|
Forcefields kinda promote deathballing, not sure.
What it do tho is neglect any counterplay when protoss have many sentires.
If we look at early zealot+senties, this combo beats every other combo at this stage. The fights are dull mostly, enemy has to run from it none-stop. Bad interaction.
I want fun micro vs fun micro. Mouse accuracy, predict the enemy movement and so on.
|
On February 26 2015 18:50 Foxxan wrote:
I want fun micro vs fun micro. Mouse accuracy, predict the enemy movement and so on.
Exactly what FF micro is.
|
On February 26 2015 19:35 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 18:50 Foxxan wrote:
I want fun micro vs fun micro. Mouse accuracy, predict the enemy movement and so on. Exactly what FF micro is.
I want fun micro vs fun micro
Protoss has it, the enemy dont. This is not micro vs micro, its a one-side fest.
Its also about spells, which is not fun micro in general, especially in sc2. It should be about your own units movement, positioning, prediction of the enemy units, mouse accuracy and i probably forgot some things.
|
On February 26 2015 05:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote:
I do like forcefields in some situations.
I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals.
To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts. Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless. Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools). They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights. and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2.
There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most.
I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
|
On February 26 2015 20:07 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 05:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote:
I do like forcefields in some situations.
I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals.
To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts. Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless. Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools). They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights. and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2. There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
I am in no way a speaker of my "race" of course but I really enjoy playing zerg, I enjoy the heavy mechanical parts of the race and I love the swarm feeling of playing. I love the amazing mobility and counter attacks as well as the multitasking. However I would love it even more if I didnt feel like one race nullified everything that is making Zerg, Zerg.
|
|
|
On February 26 2015 20:07 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 05:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote:
I do like forcefields in some situations.
I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals.
To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts. Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless. Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools). They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights. and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2. There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss?
Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW.
|
On February 26 2015 20:07 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 05:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote:
I do like forcefields in some situations.
I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals.
To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts. Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless. Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools). They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights. and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2. There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others.
It's because Protoss got the majority of fun micro shit. I can count the Zerg micro on one hand and while Terran micro is exciting, it's very limited too.
But Protoss? They have all kinds of fun stuff to do. Thing is: it's not fun if you're on the receiving end.
|
On February 15 2015 02:26 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2015 02:19 MrFreeman wrote:On February 15 2015 01:15 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 15 2015 00:54 MrFreeman wrote:
What they need to do, is making the game less stressful. Many ppl play little, take breaks or outright quit, because the game-play is too stressful.
I think if they made it easier to control all your stuff, less efficiently, but still control, like every skill with optional auto-cast with option setting for default value (on/off), queuing buildings and units I don´t have resources for. Some smarter unit command queuing (they wait for energy / when skill is usable / when path is clear), notifications, when unit is blocked, some better notifications in general.
Of course, it has to be balanced and thoroughly tested, but if ppl could enjoy thinking about their strategies, instead of freaking out about the chaos among their ranks, it would surely be gr8 and would bring more ppl in or back. I'm not set on game speed, but I think that in order to make the game less stressful, it would be great if things like mines sweeping entire probe lines or oracles ravaging scv lines if not well prepared were looked at. Disruptor doesn't worry me as much, it comes very late. But oracle is plain badly designed. It should be given more all around utility -I've always advocated for it as a permanent detector- and far less offensive power. I´m not sure how much would that help, but any improvement would be gr8 and could help the playerbase grow and probably have huge effect in the long run, with more ppl staying and never quitting, cuz they could just hop in for a few casual games, have some fun and get back to work, study, whatever... Part of what makes the game stressful is also that the economy grows too fast. At lower levels, this is somewhat mitigated by people having bad macro, but the 12 workers change will propel players even faster towards midgame, where the big clashs of armies occur.
Yes, I agree, I myself am not all too happy about more workers at the beginning. I always use the slow start to get myself set, get my location hotkeys ready, prepare myself for some early pressure silliness, plan my base layout etc, don´t really feel like there is any time left at all. But could be different for ppl who play let´s say 10+ games a day, I play one or two when I have the time.
|
On March 01 2015 05:39 404AlphaSquad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2015 20:07 ejozl wrote:On February 26 2015 05:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote:
I do like forcefields in some situations.
