On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
And adopt a clearly superior hellbat/widowmine fetish.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
And adopt a clearly superior hellbat/widowmine fetish.
Transforming flamethrower buggies and walker robot missile bases are clearly superior technology of the future. Tank & infantry is so last century. :p
On June 12 2013 08:13 juicyjames wrote: More Action throughout the Game
We strongly believe that this is the main direction the game should go. More action means more diversity, which makes the game more challenging to play and more fun to watch.
They really are stupid as can be, because "more more more action" makes every little piece of "action" less exciting, important and more meaningless. If every piece of action can win the game the matches will be shorter and shorter and the Hellbat drop harrass is one example of such shitty design.
There actually is such a thing as "too fast" for SC2, but they dont realize it.
Dear Blizzard devs,
BETTER = BETTER ... MORE =/= BETTER ...
Improve the QUALITY of the engagements instead of simply increasing the number of them!
Kill count works for Hot Shots 2 ... as a joke, but not as a "measurement scale for quality" of Starcraft 2 gameplay!
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
I'm sorry but tanks working in TvP would be such a cool thing, having two totally different ways to play a match up has no drawbacks.
On June 13 2013 05:15 Incognoto wrote: I'm really confused at the lack of Ravens in mid game Terran play by the way, at least in TvZ. A flying detector with a spell that nullifies Mutalisks around a certain area? Why don't more people go for it? HSM timings could even be explored.
A 5 second seeker missile is useless against extremely fast-moving units that wrap around your army when they engage, you end up hitting yourself with splash. PDD is "okay" but really not good enough to stop medivac production for ravens.
Ravens are great against most zerg units, just not ling/muta/ultra.
Use them against Queens, Overseers and drones! xD I don't know I just feel that a few ravens here and there as flying support might be nice, then again as you mentioned it might cut into medivac production. ^^
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... but first you have think about what creates a critical number. Critical numbers appear when a number of units is able to gather in such a concentration that they can one-shot opposing units or be otherwise super-efficient. This includes the unit size for a large part, but the tight unit movement and unlimited unit selection are also to blame. You can put about 2-3 Marines in the same space which a Stalker occupies and thus the Stalker will ALWAYS be disadvantaged in large numbers because the basic units have roughly the same dps each and consequently the Stalker needs "crutch spells" like Forcefield and Blink to make the unit work at all.
To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
Obviously there are "fringe cases" for the critical number - like the Infestor - where the efficiency of an attack can be nerfed to affect the actual critical number (like taking the stim and upgrades out of the Infested Terran), but that isnt possible for most of the units. Marines in low numbers are ok against an equal amount of resources of Stalkers for example, so the actual dps is fine ... just the concentration issue is the problem. Because of this the only viable solution is to spread out the units ...
Some units - mostly AoE units - need to have their damage and/or area adjusted, but that is peanuts compared to the effort of readjusting the entire batch of units.
Spellcasters need to have their skills revisited and for some it would be beneficial to remove smart casting (Fungal, Storm, EMP) to bring a bit more skill requirement back into the game while stopping the abilities from dominating the battlefield. With a reduced unit density they might be able to remove Forcefield from the game (this would enable mapmakers to create maps with narrow chokes in the middle again) and replace it with something else (maybe allow the Sentry to recharge shields like a mobile shield battery ... but without smart- or auto-casting).
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
And how exactly WMs are rewarding for both sides? Which terran gives a crap if he looses a 75/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If Zerg makes the perfect attack he will SURELY loose something from WM detonations. Overlords? 3 lings per WM? Something like that. So at best case scenario, his ling/bling combo will kill bio and WMs but will probably be too weak too to make a counter or something. At worst case scenario ofc, bio stims and kills everything afterwards (which is the more usual one btw - unless u expect for Diamond to Bronze Zerg to have 400 APM). The case that a WM will kill all.. medivacs of a suicidical Terran player (Stephano style) only happen once on every 100 games. If David Kim thinks that that's enough, I rest my case.
