|
On July 02 2012 01:59 Marti wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome "
y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initials of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?)
better AOE is the way to go
|
On July 02 2012 02:26 Garmer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:59 Marti wrote:On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome " y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go
mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
|
On July 02 2012 02:27 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:26 Garmer wrote:On July 02 2012 01:59 Marti wrote:On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome " y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
...in a deathball
|
On July 02 2012 02:29 []Phase[] wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:27 Ballistixz wrote:On July 02 2012 02:26 Garmer wrote:On July 02 2012 01:59 Marti wrote:On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome " y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is. ...in a deathball
well ya, mass thor is a deathball
|
HotS needs more aoe spells. Give me my plague back 
|
On July 02 2012 02:27 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:26 Garmer wrote:On July 02 2012 01:59 Marti wrote:On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome " y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is.
""y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?)
better AOE is the way to go""
I highlight you, the key words
|
On July 02 2012 02:16 QuanticTheognis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:12 []Phase[] wrote:On July 02 2012 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
and brood lords(the fact that they spawn broodlings).
how do broodlings exactly make deathballs? If anything, they make it so that the opponents DB gets stucked. Obviously you are going to keep your 12 broodlords together, even if there wasent a death ball problem. (you kept your guardians together aswell. note : not stacked obviously). Most people here also blame pathing rather than the size of control group, however, they coincide. when you got your units in 1 group, the pathing indeed fucks everything up. However, if you split your DB into 3 groups, rather than 1 DB, you will get 3 smaller DB's, that each started moving at a different time. And when you've already made 3 groups, it won't be very hard to make your units flank, and also get good at this. So saying unlimited selection has NOTHING to do with it, is wrong, because indirectly it WILL affect the DB. This is not the only reason why DB exists, but the laziness unlimited control groups brings definatly has a big role to play in it. Again, limiting selection wont fix everything, but it'll def help, and I dont understand how others cannot see the link when in bw we were FORCED to control smaller groups and automatically tried to get advantages out of it such as flanking, because we had to split up a big group anyways. I am all for the several suggestions to 'fix' the DB, but one change wont do it all. We need the combination of many things to finally get rid of the deathball The synergy between the broodlord and the infestor/corruptor makes the deathball. It's not laziness of control groups lol. Even if you could only hotkey 4 units in a control group you would still want to have a flock of broodlords with infestor/corruptor support just because how powerful it was. Guardians weren't a deathball because there were very easy and viable solutions on dealing with them. It actually has nothing to do with how you have your hotkey setup.
exactly, it barely has anything to do with broodLINGS anymore, which was my response to the post.
broodlord infestor corruptor is also not the only deathball, so it's not because the limited selection rule does not really apply on this deathball, that it cant apply on a MMM or protoss deathball. Hotkey setup is also not the same thing as limited unit selection. Yeah it has nothing to do with hotkey setup... because hotkey setup means something entirely different.
EDIT : deathballs with lots of high-supply units in them, such as broodlords, wont get fixed by limited unit selection as much because you simply have less units. But again, this does not mean it wont work for stalkers / marauders / zlots / marines, etc.
|
There are already units that deal with deathballs - ghost, templars, infestors. But people complained when their deathballs got wrecked so they got nerfed. So we get more deathballs and people complain again. And around and around we go. lol.
Fast forward to the current; peoples' skills have improved and now spread their troops more often. I always preferred they buff aoe casters to force the opponent to spread. The community doesn't seem to know what it wants on this issue.
|
Ok, some thoughts from terran POV
In TvT and TvZ you can spread your units way more than in TvP. Why ? Because it's hard for the T/Z player to attack into defensive position with siege tanks.
In TvT battles are more about who has the better positioning than who has more units. In TvZ battles are usually decided by fungals, banelinghits, siege tank focus fire, splits etc. In contrary in TvP you absolutely need to keep your army together because battles are way more about brute force than in other match ups. You can win the battle in TvZ/T even if you have 3+ medivacs out on the map. In TvP it doesn't work.