I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals.
To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts. Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless. Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools). They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights. and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2. There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others. So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss? Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW.
I think Terran and Zerg have more common ground and most of them agree that TvZ is a nice matchup. Protoss brings so much new to the board that it feels like playing a different game.
Now what's being suggested is that we change Protoss to be more like T and Z so that the game is more streamlined. I however find it an interesting thought to instead differentiate T and Z more so that it feels like a different game in every matchup.
|
On March 01 2015 06:01 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 05:39 404AlphaSquad wrote:On February 26 2015 20:07 ejozl wrote:On February 26 2015 05:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote:
I do like forcefields in some situations.
I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals.
To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts. Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless. Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools). They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights. and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2. There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others. So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss? Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW. I think Terran and Zerg have more common ground and most of them agree that TvZ is a nice matchup. Protoss brings so much new to the board that it feels like playing a different game. Now what's being suggested is that we change Protoss to be more like T and Z so that the game is more streamlined. I however find it an interesting thought to instead differentiate T and Z more so that it feels like a different game in every matchup.
I like that idea as well, and it seems like Blizzard is trying that as well. However: Will Ravager and Lurker be enough?
|
On March 01 2015 06:01 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2015 05:39 404AlphaSquad wrote:On February 26 2015 20:07 ejozl wrote:On February 26 2015 05:59 NEEDZMOAR wrote:On February 17 2015 12:24 ETisME wrote:
I do like forcefields in some situations.
I love parting pvz early 8ish sentries move out with obs to clear creep and get an earlier third with the extra minerals.
To secure it relies on buying time with forcefields and getting the colossus out
I love how it delays flanks and allow protoss to crush one part of the flank and reposition once the ff runs out.
But the problem is just that it seems to provide more bad games than good ones forcefields disgust me, how they shut down ramps, how they completely shut down lings and roaches lategame (accompanied by the deathballstyle of massive AOE which forcefields force, Protoss is designed for a 1time massive deathball gamedesider) Unless you go for swarm hosts. Forcefields shut down ur opponents micro, as a zerg, theres nothing more frustrating than losing a full army to forcefields, again forcefield make anything other than Swarm host-play, or muta play past the 12-13th min mark almost pointless. Due to the design of forcefields and the mothershipcore, protoss is more or less immune to early aggression /early allins (unless were talking 9-10 pools). They make games boring by (again) promoting deathballs and forces protoss gateway units to be very weak. all in all, the game would be much more beautiful without forcefields since it promotes deathballing and hinders multitasking and multiprong fights. and Yes, im not suggesting that blizzard should remove forcefields and warpgate and MScore and just leave protoss as it is. Protoss needs a complete redesign imo. scrap everything about it except for phoenixes and High templars :D This is ofc only my opinion, biased from years of zergtears. But I honestly feel as if forcefields warpgate and the design of protoss are killing sc2. There's a 1/3 of ppl that play and enjoy Protoss, I'm one of them. Yet most of the players of the other two races seem to agree that they hate playing against Protoss the most. I think it's because Protoss is the most different of the three, Terran and Zerg does seem more like BW design and Protoss is more like I dno WC3. But difference is nice, I'd rather they distinguish Zerg and Terran more, rather than make Protoss like the others. So for you it is a non-issue if 2/3 of the players (I know its exageration) are disgusted playing against Protoss? Also your argument is weak because I would say most sc2 players didnt even play BW. I think Terran and Zerg have more common ground and most of them agree that TvZ is a nice matchup. Protoss brings so much new to the board that it feels like playing a different game. Now what's being suggested is that we change Protoss to be more like T and Z so that the game is more streamlined. I however find it an interesting thought to instead differentiate T and Z more so that it feels like a different game in every matchup.
It has nothing to do with difference but with counter play, its just very simple a really "fun" mechanic is only really "fun" if it is fun on both sides, if the difference in play and counter play are too big this creates very bad game play.
Forcefield, photon overcharge, oracles are examples of units that have very bad counter play from game play perspective, the same as SH or ravens.
Protoss doesn't have to change or be the same as T or Z, its just that playing against protoss its too restricted due to the way protoss works, also having things just "different" doesn't mean that they are fun, the SH was different (very different) and we all know how that work out.
|
On February 23 2015 22:39 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2015 10:15 Quineotio wrote:
I would like to hear your opinion on some changes I think would help.