On June 13 2013 19:59 teodoreh wrote: And how exactly WMsBanelings are rewarding for both sides? Which terranZerg gives a crap if he looses a 7550/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If ZergTerran makes the perfect attackdefense he will SURELY loose something from WMBaneling detonations.
Neither of those two units are particularly well designed. The WM is far less fun to watch compared to the Widow Mine and also doesnt really synergize well with any other army unit; the Baneling can be stacked in high enough numbers to require perfect micro from the defender while needing only minimal effort to use them well.
The only plus part about the Widow Mine is the fact that it is about the only unit which doesnt really have a critical number ... because it isnt really an army unit at all (even though it costs supply).
On June 13 2013 19:28 Rabiator wrote:It is RIDICULOUSLY EASY to get rid of them ... ... To get rid of critical numbers you just need to spread the units more by forced unit spreading while moving (and a certain reluctance to clump up when being told to ...). That way you can not get to the critical number where a tight clump of 30 Marines can one-shot Stalkers for example; a big part will be out of range for the one targeted. In addition adding a unit selection limit would also help keeping the unit density down (this is the only way to keep air units from being useable easily in a critical number). Just think about the BW movement mechanics ... minus the 8-directional limitation and the bugged movement.
Since the goal is to reduce the unit density on the battlefield you will also require far less economy and production capability. Thus Chronoboost, Warp Gate, Inject Larva, the MULE and the Reactor need to be taken out of the game. ...
Wouldn't it be simpler to change the maps to feature much narrower paths so that number of units required to efficiently defend is reduced, hence attackers will have to multi-prong multiple locations to breach rather than bashing into a meat grinder?
Or would force-field be too dominant on such maps? Still, one spell change and map changes sounds simpler than altering pathfinding and all splash damages in the game.
On June 13 2013 01:48 Prog455 wrote: Personally i would love to see a buff to Tanks and a nerf to Hellbats. I always felt that the sole purpose of Hellbats was to make up for the fact that Siege Tanks are hard-countered by next to every Protoss unit in the game, especially Zealots.
A plain buff to tank damage vs. shields would be great :/
Am I the only one who feels it's wrong that in the end we'll have the following :
Damage : 35 (+ 15 vs Armored) (+15 vs shield) (+10 vs Psionic) (insert another exception damage)
No, you are not. I've argued elsewhere in the thread why this particular idea is silly.
SC2 is a different game from BW. Mech will likely not work in the same way. It's time to let go of that particular Tank fetish.
And adopt a clearly superior hellbat/widowmine fetish.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
More action = A higher amount of engagements =/ more units dying.
If there is a higher degree of small engagements, it is entirely possible that less units will be killed in the proces. Having critical numbers is an extremely important element in "match-up"-design, as it incentivies the opponent to army trade.
The other important element in match-updesign is to give the the opponent the required tools to army trade efficiently. If those requirements are fulfilled we will see very few deathball engagement and lots of action.
The degree of micro required in battles are very much uncorrelated to the amount of engagements. Instead quality of engagements can be improved by a better "unit-design". It is important to disguisnish unit-design from matchup-design as both of them can be optimized simultaneously.
I don't think David Kim fully understands the depth of match-up design, but his philosophy is more sound than most people give him credit for.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
Critical numbers aren't there on purpose, if Blizz had been able to just like that they would have already removed them.
The sad part is that - if you read David Kim's comment - they want MORE action ... which means MORE UNITS dying and fighting ... which is exactly the opposite thing that would be needed to get rid of critical numbers. There are two choices now ... 1. Either David Kim and Dustin Browder are too stupid to notice this correlation OR 2. they dont care. Neither of these options are really good, but the bottom line is that Blizzard doesnt do anything against critical numbers ... and they don't do it on purpose. Since we had a "it doesnt really do anything" as a reply from Blizzard to the "dynamic unit movement" thread I lean more towards option 1 ... but even though I really criticise them that option is still very depressing and not at all what I would have wanted.