Maybe in hots I can use widow mines to give myself bigger defenders advantage than in wol so I can spread out my units more. They could split deathballs by making it harder to attack into defended location by buffing infestors, tanks, ht , etc.
Or just make units require more space so more off your army would be useless in the fight.
|
On July 02 2012 02:30 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:29 []Phase[] wrote:On July 02 2012 02:27 Ballistixz wrote:On July 02 2012 02:26 Garmer wrote:On July 02 2012 01:59 Marti wrote:On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
I completely agree with this: making some units actually scary ( siege tanks and HTs come to mind ) who, through sheer imbalance of their splash damage, can make it so that numpbers don't really matter too much, would greatly help reduce this " deathball syndrome " y exactly this, nothing seems scary in sc2, all units feel weak , they feel strong only inside the DB(same initial of "some" lead designer, what a coincidence?) better AOE is the way to go mass thors with 3-3 are pretty strong tvz. so strong that everything zerg has on the ground is useless if terran gets to that point that is. ...in a deathball well ya, mass thor is a deathball
well, you can mass thors but not have them in 1 ball. I mean you can mass ling aswell but put them in different small groups in different places. Having thors in small groups wont do you much good.
|
Honestly, they just need to give every race decent splash damage type units that forces splitting.
With the introduction of a thing like the swarm host it doesn't really influence splitting as much as it should, and as a matter of fact influences clumping up to take out the locusts as fast as possible. A lurker on the other hand would influence splitting much like hellions do today.
IMHO blizzard should think more about making more widow mine like units.
|
On July 02 2012 01:52 Ballistixz wrote:
but this game has many problems aside from the mighty ball of death. ever race (witth the exception of terran) has a unit that they HAVE to make because without that unit they just flat out lose the game.
We need to listen to this man. Probes and Drones are the real issues plaguing SC2. We should remove them both and find a replacement. Mules are fine they can stay.
|
The main reason SC1 doesn't have deathballs isn't 12 units per hotkey, it's because you have Reavers, Lurkers and Siege tanks that actually kill shit.
A single reaver kills a dozen marines. At the same time, 4-5 reavers isn't that much more useful than 1-2.
Collosus on the other hand can't 1 shot a group of M&M. However the more you build of them, the more dangerous they are.
It's a fail by Blizzard that's been talked about since beta.
When you nerf the fuck out of everything, and design the units poorly, deathballing is the way to go.
I don't see why they can't realize how the concept of the reaver is superior to the one of the Collosus. And it's easy to replicate. Make units with huge splash heavily dependent on micro managment. Voila!
|
I think one reason for the deathball is unit stacking, both as in clumping them more together than in BW but also units like the collossus that can practically be placed inside/above other units.
Also, at the same time, the higher unit density cannot be adequately punished by AoE since it's a lot weaker than in BW. Tanks are a joke when compared to their BW counterpart, collossus is no reaver and theres no mines (yet). Storm was also stronger in BW than it is now. This results in a lot of the units being quite resilient against AoE.
I think apart from marine-centered terrans nobody is really that scared of AoE that they bother splitting their units up. A protoss deathball is so resilient it takes like a two dozen banelings to take it down, so why bother splitting up ? I have seen a clumped up corruptor ball survive a double seeker missile ... AoE is just not strong enough or units have too much hp - otherwise people WOULD split their units up more.
Another part is mobility. Things like creep spread, blink and fast siege units like the collossus makes the deathball quite mobile, so it's not really that punishable by multi-pronged attacks either.
It will take addressing the above concerns to break up the death ball mentality. Increase AoE damage and decrease mobility (especially of high-tier units). If the deathball cannot conveniently defend all paths of attack by insane mobilty, the player might consider splitting up a bit.
|
On July 02 2012 01:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 01:53 Zrana wrote:
Imo the best way of splitting up the deathball is increasing AoE damage.http:/www.teamliquid.net/forum/smilies.php
If you have a lot of single targeting units (e.g. marines) you want them clumped up so that more can fire at the same time.
