|
FYI: You can still make hellbats without the upgrade, you just can't transform in and out of them until you get the upgrade. |
On February 24 2013 05:02 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:18 Alryk wrote:On February 24 2013 03:03 Big J wrote:On February 24 2013 02:41 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On February 23 2013 23:38 Big J wrote:You expect us to believe a 14.5 dps unit that moves at 2.81 (with upgrade) is the worst unit in the game.
Either you have no idea how to optimize their damage output beyond a-move, you use them unescorted or both.
Well, Terrans are trying to sell a 35.6dps 550HP/3armor unit with a 300damage blast (with upgrade) which additionally can fly as bad unit. You see how ridicolous such stuff sounds when you don't include how much those units cost or what they require? And you tell other people how immature their discussion style is... I didn't believe you'd resort to lying, Big J. I'll try to be civil. It should be read as:Terrans are trying to sell a 35.6dps range 6, 550HP/3 armor unit with 300 damage blast (with upgrade) every 125 seconds, vulnerablility to feedback spell and which additionally can fly as bad unit.
In any case on 4 bases, cost is not an issue, production rate is. Hahahahahaha.... lol. + Show Spoiler +Really hard to even know where to begin with responding to this bullshit. I know I shouldn't, it's not worth my time. But whatever, I'm in a good mood, can as well have some fun with this troll, So whenever someone describes a unit he has to point out every stat the unit has and every spell interaction? Yeah, what a lyer I am not mentioning every freaking thing that is true for the BC. Pssst, before someone says that hydralisks don't get a dusk/dawn sight bonus you really should mention it... Oh too late. I found out that you didn't mention it. You lyer! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And to your "cost is no issue, production rate is". Well, if cost is no issue and you have 50scvs (so building production rate is 50), why don't you build 50starports to get the same production rate as a zerg? Of course cost is THE issue. Z and P have more production, because their infrastructure COSTS less. actually protoss infrastructure is more expensive. factory is 150/100, 190/100 if you count for scv build time. Robo facility is 200/100. But its really only 150/100 because Terran have mules to offset scvs building, and the minerals don't actually go away. a star port is also 150/100 I believe? Compared to a star gate bring 150/150. And how much is a fusion core? Fleet beacon is 300/200. An armory is 150/100 while a robotics bay is 200/200. And a ghost academy is 100/50 right? Vs a 100/200 templar archives, not to mention the need for a 150/100 twilight council. No need to mention barracks/gateway. edit: as a sky toss versus zerg: I think allowing blinding cloud to hit air or affect casters would be a wonderful idea personally. Does anybody else share it? I think it would definitely help balance out pvz, and I don't think needing skytoss is how to do it. well, robo/SG is very similar or more expensive. But lategame extra Warpgate production is quite cheaper than barracks production: Zealot: 100/0 28seconds --> spending: 3.57/0 per second Stalker: 125/50 32seconds --> spending: 3.91/1.56 per second Marine: 50/0 25seconds --> spending 2/0 per second Marauder: 100/25 30seconds --> spending 3.33/0.83 per second Basically you need to invest into a barracks and a reactor (200/50) to be able to spend a similar amount of money on marine production as 1 (sometimes chronoboosted) warpgate (150/0) provides in zealot production. Unless Terran spends his money on ghosts and medivacs (which are really great to spend money on), Terran needs to invest more into infrastructure than Protoss to get the same amount of production. (of course this is not happening as barracks units beat gateway units cost for cost, so you don't need the same production. But just speaking possiblities, once P has the tech infrastructure like core, warpgate, twlight, templar archives, adding production is cheaper for toss than for terran. That's why we sometimes see those ridicolous amounts like 20+ warpgates for Protoss which Terran can only match with like 12barracks+addons)
You're forgetting warpgate research, if we're talking about earlygame. Lategame sure. See my bit at the bottom about addons. And I don't profess to love warpgate, but it's absolutely necessary with how protoss is designed right now. Terran bio (especially with medivacs now) is way too mobile for normal gateways to compensate. And also keep in mind terran T1 tends to be more efficient than Protoss T1, especially without support (early game in particular). Obviously no comparison will be direct, but yeah. I don't think the cost of production has ever been the reason for imbalance essentially.
On February 24 2013 04:54 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 04:18 Alryk wrote:On February 24 2013 03:03 Big J wrote:On February 24 2013 02:41 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On February 23 2013 23:38 Big J wrote:You expect us to believe a 14.5 dps unit that moves at 2.81 (with upgrade) is the worst unit in the game.
