tier3.” Which is very different from the usual “trololol Ghost auto-win button eznb” that you sometimes read on Live Report threads. As a Terran player, I say to Zerg players who are not convinced by this to play Terran against their own race (offracing against your own race really is a good experience anyway). You will quickly notice how fast your Ghosts fall each time you mismicro them. You will see that it takes a lot of resources and time to bank enough energy to be able to snipe a lot of Broodlords (or Ultralisks) and EMP Infestors. I mean, each time I enter lategame against Zerg, my purpose is to get this Ghost squad, but I can tell you it simply looks much easier when Mvp does it. Watching GSL, you may say “lol Ghost ez,” but then you can try it, even in a Unit test map, and you will see how hard it is to pull off, and how hard you will actually fail in a real game, desperately trying to micro your Ghost in a Broodlings sea while Broodlords relentlessly rain down death on your position. Are Ghosts too efficient against Ultralisks? The thing is, a lot of Zerg players (including progamers) simply have a terrible Ultralisks use, making either too much of them ( i. e. not enough support) or sending them to death in heavily fortified positions and then complaining about them being “horrible” or something. Like Broodlords, Ultralisks need support (Banelings and/or Infestors, and most importantly Zerglings) to do their job—but anyway, in the end, you likely won't win a split map scenario (and I'm talking about real split map, not 4/5 bases vs 3/4) against Terran with only Ultralisks, simply because, well, all melee units can be defended quite easily using chokes and mass ranged units behind defences; whether death comes from Snipes or something else is irrelevant at this point, I think you simply have to transition to Broodlords in a split map scenario, just as Protosses simply cannot afford to keep running on pure Blink Stalkers + Colossi against a mass Broodlords/Infestors/Spines split map scenario. I know, Ultralisks are tier3 while Blink Stalkers are not; still, regardless of tiers, there simply is some point beyond which some compositions are no more playable in some scenarii. For Ultralisks, the reason is quite self-explanatory: ranged units (especially air ones) get exponentially better while ground melee units do not (partly due to collision size issues). So basically, when looking at Ghosts vs Ultralisks skirmishes, you have to wonder if using Ultralisks was the right thing to do given the state of the game, i. e. if the Terran had enough time to bank full energy on 20+ Ghosts, it was probably not a good choice anyway to head this way. Ultralisks' effectiveness simply starts decreasing beyond some point. While they're viable at the beginning of the late game, I'm not convinced about their uses in split map scenarii in which both players are allowed to bank mass resources. Killing Infestors with 2 Snipes, down to 3, is basically irrelevant since Infestors will safely stand behind Broodlords if you can no longer kill them as fast and efficiently as now. I mean, even with the current Snipe, facing 15+ Broodlords with Infestor (and Overseers!) support is still a challenge even for the best players in the world—so how are Terrans supposed to deal with this if this silly change goes through? As stated above, even tech switch problems aside, Vikings, Thors and Ravens all have obvious problems. Sniping is a bit like a race against the clock anyway, since the longer your Ghosts take to kill Broodlords, the more Broodlords, Broodlings and your own Siege Tanks hurt them, so going up to 10 hits from 6 is simply stupid. Once again, even with the current Snipe, a lot of Terrans have difficulties in late game, because as stated above managing your Ghost squad is not easy at all—even pros fail it sometimes, so how are people with only two arms supposed to deal with this? And for people who will answer “don't let this happen,” do you realize how stupid it would be if one race had close to no chance by late game against some armies? All races should have fair chances to win by lategame, even against “the ultimate army”. This Snipe change simply means that Zergs will now be able to turtle into 20+ Broodlords with Corruptors/Infestors support, and then laugh at you because you won't have any efficient tool to deal with this. Very nice and reasonable post. Zerg has other units that can overwhelm a heavy ghost army such as a swarm of zerglings/banelings/roaches to counter the terran,instead of blindly going T3. It's also easier for zerg to scout what terran is preparing mid-late game than it is for terran with the fast switches zerg can do. Anyway I just wanted to add that in order to nerf snipe then Infestors need to change as well. If we want ghost to only be an anti-caster unit instead of acting as our T3 Terran equivalent in TvZ,then something else has to change to fill the missing piece.Infestors synergise extremely well with Ultralisks and Broodlords, allowing zerg to counter their counters(Maurauders and Vikings),while also providing an excellent tool against both mech and bio with all three of their spells.Not to mention harrassment and base killing with infested terrans. They are a very versatile,multipurpose unit, which is why we see zergs mass this unit mid to late game against Terrans.Why shouldn't ghosts be versatile too if it's the only option terran has available late game? Fungal growth should change from an immobilise spell to a slow spell OR to a spell that can only target ground units. For the first option,change fungal growth to a 75% movement speed reduction ,allowing units a chance to spread. This will help with vikings or maurauders not dying instantly the moment one Fungal growth hits them. It will allow terrans to have a fair battle with vikings against broodlords/corruptors and maurauders against ultralisks,without hindering micro play.With one problem solved, ghosts are no longer required to be so good against T3 zerg units. Alternatively they can just make Terran late game units better data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44632/446320620b2797481b98f0248bf47d03f83e2600" alt="" . well, that's the aim of a nerf isn't it. Making things weaker. I do very well agree that the nerf is too much, but saying you want something else buffed so that things stay the same means that nothing will change, which means that you wouldn't need to nerf/buff in the first place. Also ghosts are amazing vs roaches.
