| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On March 23 2012 11:09 LightSpectra wrote: Worker harass, picking up infestors? Players like ST_AcE have plenty of success with late-game PvZ air units. I agree, but vikings are also good at worker harass. More vulnerable for sure, but they do have very high dps when they get behind a mineral line (high rate of fire, little overkill on probes). | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On March 23 2012 11:13 memcpy wrote: Yes, not to mention it's cheaper for the protoss player in every way even if the phoenix do nothing else. Stargate is cheaper than spire and phoenix is cost effective against mutas, and this is without the +2 range upgrade. You need 2 stargates to use phoenix vs mutas, so the infrastructure is more expensive. And that is not counting a fleet beacon (extra 300m 200g) if you want to unlock +2 or the range upgrade. That is also not counting the fact that zerg has more income and less infrastructure costs in other areas. Phoenix are cost efficient against mutas without a doubt but most players dont think they are as cost efficient as protoss needs to be vs zerg (minimum of 1.5:1 just to hang in there). | ||
|
oxxo
988 Posts
On March 24 2012 00:48 hzflank wrote: I agree, but vikings are also good at worker harass. More vulnerable for sure, but they do have very high dps when they get behind a mineral line (high rate of fire, little overkill on probes). Vikings are terrible at worker harass. They are slow to land/lift and they have relatively poor movement. Phoenixes can't be caught outside of fungal and more than likely will be 1 shotting workers instantly (lift->dead, lift->dead). Vikings can't do that, you're committing heavily each time you attempt to do anything. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
all bashing on them aside: landing them is not the problem in a TvX fight imo, they are not that bad (and like hydras, vikings in groundmode are a unit that does not profit hugely from attackupgrades anyways)... losing them is the problem, because you just gave up airsuperiority costinefficiently and now you will have to reinvest into them, because your opponent will rebuild colossi and broodlords. | ||
|
DooMDash
United States1015 Posts
 or cool down again. I never understood why one pro-game of them looking OP was enough to change it with out further testing. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:26 Big J wrote: Just want to add here, that Vikings pretty much have the same stats as hydralisks in ground mode (for 50% more money, same supply). all bashing on them aside: landing them is not the problem in a TvX fight imo, they are not that bad (and like hydras, vikings in groundmode are a unit that does not profit hugely from attackupgrades anyways)... losing them is the problem, because you just gave up airsuperiority costinefficiently and now you will have to reinvest into them, because your opponent will rebuild colossi and broodlords. Agreed, landing them is pretty much throwing gas and production time away for the terran. They may tank well for that fight, but once the game gets to the point where terrans are landing vikings, its about the follow up fight, not the current one. It is why I dislike them as a counter to colossi. They are like the phoenix, which is great against mutas, but limited against the rest of zerg. Units like this would be fine if you only had to build one or two of them, but terrans have to invest in upwards of 16 vikings agaisnt a rolling protoss. Buffing the vikings ground combat is not an answer though, since that will only add to the deathball like nature of the game. I don't know what you do with the viking, but it is one of my most hated units. Stupid flying carrier/BC killing air tank that makes air combat a blob fest. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:28 DooMDash wrote: 250 mm cannons should have AoE or cool down again. I never understood why one pro-game of them looking OP was enough to change it with out further testing. You mean the eliminate an immortal ability? Because that ability one shots and stuns immortals, which means you need two immortals to deal with one thor with strike cannons. With range 7, all you need is a scan and the ability to click on the immortals to knock them out of the fight before they even get to fire on the Thors. I am all for making thors more viable, but giving that ability an AOE is not really the way to do it. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 24 2012 02:37 Plansix wrote: Agreed, landing them is pretty much throwing gas and production time away for the terran. They may tank well for that fight, but once the game gets to the point where terrans are landing vikings, its about the follow up fight, not the current one. It is why I dislike them as a counter to colossi. They are like the phoenix, which is great against mutas, but limited against the rest of zerg. Units like this would be fine if you only had to build one or two of them, but terrans have to invest in upwards of 16 vikings agaisnt a rolling protoss. Buffing the vikings ground combat is not an answer though, since that will only add to the deathball like nature of the game. I don't know what you do with the viking, but it is one of my most hated units. Stupid flying carrier/BC killing air tank that makes air combat a blob fest. Well, I have to disagree. I absolutly prefer vikinglike units over Goliath/Thor/BC like units, when it comes down to different attacks vs air and vs ground. The later are basically 1a units when they have SC2 AI. It's rather that they don't operate the way they should, due to the role they were put into - main Terran airsuperiority fighter with ground capabilities instead of ground high dps support with antiair capabilities - and due to the "deathball syndrome". (anyone who has ever played C&C RA3 with or against the Empire faction on the ladder will know how much potential such units have - yeah bash me, I like to play C&C games) Also they suffer the same problem any harass unit that is less efficient than drops in TvX suffers: the opponent has to be prepared for drop play anyways, vikingharass is shut down easier. | ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
On March 23 2012 23:22 Superneenja wrote: I'm still laughing at your que theory. LOL its actually true Zerg has best production ability in larva because there is no loss of production capacity if you forget to build additional units because they stack. (both terran and protoss are alot more unforgiving in that regard, meaining if you don't build consantly units you will fall behind and can not catch up unless you build more production facilities) comparing terran and protoss, beeing able to queue units is definitly an advantage during battle phases for terran. If a warpgate is ready to build, but isn't warping units it directly lost production time and thus less optimal macro. This makes macro of protoss definitly differently and less forgiving than terrans (for warpgate units only obviously) | ||