Either you have no idea how to optimize their damage output beyond a-move, you use them unescorted or both.
Well, Terrans are trying to sell a 35.6dps 550HP/3armor unit with a 300damage blast (with upgrade) which additionally can fly as bad unit. You see how ridicolous such stuff sounds when you don't include how much those units cost or what they require? And you tell other people how immature their discussion style is... I didn't believe you'd resort to lying, Big J. I'll try to be civil. It should be read as:Terrans are trying to sell a 35.6dps range 6, 550HP/3 armor unit with 300 damage blast (with upgrade) every 125 seconds, vulnerablility to feedback spell and which additionally can fly as bad unit.
In any case on 4 bases, cost is not an issue, production rate is. Hahahahahaha.... lol. + Show Spoiler +Really hard to even know where to begin with responding to this bullshit. I know I shouldn't, it's not worth my time. But whatever, I'm in a good mood, can as well have some fun with this troll, So whenever someone describes a unit he has to point out every stat the unit has and every spell interaction? Yeah, what a lyer I am not mentioning every freaking thing that is true for the BC. Pssst, before someone says that hydralisks don't get a dusk/dawn sight bonus you really should mention it... Oh too late. I found out that you didn't mention it. You lyer! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And to your "cost is no issue, production rate is". Well, if cost is no issue and you have 50scvs (so building production rate is 50), why don't you build 50starports to get the same production rate as a zerg? Of course cost is THE issue. Z and P have more production, because their infrastructure COSTS less. actually protoss infrastructure is more expensive. factory is 150/100, 190/100 if you count for scv build time. Robo facility is 200/100. But its really only 150/100 because Terran have mules to offset scvs building, and the minerals don't actually go away. a star port is also 150/100 I believe? Compared to a star gate bring 150/150. And how much is a fusion core? Fleet beacon is 300/200. An armory is 150/100 while a robotics bay is 200/200. And a ghost academy is 100/50 right? Vs a 100/200 templar archives, not to mention the need for a 150/100 twilight council. No need to mention barracks/gateway. edit: as a sky toss versus zerg: I think allowing blinding cloud to hit air or affect casters would be a wonderful idea personally. Does anybody else share it? I think it would definitely help balance out pvz, and I don't think needing skytoss is how to do it. I see in you are counting SCV build times, what happens when you include separate upgrades for terran land units but not protoss ones? What about addons, how do they factor in? I wonder when people will learn not to directly compare races in Starcraft.
He was the one comparing races calling out terran production being cheaper.
Terran overall has the same number of upgrades as protoss and zerg now, with one of the factory upgrades being combined, if I'm not mistaken. And a terran player going bio and skyterran is pretty analogous with my going from ground toss to skytoss. In which case the upgrades are pretty equivalent.
Upgrade breakdown:
+ Show Spoiler +TERRAN
2 bio upgrades
3 mech upgrades
PROTOSS
3 ground upgrades
2 air upgrades
meh
At most, a reactor is 50/50. That brings a factory or starport up to par with the equivalent robo/stargate if you really need me to count those in. And like I said earlier, SCV build time is not really a loss, because of mules and the fact that the minerals don't go anywhere. And protoss has plenty of other buildings that have no terran counterpart (not comparing races directly note) because of this... TC, templar archives and dark shrine. Any of those three are more expensive than a ghost academy, which is the most approximate "cost" equivalent. The additional resources over that GA (300/350 i think?) bring the production pretty similar.
|
lol at the nerfbat of 150/150 + armory + 4 spot in medivac + upg time..how can blizz not see that making early game variance huge is such of an importance.. this is the opposite of that and gonna be like storm tech.. if i get it, i cant get nothing other than that since the timeframe is like this...
I rly wanted to see rivo with LotV, but since it would be nerfed so hard, better leave that one for the bw.
|
On February 24 2013 11:33 gosublade wrote:
lol at the nerfbat of 150/150 + armory + 4 spot in medivac + upg time..how can blizz not see that making early game variance huge is such of an importance.. this is the opposite of that and gonna be like storm tech.. if i get it, i cant get nothing other than that since the timeframe is like this...
I rly wanted to see rivo with LotV, but since it would be nerfed so hard, better leave that one for the bw.
