|
On April 30 2013 22:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 10:10 DoSu wrote:
What if the oracle's attack rebounds three times, and the rebounds get a percentage decrease in dps? This way it can be more effective when killing workers. Yeah, because Oracles totally need to be more effective at killing workers...
Marines too. Definitely need a buff versus marines :-p
|
On April 30 2013 12:07 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 07:13 Empedocles wrote:On April 30 2013 06:43 Magpie842 wrote:
My two cents on swarmhosts:
I think that Z players need to use them in other ways. They're fine in a ball of 10+, sure. However, they can be so nasty when paired up with fast overlords. Dropping them is pretty decent (drop, burrow, spawn, unburrow, pickup, move on to next base). For battles, using a small number of them 4-8 in overlords to get around the flanks or rear of the enemy army and flank attack/ cut off their retreat is also great. Using the ovies to give them maneuverability and options is interesting.
Regarding the mooted changes from bliz:
I don't yet understand the thinking behind an oracle speed buff. They're fast already, I'm not sure what this would change really; maybe make it easier to kill moving workers.
As for the spore +bio damage, that seems acceptable but boring. Spores already do double damage vs bio, so I don't think that this is the right way to address muta muta in ZvZ. I really agree with your last point. The buff to spore +bio first of all has already taken place and second of all is boring, uncreative and does not really address the real issue, that being Zergs few and far between options when playing against other zerg. I honestly don't know how Blizzard didn't saw this coming. All zerg needed for this to change was another anti air unit (which zergs are seriously lacking btw). How about make corrupters interesting and give them some sort of twist? They are one of the most boring units in the game not to mention completely useless against muta's (they will get avoided forever or simply get picked off once the muta ball comes too big)
I have advocated this for a long time. Blizzard promised that the corruptor would be on their list of "units to modify" back when HotS was still in alpha, but nothing ever came from it. They are still the worst air unit in the game.
They are slow, with non-notable damage or range and an active ability that actually lowers damage output in groups of 10 or less.
I would like to see some sort of a melee version with an entangle-style attack to make sense of their octopus arms.
They can keep their same shitty DPS, but up their armor and make their attacks slow their target and self-heal. Now we have an AtA unit worth fearing!
Not only is this more interesting than "more + bio on spores", it also makes the corruptor better at it's targeted purpose (strong vs big air units) without really affecting anything outside of mutas, phoenix, colossus (all of which Zerg needs help with anyway), Brood Lords, and BCs (non-issues).
I doubt anyone would cry at the loss of the current corruptor in favor of pretty much ANYTHING ELSE...
|
On April 30 2013 23:37 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 12:07 Assirra wrote:On April 30 2013 07:13 Empedocles wrote:On April 30 2013 06:43 Magpie842 wrote:
My two cents on swarmhosts:
I think that Z players need to use them in other ways. They're fine in a ball of 10+, sure. However, they can be so nasty when paired up with fast overlords. Dropping them is pretty decent (drop, burrow, spawn, unburrow, pickup, move on to next base). For battles, using a small number of them 4-8 in overlords to get around the flanks or rear of the enemy army and flank attack/ cut off their retreat is also great. Using the ovies to give them maneuverability and options is interesting.
Regarding the mooted changes from bliz:
I don't yet understand the thinking behind an oracle speed buff. They're fast already, I'm not sure what this would change really; maybe make it easier to kill moving workers.
As for the spore +bio damage, that seems acceptable but boring. Spores already do double damage vs bio, so I don't think that this is the right way to address muta muta in ZvZ. I really agree with your last point. The buff to spore +bio first of all has already taken place and second of all is boring, uncreative and does not really address the real issue, that being Zergs few and far between options when playing against other zerg. I honestly don't know how Blizzard didn't saw this coming. All zerg needed for this to change was another anti air unit (which zergs are seriously lacking btw). How about make corrupters interesting and give them some sort of twist? They are one of the most boring units in the game not to mention completely useless against muta's (they will get avoided forever or simply get picked off once the muta ball comes too big) I have advocated this for a long time. Blizzard promised that the corruptor would be on their list of "units to modify" back when HotS was still in alpha, but nothing ever came from it. They are still the worst air unit in the game. They are slow, with non-notable damage or range and an active ability that actually lowers damage output in groups of 10 or less. I would like to see some sort of a melee version with an entangle-style attack to make sense of their octopus arms. They can keep their same shitty DPS, but up their armor and make their attacks slow their target and self-heal. Now we have an AtA unit worth fearing! Not only is this more interesting than "more + bio on spores", it also makes the corruptor better at it's targeted purpose (strong vs big air units) without really affecting anything outside of mutas, phoenix, colossus (all of which Zerg needs help with anyway), Brood Lords, and BCs (non-issues). I doubt anyone would cry at the loss of the current corruptor in favor of pretty much ANYTHING ELSE...