However if powerful AoE is on the field the best players will split their army up and spread it out. This already happens quite a lot in SC2.
What i would like to see is yet more firepower given to aoe units so that moving around a big army becomes extremely dangerous due to the way units naturally clump up and so the metagame of strategies and tactics will change to reflect the danger of having a big ball of units.
This would be good for the game because spectators could watch either multiple small engagements around the map, or one big battle which would be lengthened by the fact that players couldnt keep their whole army together and it would become more of a running battle with constant reinforcing. This makes micro more apparent and more important (as there would simply be more of it to do).
There's been a huge amount of discussion over how sc:bw is better than sc2 or bw has a higher skill ceiling and similar topics. A large amount of that is down to how in BW you had to do a whole lot of babysitting of your units or they'd be unable to cross a bridge or something. In BW the units had a tendency to spread out, when a lot of the time you wanted them clumped up for the single-target dps to be higher. There's no reason why SC2 can't require the same sort of control but in the opposite direction; splitting up units and avoiding aoe.
This happens a lot already i know, but i reckon storm, fungal and siege tanks should all have an increased damage radius in HotS
This is incorrect. In BW, they didn't tend to spread apart; there was an AI "box" that was made whenever you moved your units. Your units would keep the same formation that they had when they were standing still and you selected them (as far as this was possible, considering obstacles/change of direction). This is exactly what SC2 needs. In SC2, if I manually spread units out, then select them in one group and right click to a location, they will immediately clump together to move there, which is terrible and incredibly annoying.
Stratos makes a very interesting point. Anyone have thoughts on this?
|
deathballs are absolutely terrible and are directly linked with unit clumping, which happens even in lower unit numbers. Taking away some supply here and there isn't going to fix it, it's broken. It's just going to make the deathballs a bit smaller, but equally terrible to watch.
Something needs to change with the pathfinding to fix the clumping. Even if you try having your army in multiple control groups, the clumping is still bad, so it must be the pathfinding. BW might have "worse" pathfinding, but imo it's much better. It's better to watch and feels more natural. Something needs to be done. You can look at almost any BW fight and see how units somehow manage to not clump so much.
On top of that, battles in SC2 have too many units in them too fast. There was a thread that had a lot of attention about lowering the rate of income by removing mineral patches and a gas. This was to match BW in that making a large amount of units took more time and decisions took more investments. New timings would come with such a change and so would smaller battles, at least early and mid game, and with smaller unit numbers micro is much more significant. On top of that, this is just a map change so it can easily happen.
I think those are the two main things that SC2 needs to become much more exciting to watch as well as drawing a thicker line between good and great players.
|
On July 02 2012 02:50 niteReloaded wrote:
The main reason SC1 doesn't have deathballs isn't 12 units per hotkey, it's because you have Reavers, Lurkers and Siege tanks that actually kill shit.
A single reaver kills a dozen marines. At the same time, 4-5 reavers isn't that much more useful than 1-2.
Collosus on the other hand can't 1 shot a group of M&M. However the more you build of them, the more dangerous they are.
It's a fail by Blizzard that's been talked about since beta.
When you nerf the fuck out of everything, and design the units poorly, deathballing is the way to go.
I don't see why they can't realize how the concept of the reaver is superior to the one of the Collosus. And it's easy to replicate. Make units with huge splash heavily dependent on micro managment. Voila!
4-5 reavers with shuttles and awesome player control are freaking scary man. Freaking scary.
There should be a mod in which the Colossus was replaced by the Reaver and see how Reaver+Shuttle forces the Protoss to micro his shit. Lots of high ranked Protoss would cry because they can't win anymore at that level.
