EPTI thought by now you know that Zerg does not have any Tier 1 or Tier 2 cost-efficient units unlike Terran. And the post above me covered it why Zerg cannot drop. They just can't.
Call to Action: August 19 Balance Testing - Page 37
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ysnake
Bosnia-Herzegovina261 Posts
I thought by now you know that Zerg does not have any Tier 1 or Tier 2 cost-efficient units unlike Terran. And the post above me covered it why Zerg cannot drop. They just can't. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On August 26 2013 18:26 ysnake wrote: I thought by now you know that Zerg does not have any Tier 1 or Tier 2 cost-efficient units unlike Terran. And the post above me covered it why Zerg cannot drop. They just can't. I'm not saying it's possible. I wasn't the one who posted it, if that's what you're thinking. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
That's just not true. If you want to defend against drops with just static D you're in for a nasty surprise. You just can't really do it. Medivacs heal and there will always be ONE angle where you can attack in relatively impunity. You really need units to effectively deal with drops and Mutalisks are the only unit mobile enough to do so. Lings are fast but they don't fly like Medivacs do. Also what does a "decently big attack" mean? Attack Terran's ramp? Unless you're going all-in or you're really ahead you're never going to trade effectively by attacking Terran's front wall. Not against the range advantage Terran has. What you're describing just isn't viable. | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On August 26 2013 18:27 Incognoto wrote: That's just not true. If you want to defend against drops with just static D you're in for a nasty surprise. You just can't really do it. Medivacs heal and there will always be ONE angle where you can attack in relatively impunity. You really need units to effectively deal with drops and Mutalisks are the only unit mobile enough to do so. Lings are fast but they don't fly like Medivacs do. Also what does a "decently big attack" mean? Attack Terran's ramp? Unless you're going all-in or you're really ahead you're never going to trade effectively by attacking Terran's front wall. Not against the range advantage Terran has. What you're describing just isn't viable. Guys, it's not my idea. ._. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
Well, let's say I'm trying to beat down an idea that's not yours then. :p heheh I love these discussions actually, just discussing RTS is almost as fun as playing it. ^^ | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 26 2013 19:40 Grumbels wrote: I guess widow mines were intended to tank for siege tanks in mech also? I suppose you don't see that so much because they compete with tanks for gas. If widow mines only costed minerals but were a bit weaker maybe they could work out, but then they would compete with hellions I suppose. I think the main ideas were to give Terran a little easier time to shut down counter attacks with mechplay and to give Mech a cheaper goto antiair unit. Because though Thors are quite a strong Antiair unit, it's very hard productionwise to get a good count of them or to reproduce enough antiair once they have been traded with ground units. | ||
|
fdsdfg
United States1251 Posts
On August 26 2013 18:25 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Everytime the Zergs lose large numbers of their units it's because X unit is imba. Banshee opening, ERHMERGERD IT'S SO HARD QQ; Dustin, "Come David, to the nerf cave!" Thor drop opening, ERHMERGERD MAH QUEEN, Terran is too efficient, Q_Q, Dustin, "Come David, to the nerf cave!" Bunker rush opening, ERHMERGERD MAH QUEEN, Terran has too many options!!! Nerf to the face... Are you trying to say Terran's were never too powerful, and your proof is that they have been repeatedly nerfed? | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On August 26 2013 23:38 fdsdfg wrote: Are you trying to say Terran's were never too powerful, and your proof is that they have been repeatedly nerfed? Yes. SC2 has been whittled down to bone and the attendances show. Don't deny the truth. In pandering to a specific player group, SC2 numbers did not grow as expected. I have seen too many games fail because developers pandered to the loudest group (Oh Master of Magic! I knew thee well!!) | ||
|
fdsdfg
United States1251 Posts