----
----
In the end you should only have critical numbers for air units (mostly Void Rays and Mutalisks), but these should require micro to make them work and consequently the unit selection limit is a "must do".
More action = A higher amount of engagements =/ more units dying.
If there is a higher degree of small engagements, it is entirely possible that less units will be killed in the proces. Having critical numbers is an extremely important element in "match-up"-design, as it incentivies the opponent to army trade.
The other important element in match-updesign is to give the the opponent the required tools to army trade efficiently. If those requirements are fulfilled we will see very few deathball engagement and lots of action.
The degree of micro required in battles are very much uncorrelated to the amount of engagements. Instead quality of engagements can be improved by a better "unit-design". It is important to disguisnish unit-design from matchup-design as both of them can be optimized simultaneously.
I don't think David Kim fully understands the depth of match-up design, but his philosophy is more sound than most people give him credit for.
"More smaller engagements" is something that you have to FORCE, because the whole reason behind the deathball or the "one big clump of army" is the same logic that is also behind the critical number. At a certain point units get much more efficient with a bigger clump and that enables this clump to simply crush their opponent with a smaller clump. The players WANT that ... according to Dustin Browder (from one of his China interviews). It is a silly logic if you ask me, but then I am not a lead designer for SC2.
The big question is ... How do you make people go for "lots of small engagements" instead of the big army? Terran Siege Tank mech is super immobile and thus that kind of a deathball has its serious drawback (plus the vulnerability to air). There are no drawbacks that are as big for any other deathball, so a really big change seems necessary to entice players into engaging with smaller forces. In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
The only chance for units which are efficient in small groups is harrassment units (or tactics), BUT they can never be made that powerful because any such power multiplies if you create a whole army out of that unit. Hellbat drops have shown us evaporating Protoss armies if they are dropped on top of them en masse.
I disagree with you on the "better unit design", because we have units which can - and should - be microed, BUT that is ignored totally because of the power of reproduction ... in massive numbers. If you only have one Stalker you will micro it against those three Marines, but if there are 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines it doesnt make sense to stutter-step because the Marines will simply evaporate one of them each time the Stalkers stop and they get in range of the huge number of Marines. Thus reducing the numbers of units on the battlefield seems the much better option. Micro will always be lost as long as it is easier to reproduce a unit than to keep it alive.
A question: Give me an example of a "tool to trade army efficiently". That is just an empty phrase unless you can fill it with some "meat". I cant really come up with anything other than "powerful AoE" to discourage clumps of armies and Blizzard seems extremely unwilling to do that since they leave the Siege Tank at its pitifully low damage output. Adding too much power to such units will make them far too powerful if you can "discourage" your opponent from going for a deathball, but at the same time you yourself will be using your units which can trade efficiently at a maximum concentration ... because that is exactly the CRITICAL NUMBERS PROBLEM ... units will simply become untouchable. For an "immobile" unit which doesnt shoot air - like the Siege Tank - that isnt the case as much, but all other similar units are much more mobile.
How to increase the quality of engagements? 1. Add in more MICRO REQUIREMENTS (for the attacker) instead of winning through macro capabilities. 2. Slow down the battles and make them easier to follow. This also gives the time needed for micro. 3. Get rid of CRITICAL NUMBERS. They are either a "minimum number required" before the unit makes any sense OR a "silly number" after which a certain unit gets sooo efficient that it becomes untouchable.
To the above quote: 1 and 2 are covered pretty well in WarCraft III. The high tempo of StarCraft II is part of what seperates players skill-wise.