Also, to that mod add spider-mines to the hellion and add the lurker aspect upgrade to the hydra. I bet it would make a better game.
|
On July 02 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote:
It won't work. Why? Because the problem with the deathball isn't that it's too big; it's that it's a microless ball whose success or failure guarantees the success or failure of the game. These harassment units vary between being utterly useless and absurdly overpowered but none of them will win you the game themselves. They might, if poorly defended, give you a slight economic advantage, but if your deathball loses to the enemy's deathball, you still lose because he walks over your base.
Blizzard doesn't seem to understand that the deathball exists because of the insane cost-efficiency of a few key units. Terran is more capable of doing multi-pronged harassment because 1 Medivac with MM in it is worth its weight in gold as far as cost-efficiency goes. Same thing for Roaches/Lings against Protoss. The trouble is that Zerg and Protoss get their super cost-efficient units at tier 2 and 3, which means they're expensive and need to be surrounded with other units in order to survive. This leads to deathball syndrome. Colossi are bad if you just have 3 of them sitting by themselves, but if they're buffered by a bunch of Stalkers and Sentries, you have a game-ending force. Same with Immortals. Same with Brood Lords. Same with Templar. Same with Ghosts.
If Blizzard wants to get rid of the deathballs, they have basically two options: give everyone an early game unit that scales well and is cost-efficient, or nerf all units that are good against everythinkg. Prime targets for this nerf would be Marauders, Roaches, Colossi, Infestors, and so on. These are units that you can build in 1 or more matchups that are good against pretty much any strategy. I rarely make a decision when I decide to add a few more Colossi to the mix, because Colossi are basically always going to pay for themselves.
I also find it kinda ironic that the best units Blizzard is adding are the ones that can be readily added to deathballs, like the Viper, Widow Mine, and Oracle. Every Protoss player knows that the Tempest, at 300gas for no AoE, is going to be virtually worthless, especially since cleaning up an entire expansion over the course of 5 minutes wouldn't justify its obscene cost. I think attacking Nydus worms might be used, but that they're fundamentally unnecessary since Zerg harassment never gets shut down in the sense that DB thinks it does.
^This is exactly what I've been saying for the past 6months.
|
the reason why the deathball wasn't as effective was because there were tons of imba units at all points of the game that could stop any amount of troops
for example, in tvz:
mutas would destroy bases if you didn't keep marines at home
then the mm ball would get big and zerg needed to get lurkers, which could stop any kind of marine aggression when paired with ramps
then terran gets dropships and tanks and the zerg has to stall until defilers
then defilers come out and dominate any engagement where they're used effectively
then the rest of the game turns into keeping your attention where it needs to be so you win important engagements and keep your army in important spots
the point is for individual units by themselves to get buffed, not nerfed, so a ball isn't needed to win engagements
|
On July 02 2012 03:05 fabiano wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 02:50 niteReloaded wrote:
The main reason SC1 doesn't have deathballs isn't 12 units per hotkey, it's because you have Reavers, Lurkers and Siege tanks that actually kill shit.
A single reaver kills a dozen marines. At the same time, 4-5 reavers isn't that much more useful than 1-2.
Collosus on the other hand can't 1 shot a group of M&M. However the more you build of them, the more dangerous they are.
It's a fail by Blizzard that's been talked about since beta.
When you nerf the fuck out of everything, and design the units poorly, deathballing is the way to go.
I don't see why they can't realize how the concept of the reaver is superior to the one of the Collosus. And it's easy to replicate. Make units with huge splash heavily dependent on micro managment. Voila! 4-5 reavers with shuttles and awesome player control are freaking scary man. Freaking scary. There should be a mod in which the Colossus was replaced by the Reaver and see how Reaver+Shuttle forces the Protoss to micro his shit. Lots of high ranked Protoss would cry because they can't win anymore at that level. Also, to that mod add spider-mines to the hellion and add the lurker aspect upgrade to the hydra. I bet it would make a better game.
Giving spider mines to the hellion is a terrible idea. The only reason this even worked at all in brood war was because vultures didn't have splash damage and you could only build one at a time, and because overlords could detect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