You know you can still build hellbats like normal? The only thing the upgrade changed was morphing normal hellions to hellbats. It wasn't variance, it was killing variance. Ling openings were impossible the way it was. Now they're at least partially possible. And this doesn't actually affect something like a medivac drop timing if you wanted to do it with hellbats - you can make the armory and the starport at the same time, and then make the hellbats and medivac at the same time.
|
Did the Hellbat's range get axed cause i thought it was three at one point in time
|
On February 24 2013 11:44 Blackknight232 wrote:
Did the Hellbat's range get axed cause i thought it was three at one point in time
They don't fire any further than 2 range; players have yet to learn to micro I presume.
|
Thanks for that. I guess that's what happens when you take six months off XD
|
On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/
If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army.
But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered.
Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz.
|
On February 24 2013 15:48 BoggieMan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/ If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army. But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered. Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz.
They had a 50% winrate until the queen buff. When forced to go to the late game almost every game, GSL winrates dropped to the low 40s and mid 30s. There's a lot of Zerg talk that sounds like "ZOMG Terran air is SOOOOOO strong! Just max 200 on ravens, BCs, and vikings!" But it doesn't seem to work all too well at the pro level, otherwise we would see Terran do it to overcome their now abysmal chances in the matchup.
In contrast, even when ZvT didn't revolve around infestors, there wasn't a real need to adapt to the infestor playstyle. GSL winrates for Zerg were still pretty solid, with the occasional dip here and there.
I just don't buy that Terrans are somehow ignoring this supposed blatant lategame army strength while having extremely dismal numbers. Doesn't add up.
|
Norway10161 Posts
On February 24 2013 17:33 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 15:48 BoggieMan wrote:On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/ If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army. But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered. Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz. They had a 50% winrate until the queen buff. When forced to go to the late game almost every game, GSL winrates dropped to the low 40s and mid 30s. There's a lot of Zerg talk that sounds like "ZOMG Terran air is SOOOOOO strong! Just max 200 on ravens, BCs, and vikings!" But it doesn't seem to work all too well at the pro level, otherwise we would see Terran do it to overcome their now abysmal chances in the matchup. In contrast, even when ZvT didn't revolve around infestors, there wasn't a real need to adapt to the infestor playstyle. GSL winrates for Zerg were still pretty solid, with the occasional dip here and there. I just don't buy that Terrans are somehow ignoring this supposed blatant lategame army strength while having extremely dismal numbers. Doesn't add up.
It's almost impossible to transition. Look at Bomber vs Sniper r32 this gsl (entombed). Bomber wins, but it's by a hair where he plays massive macro and barely holds Sniper's ultralisk agression with a close to maxed army several times. A switch to unupgraded bc's would get him killed. Heck, many terrans struggle with having enough vikings.
|
On February 24 2013 18:20 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 17:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 24 2013 15:48 BoggieMan wrote:On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/ If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army. But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered. Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz. They had a 50% winrate until the queen buff. When forced to go to the late game almost every game, GSL winrates dropped to the low 40s and mid 30s. There's a lot of Zerg talk that sounds like "ZOMG Terran air is SOOOOOO strong! Just max 200 on ravens, BCs, and vikings!" But it doesn't seem to work all too well at the pro level, otherwise we would see Terran do it to overcome their now abysmal chances in the matchup. In contrast, even when ZvT didn't revolve around infestors, there wasn't a real need to adapt to the infestor playstyle. GSL winrates for Zerg were still pretty solid, with the occasional dip here and there. I just don't buy that Terrans are somehow ignoring this supposed blatant lategame army strength while having extremely dismal numbers. Doesn't add up. It's almost impossible to transition. Look at Bomber vs Sniper r32 this gsl (entombed). Bomber wins, but it's by a hair where he plays massive macro and barely holds Sniper's ultralisk agression with a close to maxed army several times. A switch to unupgraded bc's would get him killed. Heck, many terrans struggle with having enough vikings.
But shouldn't we see some more attempts if it is that powerful? You know, turtle until T has the economy, or slowly build up to it by cutting marines and tanks here and there. The way I see it, even this magic army comp SkyTerran that nobody can agree on isn't actually better than Z or P options, but might be able to "compete" with them after a huge investment, which is only a minor improvement over current trends.
|
On February 24 2013 18:20 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 17:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 24 2013 15:48 BoggieMan wrote:On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/ If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army. But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered. Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz. They had a 50% winrate until the queen buff. When forced to go to the late game almost every game, GSL winrates dropped to the low 40s and mid 30s. There's a lot of Zerg talk that sounds like "ZOMG Terran air is SOOOOOO strong! Just max 200 on ravens, BCs, and vikings!" But it doesn't seem to work all too well at the pro level, otherwise we would see Terran do it to overcome their now abysmal chances in the matchup. In contrast, even when ZvT didn't revolve around infestors, there wasn't a real need to adapt to the infestor playstyle. GSL winrates for Zerg were still pretty solid, with the occasional dip here and there. I just don't buy that Terrans are somehow ignoring this supposed blatant lategame army strength while having extremely dismal numbers. Doesn't add up. It's almost impossible to transition. Look at Bomber vs Sniper r32 this gsl (entombed). Bomber wins, but it's by a hair where he plays massive macro and barely holds Sniper's ultralisk agression with a close to maxed army several times. A switch to unupgraded bc's would get him killed. Heck, many terrans struggle with having enough vikings.
