EPTHeart of the Swarm Unit Stats - Page 38
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
WarangelEldrith
Austria14 Posts
| ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On June 14 2012 21:27 D4V3Z02 wrote: But hold position doesnt affect their behaviour so that's nonsense? So terrans will have to apply spider mines? Would suck if u need apm/map awareness for it. Its wierd because everyone said they are like spider mines. I just found that: I guess that proofs that they autodetonate and will behave like unburrowed banelings. They will be terribly annoying cuz terrans will deny loads of expansions with them. it makes sense to realize that 1) unborrowed mines and unborrowed banelings don't behave the same, so any comparison between the two is "nonsense." 2) it makes more sense to compare burrowed mines to burrowed banelings, because the utility is more similar, but 3) they're still functionally completely different units with very different control and damage mechanisms, so comparing them is ultimately futile. But banelings can set unburrow to autocast, so it's reasonable to think you can do something like that for mines as well. And of course 4) HOTS isn't even in beta yet. Just because there might not have been hold position at MLG, doesn't mean there won't be in the beta. In all the interviews with Kim or Browder where they have discussed the unit, I get the sense that you can actually direct the attack of the mine, so it might not be as random as it would be if it would always latch on to the first unit in range - but I get the feeling that they also attack automatically on opportunity. Avilo mentioned in his blog how he was using mines to stop Oracle harass, and I doubt he was doing every attack action manually. Hopefully there will be an active auto attack function on the mines, that can be disabled, because it adds a lot of strategic possibilities. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On June 14 2012 17:59 DaveVAH wrote: Ye I saw that too but several people attending the event said it they were sure to check & it still had energy. so I am thinking the battle report might be out of date build... Or maybe the MLG build is out of date. It could be either, really. At the very least, it's evidence that Blizzard has been playing with an energy-less Thor. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On June 14 2012 21:23 Garmer wrote: they should lower some other ground units as well, like colossi, thor and ultra to 4, to make the scale bigger This has been annoying me since beta, the fact that armies are so small. Part of it is the AI that blobs everything, but a big factor is how supply heavy everything is these days. I would like to see a reduction in supply to units like: Hydra, Immortal, and Tank. In addition to Collosi, Ultras, and Thors. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On June 15 2012 02:17 NicolBolas wrote: Or maybe the MLG build is out of date. It could be either, really. At the very least, it's evidence that Blizzard has been playing with an energy-less Thor. What we really need are weaker, mobile, smaller Thors that are 2 supply. Reduce the range and splash as well. We can rename it Loki.  I think Blizzard really are forcing the Thor issue because of the Collectors Edition Skin. If not, I think blizz would have nuked the Thor concept alot more in HOTS. | ||
|
razy
Russian Federation899 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:53 GinDo wrote: This has been annoying me since beta, the fact that armies are so small. Part of it is the AI that blobs everything, but a big factor is how supply heavy everything is these days. I would like to see a reduction in supply to units like: Hydra, Immortal, and Tank. In addition to Collosi, Ultras, and Thors. This should be printed on A1 list in 300 font size and pinned in front of DBs desktop. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:53 GinDo wrote: This has been annoying me since beta, the fact that armies are so small. Part of it is the AI that blobs everything, but a big factor is how supply heavy everything is these days. I would like to see a reduction in supply to units like: Hydra, Immortal, and Tank. In addition to Collosi, Ultras, and Thors. i agree with this, also roach to 1,obviously you need to rebalanced some things, but is doable | ||
|
Vogin
Czech Republic926 Posts
On June 15 2012 06:01 razy wrote: This should be printed on A1 list in 300 font size and pinned in front of DBs desktop. Bigger armies = striking out players with less equipped computers | ||
|
Bagi
Germany6799 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:53 GinDo wrote: This has been annoying me since beta, the fact that armies are so small. Part of it is the AI that blobs everything, but a big factor is how supply heavy everything is these days. I would like to see a reduction in supply to units like: Hydra, Immortal, and Tank. In addition to Collosi, Ultras, and Thors. Do we really want to buff colossi? | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On June 15 2012 06:01 razy wrote: This should be printed on A1 list in 300 font size and pinned in front of DBs desktop. I don't understand, people want Fewer Resources per Base to put an emphasis on micro and whatnot, and also bigger armies (so bigger deathballs...)? Are you the same people or is the community divided on this? | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
Minerals: 150 Gas: 75 Supply: 2 Build Time: 45 Health: 220 Base Armor: 1 Speed: 2.81 Attack Damage: 23 Attack Range: 7 Attack Delay: 1.3 That's what, 17dps? with an addtional 5dps on the autocast. It outranges stalkers, has more hp, 3 times the dps, is 0.1 slower, can be repaired and costs 25/25 more. What the hell? These things are monsterous! It's like looking at marauders on steroids. Throw a screen of battle hellions in front and tell me how a gateway army is meant to deal with this? | ||
|
D4V3Z02
Germany693 Posts