Anyway, there's a lot of complaining that Widow Mines requires a lot of micro from the defending (Zerg) player and none for the Terran player. That is quite untrue. In the pro scene, Widow Mines have lost some popularity and impact, because Zerg players are better at playing around them and even using them against the Terran players. Players like Innovation still makes good use of them, because his sense of positioning as well as micro is extremely good. To say that Widow Mines doesn't require micro is false, basically due to the way they work, which is: When a unit comes withing range, the mine locks onto it and fires after 1.5 second, provided the unit is still within range. During that 1.5 second delay, you can manually target another unit for the mine to lock onto, which starts a new 1.5 second timer before launch. This means that if you don't micro your Widow Mines, you participate in a lottery much the same as an opponent who doesn't micro against it. You aren't sure to get anything good out of it, if you just blindly burrow and leave them there.
"More smaller engagements" is something that you have to FORCE, because the whole reason behind the deathball or the "one big clump of army" is the same logic that is also behind the critical number. At a certain point units get much more efficient with a bigger clump and that enables this clump to simply crush their opponent with a smaller clump. The players WANT that ... according to Dustin Browder (from one of his China interviews). It is a silly logic if you ask me, but then I am not a lead designer for SC2.
The big question is ... How do you make people go for "lots of small engagements" instead of the big army? Terran Siege Tank mech is super immobile and thus that kind of a deathball has its serious drawback (plus the vulnerability to air). There are no drawbacks that are as big for any other deathball, so a really big change seems necessary to entice players into engaging with smaller forces. In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
In the below thread I covered that question quite extensively; (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=291) Overall, you have some points, but I think that if you read my posts you'll realize the importance making a disctinction between what is cost-effective and what is efficient. Thus are two very different terms. Action will occur when player x assess that he can trade armies efficiently. In that assseesment he is weighting incentivizes against the potential of taking an cost-ineffective trade.
The key-takeway is that a terran player is more likely to engage a protoss player that is in the proces of obtaining a critical mass of collosus (for instance), than engaging against a player which didn't benfit from scale (certeris paribus). Thus the "critical unit-element" is a very important aspect of game design as it incentivies the opponent to army-trade even though he may take a cost-ineffive trade in the proces.
It is important to note though, that neither player must benefit from critical numbers to the same degree as that will result in neither of them having a strong incentive to army trade.
If you only have one Stalker you will micro it against those three Marines, but if there are 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines it doesnt make sense to stutter-step because the Marines will simply evaporate one of them each time the Stalkers stop and they get in range of the huge number of Marines. Thus reducing the numbers of units on the battlefield seems the much better option. Micro will always be lost as long as it is easier to reproduce a unit than to keep it alive.
But in terms of unit-design we can give players new micro-opportunities as the game progresses; For instance blink, HT, Reavers or redesigned collosus etc. There are many ways to increase the micro requirements throughout the entire game. It's just a different type of micro, and to be honest I see that as a good thing as watching only stupper step throughout the entire game might be a bit boring.
Btw, I don't want to defend Dustin Browder. I think time has shown that he has a pretty bad understanding of both matchup-design (swarm hosts and tempests doesn't exactly create good games) and unit design (collosus and forcefields are quite boring).
In the current gameplay situation with the extremely high economy and production there simply is a point of no return, after which it becomes stupid NOT to go for a big army.
I think yoou may be mixing things together different here. High economy doesn't matter in it self. The only metric that matters is the ratio of army food/bases. A worse economy will decrease the above metric and therefore force players to spread them selves thinner. This will benefit the race that has the incentivize to army-trade (it will buff his tools).
When his tools are strong, action is more likely to occur (assuming his incentivie is unchanged).
However, I think the point you are missing is that it doesn't really matter whether the one player wants to keep his army in a deathball (or whether he wants to spread it out). What matters instead,is the strenght of the tools available from the opponent to army trade/harass efifciently against the defensive player (that benefits from scale). If his tools are significantly strong then action will occur regardless, and if his tools are "mobility-based" then multitasking will occur and the defensive player will be forced (despite what he wants to) to spread out his army.
It is important to note that the army size/bases-ratio is just one way to increase the relative mobility disadvantage of the defensive player. Buffing the mobility of the opposing player can create the same effect (if done correctly).