Yeah it's not as hard in hots though. Well to a point. Ravens are sick good now so it's not hard to tech to ravens and get quiet a few, but yeah teching to the ultimate raven/bc/viking is very hard to get to thank god. If it was easy oh lord T_T
|
On February 24 2013 18:42 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 18:20 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:On February 24 2013 17:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 24 2013 15:48 BoggieMan wrote:On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/ If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army. But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered. Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz. They had a 50% winrate until the queen buff. When forced to go to the late game almost every game, GSL winrates dropped to the low 40s and mid 30s. There's a lot of Zerg talk that sounds like "ZOMG Terran air is SOOOOOO strong! Just max 200 on ravens, BCs, and vikings!" But it doesn't seem to work all too well at the pro level, otherwise we would see Terran do it to overcome their now abysmal chances in the matchup. In contrast, even when ZvT didn't revolve around infestors, there wasn't a real need to adapt to the infestor playstyle. GSL winrates for Zerg were still pretty solid, with the occasional dip here and there. I just don't buy that Terrans are somehow ignoring this supposed blatant lategame army strength while having extremely dismal numbers. Doesn't add up. It's almost impossible to transition. Look at Bomber vs Sniper r32 this gsl (entombed). Bomber wins, but it's by a hair where he plays massive macro and barely holds Sniper's ultralisk agression with a close to maxed army several times. A switch to unupgraded bc's would get him killed. Heck, many terrans struggle with having enough vikings. Yeah it's not as hard in hots though. Well to a point. Ravens are sick good now so it's not hard to tech to ravens and get quiet a few, but yeah teching to the ultimate raven/bc/viking is very hard to get to thank god. If it was easy oh lord T_T
First to make a "but Zerg gets to do it as well easily, double standards, whine whine whine"-nonsense comment! 
Yes, I always wanted to do that!
|
On February 24 2013 11:44 Blackknight232 wrote:
Did the Hellbat's range get axed cause i thought it was three at one point in time
The only time Hellbats had 3 range was back when they first got the bio tag and could enter bunkers, but that was for < a week.
|
On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
Previously hellbats received +1 to non light/+2 to light with every attack upgrade but now the scaling has been changed to +2 to non light/+3 to light. Max attack hellbats should now 1 shot max armored zerglings and 3 shot max armored emped zealots instead of 4.
This seems more of a 'fix' rather than a 'buff'
I loled. Seems a little too strong to me -.-
Are Terrans still mad that the cargo change was not cancelled? Now you can one shot worker lines again !
|
On February 24 2013 20:00 Saumure wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
Previously hellbats received +1 to non light/+2 to light with every attack upgrade but now the scaling has been changed to +2 to non light/+3 to light. Max attack hellbats should now 1 shot max armored zerglings and 3 shot max armored emped zealots instead of 4.
This seems more of a 'fix' rather than a 'buff'
I loled. Seems a little too strong to me -.- Are Terrans still mad that the cargo change was not cancelled? Now you can one shot worker lines again !
One shot worker lines ? Nothing changed in hellbat drops they do max 39 to light > drones probes have 40 hp. If you mean that 2 hellbats 1 shot worker then it was same before this fix , dont know what you mean.
|
On February 24 2013 20:10 Tomasy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 20:00 Saumure wrote:On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
Previously hellbats received +1 to non light/+2 to light with every attack upgrade but now the scaling has been changed to +2 to non light/+3 to light. Max attack hellbats should now 1 shot max armored zerglings and 3 shot max armored emped zealots instead of 4.
This seems more of a 'fix' rather than a 'buff'
I loled. Seems a little too strong to me -.- Are Terrans still mad that the cargo change was not cancelled? Now you can one shot worker lines again ! One shot worker lines ? Nothing changed in hellbat drops they do max 39 to light > drones probes have 40 hp. If you mean that 2 hellbats 1 shot worker then it was same before this fix , dont know what you mean.