well, I prefer them over scourge and they are definatly not worse than the devourer
|
Devourers actually did destroy mass muta.
|
On April 30 2013 23:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2013 23:37 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 30 2013 12:07 Assirra wrote:On April 30 2013 07:13 Empedocles wrote:On April 30 2013 06:43 Magpie842 wrote:
My two cents on swarmhosts:
I think that Z players need to use them in other ways. They're fine in a ball of 10+, sure. However, they can be so nasty when paired up with fast overlords. Dropping them is pretty decent (drop, burrow, spawn, unburrow, pickup, move on to next base). For battles, using a small number of them 4-8 in overlords to get around the flanks or rear of the enemy army and flank attack/ cut off their retreat is also great. Using the ovies to give them maneuverability and options is interesting.
Regarding the mooted changes from bliz:
I don't yet understand the thinking behind an oracle speed buff. They're fast already, I'm not sure what this would change really; maybe make it easier to kill moving workers.
As for the spore +bio damage, that seems acceptable but boring. Spores already do double damage vs bio, so I don't think that this is the right way to address muta muta in ZvZ. I really agree with your last point. The buff to spore +bio first of all has already taken place and second of all is boring, uncreative and does not really address the real issue, that being Zergs few and far between options when playing against other zerg. I honestly don't know how Blizzard didn't saw this coming. All zerg needed for this to change was another anti air unit (which zergs are seriously lacking btw). How about make corrupters interesting and give them some sort of twist? They are one of the most boring units in the game not to mention completely useless against muta's (they will get avoided forever or simply get picked off once the muta ball comes too big) I have advocated this for a long time. Blizzard promised that the corruptor would be on their list of "units to modify" back when HotS was still in alpha, but nothing ever came from it. They are still the worst air unit in the game. They are slow, with non-notable damage or range and an active ability that actually lowers damage output in groups of 10 or less. I would like to see some sort of a melee version with an entangle-style attack to make sense of their octopus arms. They can keep their same shitty DPS, but up their armor and make their attacks slow their target and self-heal. Now we have an AtA unit worth fearing! Not only is this more interesting than "more + bio on spores", it also makes the corruptor better at it's targeted purpose (strong vs big air units) without really affecting anything outside of mutas, phoenix, colossus (all of which Zerg needs help with anyway), Brood Lords, and BCs (non-issues). I doubt anyone would cry at the loss of the current corruptor in favor of pretty much ANYTHING ELSE... well, I prefer them over scourge and they are definatly not worse than the devourer
The Scourge was much funnier though, because of all the "police chases" ... it wouldnt work in SC2 though because of the ability to overproduce stuff and get critical numbers out. They would either kill all Scourges before they get close or annihilate any non-Scourge.
Personally I loved the Devourer because of the noises and the looks of the unit ... it was pretty useless, but that doesnt make them less fun.
----
All that is needed to change the state of ZvZ is the removal of the regeneration on the Mutalisks and the unit is back to WoL level of power. It makes sense to build other units again and we get more interesting games. If the race has problems against other races then any other unit apart from the harrassment unit could perhaps use a buff, but I seriously doubt that it is really necessary.
|
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything (no bonus vs light) with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit.
|
On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit.
The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing.
You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2.
Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect.
The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units.
|
On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units.
I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty.
The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right.
|
On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right.
Sky banelings sound bad in SC2, because there are no sky forcefieds, sky siege tanks and sky widow mine to take them out with AOEs. Also, there are not sky zerglings to screen for them. They are very different games on the core level.
|
On May 01 2013 00:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right. Sky banelings sound bad in SC2, because there are no sky forcefieds, sky siege tanks and sky widow mine to take them out with AOEs. Also, there are not sky zerglings to screen for them. They are very different games on the core level.
Scourge were never banelings and never brought the issues that banelings bring.
They have no splash damage, so clumping is not an issue when facing them, it was actually a technique used to combat them in BW.
They don't deal damage unless they attack, so no "oh well, close enough" If it does not hit, it's a waste of money.
None of your arguments against scourge have any relevancy to the scourge unit...
That being said, I am not advocating for scourge to be added to the game, I am advocating for the corruptor to be redesigned.
|
It's not even an issue of balance. The corrupter is a boring unit and that's why it needs to change. If i may add i would also like to see changes to the tank/collosus/tempest/oracle/voidray as well but hey lets tackle the little things first.