|
Yosho
585 Posts
| ||
|
mazqo
Finland368 Posts
| ||
|
Yosho
585 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:40 mazqo wrote: Please someone make a poll "is zerg lategame too strong in ZvT". I bet every terran votes yes. Its fucking unbeatable, this matchup makes me wanna quit this game. zvt is fine | ||
|
mazqo
Finland368 Posts
Well i can say TvP is fine, oh wait guess its not. I have 76% winrate in TvP. So that makes terran imba!! | ||
|
Yosho
585 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:57 mazqo wrote: Well i can say TvP is fine, oh wait guess its not. I have 76% winrate in TvP. So that makes terran imba!! The complain is that TvP wise Terran in the late game has to severally out micro the opponent to win. In the late ZvT game I feel (as a random high masters player on 4 accounts) that it takes equal work on both sides if the game is even, if not equal very close to it. PvT I just roll over my keyboard and laugh profoundly. | ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On March 23 2012 07:27 Whitewing wrote: Terran's have the roughest supply mechanic? Are you joking? You have supply drop, a 50 energy spell that gives you 8 supply for free and is almost as cost effective as a MULE (given mining time lost, the fact that the 100 minerals are retroactive since you'd have to start building the supply depot a while ago, and other factors). I don't think building supply depots are inherently any harder than building pylons or overlords. You just look at your supply to see if you need to build them, then spend the money, and then you wait for it to build. Production for terran is no harder or easier than production for protoss (I might suggest that protoss has it a little harder since you don't have the option of queuing a little bit before the unit finishes so that you don't miss out on production time with warp gates, and you have to look away from the battle to warp units in so you can't micro as much). You get punished twice as hard with Terran by being supply blocked than with Protoss or Zerg. Just reflect about it for a moment from a Terran perspective what happens when you get supply blocked and what happens with Protoss and Zerg if they get supply blocked. Just something funny, protoss pylons build faster than supply depots and overlords. | ||
|
Sergio1992
Italy522 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:40 mazqo wrote: Please someone make a poll "is zerg lategame too strong in ZvT". I bet every terran votes yes. Its fucking unbeatable, this matchup makes me wanna quit this game. you are not the only one brother :'( | ||
|
mazqo
Finland368 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:59 Yosho wrote: The complain is that TvP wise Terran in the late game has to severally out micro the opponent to win. In the late ZvT game I feel (as a random high masters player on 4 accounts) that it takes equal work on both sides if the game is even, if not equal very close to it. PvT I just roll over my keyboard and laugh profoundly. Does terran really need to outmicro opponent? Not really. Just suicide 25 workers when you are near maxed and start making orbitals. Then you got ~45 workers while protoss has 75 so you have 30 supply more army. Then you put 12-14 vikings on move command to follow your bio army. And in fight you scan protoss army and emp HT's if there is, then spam emp. And while you do this you select(ctrl+click) all your marines and move them a little bit back so marauders takes all the damage and your marines are behind them safe from archon+colossus splash. And protoss army disapears. So what you really do is press stim + move marines back + spam emp, not that hard. | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:04 Recognizable wrote: You get punished twice as hard with Terran by being supply blocked than with Protoss or Zerg. Just reflect about it for a moment from a Terran perspective what happens when you get supply blocked and what happens with Protoss and Zerg if they get supply blocked. Just something funny, protoss pylons build faster than supply depots and overlords. Supply Depots cost ~140 minerals because of lost mining time. They also take longer than overlords and pylons to build, but make up for that a bit by providing one extra supply. Also, you can't spam depots as easily as overlords and pylons. One other thing that everyone forgets: Terran requires the most space for buildings. Not only do they need add ons, they need viable exits from every production structure, making barracks actually require twice the space of a gateway. Now think about a map like XC and imagine fitting 20 depots in with 2 eng bays, armoury, reactored starport, 8-10 rax with add-ons, ghost academy and still maintaining a clear path from your mineral line to the ramp without putting buildings on the edge to be picked off by colossus. | ||
|
Assaulter
Lithuania324 Posts
On March 24 2012 04:07 mazqo wrote: Does terran really need to outmicro opponent? Not really. Just suicide 25 workers when you are near maxed and start making orbitals. Then you got ~45 workers while protoss has 75 so you have 30 supply more army. Then you put 12-14 vikings on move command to follow your bio army. And in fight you scan protoss army and emp HT's if there is, then spam emp. And while you do this you select(ctrl+click) all your marines and move them a little bit back so marauders takes all the damage and your marines are behind them safe from archon+colossus splash. And protoss army disapears. So what you really do is press stim + move marines back + spam emp, not that hard. That's assuming protoss wont just storm your viking clump, and spread out his army/ ht's .. etc etc.. i guess it works if he a-moves | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:59 Yosho wrote: The complain is that TvP wise Terran in the late game has to severally out micro the opponent to win. In the late ZvT game I feel (as a random high masters player on 4 accounts) that it takes equal work on both sides if the game is even, if not equal very close to it. PvT I just roll over my keyboard and laugh profoundly. I'm interested what you, as a random player, think of PvZ vs ZvP. I think the match up is balanced at the highest level but I feel like at lower levels defending against mass mutas with blink stalker/templar and trying to get a third base, takes a lot more skill to execute than microing the muta ball around (I used to play zerg myself). I feel like I have to try to all-in every game because I don't have the skill to play against mass muta which so many zergs go for now. I'm not whining about it because I know pro level is more important than my level but I'm just wondering how you see it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