Okay. You should realize that makes you incredibly hard to take seriously. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On August 26 2013 23:56 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Yes. SC2 has been whittled down to bone and the attendances show. Don't deny the truth. In pandering to a specific player group, SC2 numbers did not grow as expected. I have seen too many games fail because developers pandered to the loudest group (Oh Master of Magic! I knew thee well!!) 1) Your logic is terrible. 2) If Blizzard were pandering to the loudest crowd: We wouldn't have Warp Gate We wouldn't have the Colossus We wouldn't have force field Siege Tanks would be awesome Carriers would build a lot faster than 90 seconds Gateway units would be much more formitable in straight-up fights 3) Why the hell am i coming in and responding to your stupid post? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 27 2013 00:29 Jermstuddog wrote: 1) Your logic is terrible. 2) If Blizzard were pandering to the loudest crowd: We wouldn't have Warp Gate We wouldn't have the Colossus We wouldn't have force field Siege Tanks would be awesome Carriers would build a lot faster than 90 seconds Gateway units would be much more formitable in straight-up fights 3) Why the hell am i coming in and responding to your stupid post? answer to 3): so that his fantasizing doesn't become the loudest group. | ||
|
VayneAuthority
United States8983 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
If Blizzard are afraid of Tanks being too strong in early timing attacks, just keep the base damage the same and increase the effect of tank damage upgrades. | ||
|
SsDrKosS
330 Posts
On August 27 2013 00:29 Jermstuddog wrote: 1) Your logic is terrible. 2) If Blizzard were pandering to the loudest crowd: We wouldn't have Warp Gate We wouldn't have the Colossus We wouldn't have force field Siege Tanks would be awesome Carriers would build a lot faster than 90 seconds Gateway units would be much more formitable in straight-up fights 3) Why the hell am i coming in and responding to your stupid post? I know ppl will tear me apart by saying this... even after many years passes by, I STILL WANT MY REAVER INSTEAD OF COLOSSUS!!!  My biggest reason of race switch :p + Show Spoiler + so I personally want ALL of what you have listed which are'not to be happened | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On August 27 2013 21:38 SsDrKosS wrote: I know ppl will tear me apart by saying this... even after many years passes by, I STILL WANT MY REAVER INSTEAD OF COLOSSUS!!! My biggest reason of race switch :p + Show Spoiler + so I personally want ALL of what you have listed which are'not to be happened What I listed are the core bits of the mantra that has proceeded around SC2 since WoL was released. But Blizzard in their mighty knowledge refuses to give the community what they ask for, instead, we will play the game that Blizzard has designed for us! Because we don't know what we want! BTW I hate that game design logic, it's fucking terrible and it makes for bad games: see EQ, Diablo 3, SC2, and countless other games where the design team thinks they know better than their community. I am not trying to undermine the position of lead designer, I'm happy to have people like DK trying their best to make the game balanced, but too many of them, including the team in charge of SC2 forget the fact that a game needs to be FUN before it's balanced, and SC2 HotS is turning out to be not very fun at all... | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On August 27 2013 21:38 SsDrKosS wrote: I know ppl will tear me apart by saying this... even after many years passes by, I STILL WANT MY REAVER INSTEAD OF COLOSSUS!!! My biggest reason of race switch :p + Show Spoiler + so I personally want ALL of what you have listed which are'not to be happened I want my Reaver back because it's cool, but when another race has a strong AoE unit forcing caution/micro from the opponent: On August 27 2013 21:47 SsDrKosS wrote: Come on blizzard, just nerf WM. Double standards much? | ||
|
SsDrKosS
330 Posts
On August 27 2013 21:53 TheDwf wrote: I want my Reaver back because it's cool, but when another race has a strong AoE unit forcing caution/micro from the opponent: Double standards much?  I was just saying it you know. btw wm and reaver is very different apart from the fact that they does tons of dmg per shot wm is just too imba compare to reaver (reaver is expensive, higher tech/no reactor/burrow attack, etc ) | ||
|
Cereb
Denmark3388 Posts
These would be way more interesting than just increasing the Ultralisks health further, which already is a really really strong unit, in my opinion. It actually blows my mind that they haven't made any changes to the Nydus since release. It's been concluded so many times that the investment for this is too much. But the game is pretty fine so It's not like this is in a hurry to get here for me. I just hope they make the right changes! | ||
|
midnight999
United States257 Posts
On August 27 2013 22:00 SsDrKosS wrote: I was just saying it you know. btw wm and reaver is very different apart from the fact that they does tons of dmg per shot wm is just too imba compare to reaver (reaver is expensive, higher tech/no reactor/burrow attack, etc ) Plus reaver scarabs dont affect air. | ||
| ||