On May 01 2013 00:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right. Sky banelings sound bad in SC2, because there are no sky forcefieds, sky siege tanks and sky widow mine to take them out with AOEs. Also, there are not sky zerglings to screen for them. They are very different games on the core level.
Scourge don't have AOE so they really aren't anything like banelings.
|
On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right.
Well, I think the Scourge can be a cool additional AtA unit. But it cannot overtake the role of an endgame Combat unit and the last thing this game needs is more units that are made to counter Air and only Air.
For the devourer, I guess I'm wrong. It can actually be an interesting unit when combined with mutalisks. Though I'm still mostly under the impression that you exclusively want it to amove other airballs, which is kind of what we hate about the Corruptor to begin with.
|
On May 01 2013 00:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right. Well, I think the Scourge can be a cool additional AtA unit. But it cannot overtake the role of an endgame Combat unit and the last thing this game needs is more units that are made to counter Air and only Air. For the devourer, I guess I'm wrong. It can actually be an interesting unit when combined with mutalisks. Though I'm still mostly under the impression that you exclusively want it to amove other airballs, which is kind of what we hate about the Corruptor to begin with.
If the corruptor were used the same way the Devourer was, as a support unit to a currently standing army, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
The fact is that the corruptor is made to be a shock-troop style unit, but it sucks. It sucks a lot.
AND it pidgeon holes the user even if it's effective.
AtA units are not bad inherently, I think the phoenix is a great example of how to make an AtA unit a very scary thing, while still limited at times.
Blizzard just needs more phoenixs.
|
On May 01 2013 00:48 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:45 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right. Sky banelings sound bad in SC2, because there are no sky forcefieds, sky siege tanks and sky widow mine to take them out with AOEs. Also, there are not sky zerglings to screen for them. They are very different games on the core level. Scourge were never banelings and never brought the issues that banelings bring. They have no splash damage, so clumping is not an issue when facing them, it was actually a technique used to combat them in BW. They don't deal damage unless they attack, so no "oh well, close enough" If it does not hit, it's a waste of money. None of your arguments against scourge have any relevancy to the scourge unit... That being said, I am not advocating for scourge to be added to the game, I am advocating for the corruptor to be redesigned.
I was more pointing out that air units in SC2 have almost no tools to deal with a suicide unit that does high damage by colliding them with them. Zerg also also has not ability to screen for them, so the unit would either be blown out of the sky by auto targeting air units or do amazing damage to high value targets. I agree that it would make for boring game play and the corruptor should need some love.
|
On May 01 2013 00:55 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:52 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right. Well, I think the Scourge can be a cool additional AtA unit. But it cannot overtake the role of an endgame Combat unit and the last thing this game needs is more units that are made to counter Air and only Air. For the devourer, I guess I'm wrong. It can actually be an interesting unit when combined with mutalisks. Though I'm still mostly under the impression that you exclusively want it to amove other airballs, which is kind of what we hate about the Corruptor to begin with. If the corruptor were used the same way the Devourer was, as a support unit to a currently standing army, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The fact is that the corruptor is made to be a shock-troop style unit, but it sucks. It sucks a lot. AND it pidgeon holes the user even if it's effective. AtA units are not bad inherently, I think the phoenix is a great example of how to make an AtA unit a very scary thing, while still limited at times. Blizzard just needs more phoenixs.
Oh yeah, I also think the Viking is a pretty cool AtA unit. And I don't dislike Tempests, as they do have a decent Antiground role besides countering Capitalships/Colossi.
But honestly, the game would be much better off if they just removed Carrier, BC, Voidray from the game and took the Corruptor with them.
|
On May 01 2013 00:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:48 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:45 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right. Sky banelings sound bad in SC2, because there are no sky forcefieds, sky siege tanks and sky widow mine to take them out with AOEs. Also, there are not sky zerglings to screen for them. They are very different games on the core level. Scourge were never banelings and never brought the issues that banelings bring. They have no splash damage, so clumping is not an issue when facing them, it was actually a technique used to combat them in BW. They don't deal damage unless they attack, so no "oh well, close enough" If it does not hit, it's a waste of money. None of your arguments against scourge have any relevancy to the scourge unit... That being said, I am not advocating for scourge to be added to the game, I am advocating for the corruptor to be redesigned. I was more pointing out that air units in SC2 have almost no tools to deal with a suicide unit that does high damage by colliding them with them. Zerg also also has not ability to screen for them, so the unit would either be blown out of the sky by auto targeting air units or do amazing damage to high value targets. I agree that it would make for boring game play and the corruptor should need some love.