Give me an example of a "tool to trade army efficiently". That is just an empty phrase unless you can fill it with some "meat".
I gave a lot of examples in the second post of the thread I referred to.
On June 13 2013 19:59 teodoreh wrote: And how exactly WMsBanelings are rewarding for both sides? Which terranZerg gives a crap if he looses a 7550/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If ZergTerran makes the perfect attackdefense he will SURELY loose something from WMBaneling detonations.
Neither of those two units are particularly well designed. The WM is far less fun to watch compared to the Widow Mine and also doesnt really synergize well with any other army unit; the Baneling can be stacked in high enough numbers to require perfect micro from the defender while needing only minimal effort to use them well.
The only plus part about the Widow Mine is the fact that it is about the only unit which doesnt really have a critical number ... because it isnt really an army unit at all (even though it costs supply).
Any number of widow mines is a critical number so it does not really count? Besides critical number is not essentially a bad thing, it basically just mean that unit function differently in small, medium and large numbers. Which creates variance in engagements which actually better for gameplay imo, if you always knew how your unit would function in an engangement it would reward the player who sat on his/her ass and built a heavier tech army.
Yeah , and wm doesn' synergize with other units? WTF! Innovation got it all wrong then? I mean what were you thinking when wrote that. Besides you mean banelings can be stack so one tank can kill them?
All of a sudden, I think many of the points brought up in this daily become important:
Specifically; even if a unit can be very strong, a unit is just a piece of a much larger puzzle. I think it's really important to look at the large puzzle before anything else. To the credit of DK, when talking about Hellbats, he did indeed refer to the timings of hellbats drops instead of hellbats or just medivacs alone.
On June 12 2013 13:58 _Search_ wrote: Already we're seeing the power behind the ZvT Roach/bane all-in. If nothing changes that will literally become every single Korean TvZ. Koreans uniformly just find the "best" "most correct" build and repeat it to death, just look at how Soulkey stole a GSL title from Innovation based almost entirely on that one all-in. Does anyone actually think Soulkey was the best HotS in Korea that month??!!
Recently Protosses finally figured out that Zergs aren't allowed to kill air units and we're seeing ridiculously unfair no-risk hatchery snipes with recalled Void Rays. Expect that to increase as the meta stagnates.
Blizzard NEEDS to get on top of their game. It is far from balanced, it is quickly getting stale.
Roach bane stuff counters greedy play into bio mines (which up until then seemed a bit too strong). Is this a bad thing? I don't understand your comment. It's too early still to know if widow mines are a problem, and since a very possible counter has been found they just got less scary.
As for Voidrays, they have plenty of counters. Hydra timings, mutas, queens, mutas + corruptors. For instance, why shouldn't zerg need to save up larva and gas and mass pump mutas to counter them? Maybe Zergs have to open air by default - or open with overlord speed to scout what is up. Voidrays have far from been proven to be overpowered, and they are certainly killable if you have the right units.
On June 13 2013 19:59 teodoreh wrote: And how exactly WMsBanelings are rewarding for both sides? Which terranZerg gives a crap if he looses a 7550/25 unit or ten of them?
David Kim refuses to see the truth. Even If ZergTerran makes the perfect attackdefense he will SURELY loose something from WMBaneling detonations.
Neither of those two units are particularly well designed. The WM is far less fun to watch compared to the Widow Mine and also doesnt really synergize well with any other army unit; the Baneling can be stacked in high enough numbers to require perfect micro from the defender while needing only minimal effort to use them well.
The only plus part about the Widow Mine is the fact that it is about the only unit which doesnt really have a critical number ... because it isnt really an army unit at all (even though it costs supply).
lol you dare to compare WMs with banelings? A (i) ranged, (ii) automated, (iii) air&ground (iv) cloaked (v) non-suicidal unit? No you don't..
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/hot_shots_body_count.jpg)