Yeah...no. I was just complaining. they should have kept the fix as a nerf...
|
So hellbats are going the way of the reaper?
|
On February 24 2013 18:20 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 17:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 24 2013 15:48 BoggieMan wrote:On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/ If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army. But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered. Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz. They had a 50% winrate until the queen buff. When forced to go to the late game almost every game, GSL winrates dropped to the low 40s and mid 30s. There's a lot of Zerg talk that sounds like "ZOMG Terran air is SOOOOOO strong! Just max 200 on ravens, BCs, and vikings!" But it doesn't seem to work all too well at the pro level, otherwise we would see Terran do it to overcome their now abysmal chances in the matchup. In contrast, even when ZvT didn't revolve around infestors, there wasn't a real need to adapt to the infestor playstyle. GSL winrates for Zerg were still pretty solid, with the occasional dip here and there. I just don't buy that Terrans are somehow ignoring this supposed blatant lategame army strength while having extremely dismal numbers. Doesn't add up. It's almost impossible to transition. Look at Bomber vs Sniper r32 this gsl (entombed). Bomber wins, but it's by a hair where he plays massive macro and barely holds Sniper's ultralisk agression with a close to maxed army several times. A switch to unupgraded bc's would get him killed. Heck, many terrans struggle with having enough vikings.
When it comes to transitioning to air as Terran it is incredibly map dependant. Obviously Metropolis is the ultimate sky Terran map because you stick two planetaries at the choke and Terran is impenetrable for 20 minutes. You simply can't do it on most maps though.
|
On February 24 2013 18:42 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 18:20 ToKoreaWithLove wrote:On February 24 2013 17:33 aksfjh wrote:On February 24 2013 15:48 BoggieMan wrote:On February 23 2013 09:54 Zelniq wrote:On February 23 2013 09:53 Everlong wrote:
Also, Are they only watching TvZ for the first 10 minuts games?
... Yeah what about maxed terran mech or air armies, or sky toss? :/ If protoss and terran lategame gets too strong, it will kinda turn zerg completely upside down, considering how they used to play in wol with turtle with infestors into unstopable hive army. But i guess having a bad lategame isen't going to make your race underpowered. Terrans never really used lategame oriented play in wol (even though terran air could be really good) and still had around 50% win (sometimes less, sometimes more) most of the time in tvp and tvz. They had a 50% winrate until the queen buff. When forced to go to the late game almost every game, GSL winrates dropped to the low 40s and mid 30s. There's a lot of Zerg talk that sounds like "ZOMG Terran air is SOOOOOO strong! Just max 200 on ravens, BCs, and vikings!" But it doesn't seem to work all too well at the pro level, otherwise we would see Terran do it to overcome their now abysmal chances in the matchup. In contrast, even when ZvT didn't revolve around infestors, there wasn't a real need to adapt to the infestor playstyle. GSL winrates for Zerg were still pretty solid, with the occasional dip here and there. I just don't buy that Terrans are somehow ignoring this supposed blatant lategame army strength while having extremely dismal numbers. Doesn't add up. It's almost impossible to transition. Look at Bomber vs Sniper r32 this gsl (entombed). Bomber wins, but it's by a hair where he plays massive macro and barely holds Sniper's ultralisk agression with a close to maxed army several times. A switch to unupgraded bc's would get him killed. Heck, many terrans struggle with having enough vikings. Yeah it's not as hard in hots though. Well to a point. Ravens are sick good now so it's not hard to tech to ravens and get quiet a few, but yeah teching to the ultimate raven/bc/viking is very hard to get to thank god. If it was easy oh lord T_T
I know youre pretty high rated in hots, so Im kinda curious about how terrans hold ultras while getting ravens out. Like how are the ravens used in order to help against the ultras?
I play quite a bit of hots, but Ive been avoiding ravens except in air vs air situations. Not being an ass, actually want to know.
|
On February 24 2013 08:58 NKexquisite wrote:
Ohhh... Here come the Blizzard "stack nerfs"... Just like they "stack nerfed" the Reaper into oblivion in WoL...
First you nerf the cargo space
Then you nerf w/ an upgrade
Next you increase the build time of the factory
They need to be sure to not "stack nerf" it...
It's even funnier when you compare it to the hydra from the WoL beta
it was nerfed twice extremely early on in the beta (feb / march 2010 I believe) and had it's HP nerfed from 90 to 80 and attack speed from .75 to .86 (I think, not sure of exact numbers).
Then comes HotS and blizzard is like, "why isn't anyone using hydras? We should introduce a speed upgrade that gives them 25% more speed off creep, that'll work!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