On June 15 2012 15:17 Kharnage wrote: The warhound stats scare teh shit out of me Minerals: 150 Gas: 75 Supply: 2 Build Time: 45 Health: 220 Base Armor: 1 Speed: 2.81 Attack Damage: 23 Attack Range: 7 Attack Delay: 1.3 That's what, 17dps? with an addtional 5dps on the autocast. It outranges stalkers, has more hp, 3 times the dps, is 0.1 slower, can be repaired and costs 25/25 more. What the hell? These things are monsterous! It's like looking at marauders on steroids. Throw a screen of battle hellions in front and tell me how a gateway army is meant to deal with this? They said in an interview that the stats arent balanced yet and the most balance will be done in beta, I think those stats are placeholder. And ofcourse units with more dmg are more hyped when customers play beta at mlg  . | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On June 14 2012 21:48 WarangelEldrith wrote: just drop the thor and the warhound and add the goliath :> It does seem like they have created this weird problem by removing a good unit and stubbornly refusing to put it back | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
The second thing that I would like to see (as well as every other Z in the world) is a return of the Lurker. If you insist on keeping the Swarm host, maybe move it to hive and change it appropriately but the Lurker was just such a good unit at zoning and most Z's favorite unit. Add things to the T/P side to make up for the Ultra and Lurker, do w/e you want but these are the changes I have been waiting for since WoL Beta (as well as most other Z's) Edit: Also the science vessel was freaking amazing and the raven doesn't come close to matching it. I might start a petition to replace the raven w/ the sci vessel. Edit: I guess while I am voicing my opinion I should mention the other changes I would enjoy seeing T: Remove Thor, Add Goliath Reduce tank cost to 2f 150/100 and buff it's attack vs armored or maybe mechanical Add Science vessel improve BC P: Add a robo unit that can jump like the reaper and is cheap, harass unit remove colossi, add something else increase the power of the Stalker decrease build time on gateway and make wg a later upgrade replace sentrys hallucination upgrade with a damaging spell, maybe an aoe Z: I main Z so I have thought about this a little more Hydra: pool tech, 1f, 2.25, speed up on lair, same atk speed, 7dmg 70 health remove the baneling add lurker, lair tech, morph from hydra Roach: move roach to lair tech, increase to 3f, lower damage, does + damage to light units, 2 armor base, passive health regen. something like 12 atk + 12 to light remove speed upgrade and burrow move, make upgrade have activated health regen. Move the swarm host to hive and change accordingly. I would like to advocate for smaller unit groups as well. I don't know how many people are actually interested in this though. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On June 15 2012 15:39 Kharnage wrote: It does seem like they have created this weird problem by removing a good unit and stubbornly refusing to put it back The role of the goliath is filled by the marine, though - why build a gas heavy unit from a factory one at a time when you can build a cheaper, faster, healable unit 2 at a time from a rax? Thors do something unique though. They do a lot of ground DPS and very little air DPS, but over a wide area, A single thor can fortify a turret line or make cost efficient trades with zerg trying to pick off tanks and so on. Two thors can fortify a wide area. Three can pretty much prevent mutalisk harass of an army combined with more than a handful of marines. The way that terrans use thors is actually really unique. I'm not sure I'd want to replace thors with goliaths at this point. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 15 2012 14:55 ZenithM wrote: I don't understand, people want Fewer Resources per Base to put an emphasis on micro and whatnot, and also bigger armies (so bigger deathballs...)? Are you the same people or is the community divided on this? No, we want larger armies because bigger units are less supply, but they will be more spread out with better unit spacing so the deathball syndrome will be less plausible. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 15 2012 06:01 razy wrote: This should be printed on A1 list in 300 font size and pinned in front of DBs desktop. Here here! Let's lose the affinity for large supply units, make most things 1 or 2 again. Zerg needs another swarm unit that could be 1 supply, the roach and the hydra are good candidates. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On June 15 2012 16:15 0neder wrote: No, we want larger armies because bigger units are less supply, but they will be more spread out with better unit spacing so the deathball syndrome will be less plausible. The deathball syndrome is not due to unit spacing though. It's due to the ease of use of the units in the deathball. | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On June 15 2012 16:09 Evangelist wrote: The role of the goliath is filled by the marine, though - why build a gas heavy unit from a factory one at a time when you can build a cheaper, faster, healable unit 2 at a time from a rax? Thors do something unique though. They do a lot of ground DPS and very little air DPS, but over a wide area, A single thor can fortify a turret line or make cost efficient trades with zerg trying to pick off tanks and so on. Two thors can fortify a wide area. Three can pretty much prevent mutalisk harass of an army combined with more than a handful of marines. The way that terrans use thors is actually really unique. I'm not sure I'd want to replace thors with goliaths at this point. Why would you use a gas heavy unit from a factory to cover the best AA unit in the game >.> | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 15 2012 16:24 Evangelist wrote: The deathball syndrome is not due to unit spacing though. It's due to the ease of use of the units in the deathball. If your units were spread across more than one screen, and their spacing were more reasonable, it would be much harder to bunch them up into the official 'sc2 choke size' that basically constitutes the fundamental lego for all sc2 maps, with a few exceptions of the more open ones. | ||
| ||