Again, everything you mentioned was present in BW, and still scourge was one of the most exciting units in the game.
|
On May 01 2013 01:53 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 00:58 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 00:48 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:45 Plansix wrote:On May 01 2013 00:34 Jermstuddog wrote:On May 01 2013 00:28 Big J wrote:On May 01 2013 00:09 Jermstuddog wrote:
@big j
I don't even know how to respond to that. Scourge were great vs basically everything in the air. They were what made ZvZ interesting in BW, provided meaningful drop-protection vs T and P and were just incredibly interesting units all around. Anything involving scourge was always nail-biting, and that is exactly what we should be looking for in an RTS unit.
Devourers, while less cool, had a meaningful impact in small numbers. There was rarely a situation where more than 1 or 2 were warranted, but having just 1 changed the dynamic of at least a few scenarios, the most notable of which being muta vs muta. Not the best unit, but still far better than the corruptor.
I mean look at this thing. I'll offer a comparison to the phoenix, but feel free to pick any unit in the game and make your own judgement on the pros/cons of the corruptor.
For the same price you get, -1.6 DPS vs everything with a +3.2 bonus vs Massive (I would also like to point out that this bonus damage puts them on par with a Stalker, and we all know how well-regarded Stalker DPS is). 2.95 speed instead of 4.25 (or average compared to very fast), +2 range, which the Phoenix can also get through it's own upgrade. +2 armor (easily the best part of the corruptor) instead of Moving Shot. And you swap out Graviton Beam for Corruption, value that however you want. Oh yeah, +20 hp.
For all the complaints Protoss players have had for the issues with the Phoenix throughout SC2, the corruptor is even more pigeon-holed and less scary. It's just a terrible, terrible unit. The Scourge does not work in SC2, because the cool part about it was to abuse the pathing. You'd get the same out of the Corruptor as out of the Devourer if SC2 had 12selection limit and muta vs muta would be a 1base game in SC2. Basically the Devourer is the Corruptor, just with a slightly different amove effect. The Scourge was a cool unit in the BW enviroment - but even then I wouldn't switch the Corruptor with the Scoure, as the Scourge simply gets beaten by a critical mass of flying units. I agree Scourge would have problems in SC2, but they had problems in BW, that's why they were interesting. Their cheapness and huge damage is why they were useful, I think they could be made very similar and work just fine in SC2 in all honesty. The big difference between the Devourer and Corruptor is 1 Devourer shot would change a fight thanks to its passives. 1 Corruptor shot is laughable. Now, the cost of the devourer was huge, so I don't think it was a very good unit in general, but it was far from just being "the Corruptor, just with slightly different amove effect." Devourers were support units, allowing the mutas around them to win the fight, they weren't scary in their own right. Sky banelings sound bad in SC2, because there are no sky forcefieds, sky siege tanks and sky widow mine to take them out with AOEs. Also, there are not sky zerglings to screen for them. They are very different games on the core level. Scourge were never banelings and never brought the issues that banelings bring. They have no splash damage, so clumping is not an issue when facing them, it was actually a technique used to combat them in BW. They don't deal damage unless they attack, so no "oh well, close enough" If it does not hit, it's a waste of money. None of your arguments against scourge have any relevancy to the scourge unit... That being said, I am not advocating for scourge to be added to the game, I am advocating for the corruptor to be redesigned. I was more pointing out that air units in SC2 have almost no tools to deal with a suicide unit that does high damage by colliding them with them. Zerg also also has not ability to screen for them, so the unit would either be blown out of the sky by auto targeting air units or do amazing damage to high value targets. I agree that it would make for boring game play and the corruptor should need some love. Again, everything you mentioned was present in BW, and still scourge was one of the most exciting units in the game.
Except for the SC2 engine, its targeting AI, lack of overkill and pathing and all the other things that make SC2 a different game than BW.
|
No Terran nerf? Extremely surprising.
|
On May 01 2013 03:11 KT(Rolster)HaunteR wrote:
No Terran nerf? Extremely surprising.
I think/hope they are giong to nerf the aoe damage from the mine. Also, they are going to nerf the cargo space of the hellbat in the medivac and/or reduce the damage of the hellbats +light. No mention of the turbo medivac so your safe there...
|
China6326 Posts
On May 01 2013 03:21 Empedocles wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2013 03:11 KT(Rolster)HaunteR wrote:
No Terran nerf? Extremely surprising. I think/hope they are giong to nerf the aoe damage from the mine. Also, they are going to nerf the cargo space of the hellbat in the medivac and/or reduce the damage of the hellbats +light. No mention of the turbo medivac so your safe there...
Hellbat cargo space already took a nerf, they are not going anywhere unless you wanna make them so big that the medivac can only carry one...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
