EPTAlso : you can get the mothership core so damn early, seems kinna lame, thoughts?
HotS MLG Info Updates - Page 84
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
Also : you can get the mothership core so damn early, seems kinna lame, thoughts? | ||
|
kranten
Netherlands236 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:03 Schnullerbacke13 wrote: thr oracles mineral blocking spell is not a good idea, harras should always consume APM. blocking the whole mineral line with a single spell takes no micro and APM at all. boring and lame idea Agreed, it feels gimmicky and stupid. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
| ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
| ||
|
gedatsu
1286 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:10 HeroMystic wrote: No, not really. Try using those "Strongest static map control with bunkers and tanks" vs Protoss that isn't a 1-1-1 all-in build. Try it vs Zerg too. Widow Mines aren't even static anyway. Yes, really. Do tell me what static map control protoss and zerg have that is stronger. Of course they're static. They can't move if they want to be useful. Not moving is what static means. | ||
|
razy
Russian Federation899 Posts
it doesn't require tech lab btw: check the TvZ battle report | ||
|
Lukeeze[zR]
Switzerland6838 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:09 Fig wrote: Agreed. A quick and easy change would be to have the shield go around units instead of mineral patches. Therefore the user of the Oracle would have to aim to hit as many workers as possible. And the opponent would be able to dodge the spell by splitting. Right now you can't make your minerals dodge, but who knows what they'll add in the last expansion XD. Plus then the spell could be used in battle, as a really weak and destructible stasis. This would make people trend away from keeping all their units in a deathball, and would improve gameplay in general. Good idea but sadly it seems too micro heavy for blizzard's standards :/ I would say make the mineral blocking a channeling spell like the warp prism : the oracle has to be immobile, if it escapes then the stasis on mineral field is interrupted. Obviously, the oracle would be cheaper in this case. | ||
|
CakeSauc3
United States1437 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:25 gedatsu wrote: Yes, really. Do tell me what static map control protoss and zerg have that is stronger. Of course they're static. They can't move if they want to be useful. Not moving is what static means. They're not static. Static defenses don't cost supply; however, bunkers (or the rines that fill them, anyway) and tanks and mines all do. The only official static defense that Terran has are missle turrets, which kind of suck for controlling ground space. What do Zerg and Toss have that are better? Cannons and Spines, of course. This isn't a cry of imbalance - just a statement of fact. Terran doesn't have a real ground controlling static defense, which is why Blizzard wanted to give them something else - and hence we have the widow mines. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
zmansman17
United States2567 Posts
| ||
|
jrdn
United States132 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:25 gedatsu wrote: Yes, really. Do tell me what static map control protoss and zerg have that is stronger. Of course they're static. They can't move if they want to be useful. Not moving is what static means. Technically T does have the best static map control...but only because they have units that can't move to be effective. They certainly do not have the best map control as a maxed zerg or protoss army can many times just A-move over the top of a Terran's position and come out either ahead in the fight or neutral...and then Terran falls behind due to reinforcement mechanics. The only time a Terran really has a powerful static position is sitting behind Planetary Fortresses with bunkers, depots, turrets and the like. Which in itself can become pointless because with the possible exception of Shakuras Plateau no single position is worth such an investment in defense. I would like to see the siege tank damage un-nerfed so that it once again become a force to be reckoned with...or alternatively...I would like the game makers to stop treating it as a giant force, thus giving Terran opponents even more options to bust "a powerful Terran entrenchment" which never even existed in the first place. | ||
|
redviper
Pakistan2333 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:34 CakeSauc3 wrote: They're not static. Static defenses don't cost supply; however, bunkers (or the rines that fill them, anyway) and tanks and mines all do. The only official static defense that Terran has are missle turrets, which kind of suck for controlling ground space. What do Zerg and Toss have that are better? Cannons and Spines, of course. This isn't a cry of imbalance - just a statement of fact. Terran doesn't have a real ground controlling static defense, which is why Blizzard wanted to give them something else - and hence we have the widow mines. Two words: Planetary Fortress. | ||
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
 I'm a little bit afraid though that the tank will even be dropped in TvT now with the addition of the fearsome warhound. Also afraid of lategame getting even harder for T forcing more and more early on win fast or die slowly situations :/ | ||
|
redviper
Pakistan2333 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:09 Fig wrote: Agreed. A quick and easy change would be to have the shield go around units instead of mineral patches. Therefore the user of the Oracle would have to aim to hit as many workers as possible. And the opponent would be able to dodge the spell by splitting. Right now you can't make your minerals dodge, but who knows what they'll add in the last expansion XD. Plus then the spell could be used in battle, as a really weak and destructible stasis. This would make people trend away from keeping all their units in a deathball, and would improve gameplay in general. You say this as if storm drops or fungal drops on workers require a ton of micro. Not to mention 16 marine drops that can end a game. At best they should make the oracle shield each individual patch separately. I personally like the way oracle is now. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:35 jrdn wrote: Technically T does have the best static map control...but only because they have units that can't move to be effective. They certainly do not have the best map control as a maxed zerg or protoss army can many times just A-move over the top of a Terran's position and come out either ahead in the fight or neutral...and then Terran falls behind due to reinforcement mechanics. The only time a Terran really has a powerful static position is sitting behind Planetary Fortresses with bunkers, depots, turrets and the like. Which in itself can become pointless because with the possible exception of Shakuras Plateau no single position is worth such an investment in defense. I would like to see the siege tank damage un-nerfed so that it once again become a force to be reckoned with...or alternatively...I would like the game makers to stop treating it as a giant force, thus giving Terran opponents even more options to bust "a powerful Terran entrenchment" which never even existed in the first place. Yeah, tanks are really wimpy compared to BW, not just in combat but also in look/sounds (especially sound..). | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
Was waiting for that. PF is 500/150 and can be repaired, but also dies fast to a deathball army. What it does do, is create a powerful fallback because supported with a Terran army, it's worth it's investment. But that is seriously Map specific, and is only truly worth it in Shakuras. In other cases, they're placed as extra defense at your expansions to buy time. | ||
|
Vague
170 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
On June 09 2012 22:56 Gackt_ wrote: Wow Day9 is a total sellout as usual,..? The videos are so scripted that Im about to throw up. :S How the fuck is that selling out. | ||
|
Aira
Germany10 Posts
On June 10 2012 00:44 Doodsmack wrote: Are there VODs of the 2nd and 3rd battle reports anywhere????? There is no 3rd I think. just TvZ and PvZ | ||
| ||