ghosts are amazing vs roaches? eh?? i don't sense any sarcasm... expending your entire energy pool to kill a single 75/25 roach is the opposite of 'amazing'.
|
It is really funny, that we are now seriously discussion if the BC is a good unit or not..... but let me explain WHY the battlecruiser is a really bad unit: TvP: Feedback is the first thing that comes into mind, when you are looking at the problems the battlecruiser may have in this matchup, but there is another way bigger issue:.... Blink Stalker! Yes I'm serious, the blink stalker is the real problem of the battlecruiser. Why? The Battlecruiser has the same problem against blink stalkers as do hydralisks have. Both are slow mid range units with high dps, which they gain mainly due to high attack speed! And blink stalkers force them to move during the engagement. Everytime you blink back with a stalker, some BC are out of range and need to move. And with their slow speed this costs a lot of time, and this is a lot of dmg. Roaches are quite an opposite, they don't lose much dmg when they have to move during a battle, cause they are at a slow attackspeed (2seconds) and so they'll move during their downtime in most cases. But Units like the BC have no real downtime, and so they lose a hell of damage during those forced movents against the blink stalkers. This is getting less impactful if we go to large numbers, because then the BCs benefit from their stacking. But high numbers of BC in TvP might be an autolose, cause you'll get simply outmanouvered. TvZ: Well this one is easy: Corruptor. Since most Zerg are still playing Mutalisks in ZvT they have a Spire. If not, they'll get one around the 15-18min mark, when they prepare to go for broodlords. The moment, they see a number of BCs they can't handle with the stuff they got, they will easily make the number of corruptors they need and be fine. Case closed.
BCs are a good unit to break up a meching Terran, cause they are good against every mech ground unit of terran. But that's really everything. You don't need to bring up silly situations where BCs might be viable, because these don't occur, never ever!!!
|
Phoenix buff ist nice. Toss will go mass phoenix against zerg, zerg makes infestor phoenix stack up like mutas to thors and fungal will kill em )
|
The only issue I have with the patch is the snipe change. As a Terran, and a bronze level one at that, I'm fine with nerfing snipe against late game Z. The main issue I have is how much it reduces the viability of early ghost openings in TvT. The ability to snipe marines and workers makes a Ghost opening viable. Plus they are exciting to watch and different from the standard MMM or marine tank opening. It also doesn't make sense to double up on anti-spellcaster spells.
Blizzard could easily fix both by making snipe 25 +25vs light. Late game TvZ is fixed and the ghost can still be used in early game TvT against marines and mineral line harass.
|
All I see is this:
Blizzard: we need to break the game. Let's change ghosts. Terran really needs to have no t3 options whatsoever (excluding the occasional thor or two at most) in any matchup, because they can just keep microing their way to victory!
Terrans: wat.
Blizzard: but you can now do a teeny bit more damage to units that you don't even really care about sniping, because they're usually so balled up that EMP works better anyways!
I think the mule change is very fair. The ghost change is completely asinine and without any standing reason. Zergs playing badly does not justify balance patches.
|
|
|
|