I don't think the answer to deathballs was more harassment. I think that harassment actually causes deathballs. Because harassment is so strong in sc2, the defending player must devote a large amount of time (and army) to defending, which means they are spending less time (and army) on attacking. The game becomes medivac drops and muta harass, zealot warpins and roach runbys. If harassment was more difficult players would use their entire armies more actively.
Use them for what, if harassment isn't an option? Answer: Make a deathball with them. Show nested quote +
I don't think the proposed changes to resources is the answer. All it will do is force a more frantic gathering of bases and smaller army sizes. It will send the game in a more macro oriented direction, which I think is the opposite of the proposed goal to increase player interaction. I think it would make more sense to make workers gather more resources, but decrease the amount needed for saturation. This would allow players to spend more time and money building army units instead of workers.
I completely disagree. If you make bases quicker and cheaper to saturate, then you cut the window of opportunity for a two-base player to challenge a 'greedy' third. You would see less aggression before three/four bases, not more. Also, SC2 doesn't need more army units earlier. That's a recipe for even more deathball-ish play. What it needs is (hopefully) what the LotV resource changes bring: for three-base builds to be less optimal. Currently, it's easy to take a third while the main is still gathering at maximum capacity, and will continue to do so for quite some time (hence the success of the three base 'parade push'). With the new changes, income will start to dwindle much sooner. That will slow the push from 100-200 supply unless more bases are taken, extending the midgame, rewarding expansion and giving players more targets for attack and harrassment.
The thing about harass in sc2 is that it's relatively cheap, low supply and high impact. The defending player needs to spend a large amount of time and army to defend, meaning they are less likely to use their army offensively. If specialized harassment options required a larger investment, it would put the harasser at a disadvantage in a straight up fight, and there would be a trade off between harassment and army strength.
At the moment, terran gets drops for free, and protoss get warp harass for the cost of a warp prism. This means that both terran and protoss can harass at basically any time, without needing to spend resources on specialized tech. Because of this, there is little incentive for protoss or terran to attack with their entire army until they have a decisive advantage. It makes more sense to play defensively and build up a death ball, only sending the powerful harassment units into enemy territory.
As for the economy, by needing less workers per base you can more quickly build army units, and have more army units at max. This would enable players to split the army up and attack with army units (that are no longer needed to sit in base defending against overly powerful harass units). It would be more likely that multiple battles would occur at different locations.
A lower worker count per base also makes it easier to take more bases, giving more opportunities for well positioned armies to take control of the various contested areas of the map.
|
^which is precisely why zerg's Muta/Ling/Bling is always going to be a thing, because thats the only composition that gets harrassment essentially "within the deal", and solid drop defense on top of it.
Problem is:
You don't really need to harrass a protoss or terran on two bases. Terran can defend easily and replenish SCV losses even easier, Protoss is sitting on his base until the move-out anyway and after that you don't really want to have mutas ...
I don't think that promoting two base play is going to do anything; yeah if they fail they'll be forced to expand but chances are you won't have a third as well, so it really doesn't make a difference.
But thats heavy theorycrafting, no idea how it will play out.
|
Promoting twobase play with how the maps look is complete and utter bullshit. If we had balanced around 2-3 entrances to a main base and open field naturals we could be talking. But otherwise this is complete crap. People are not going to attack into 300mineral walls until they have 150supply and more deathballs. Meanwhile the existing 2base attacks would all go extinct if the opponent never had to invest into thirds and the 20extra workers to saturate it properly and could build army instead.
|
I was just thinking about how to make the Reaper more useful past early game. What I came up with:
As an upgrade:
- Techlab upgrade at factory level. Gives the Reaper his WOL weapon set back (+5 light*2), (+30 vs Structures grenade). This makes the Reaper a very threatening mid to lategame harrassment unit, capable of dealing with Zerglings, banelings and drones really well and aren't denied by structures alone. Their cost and build time should still discourage mass-reaper production, but with Terran gas banking in lategame, these might be interesting additions.
- Ghost Academy tech Cloak upgrade. Allows Reapers to cloak for a short amount of time. They have a 2 second activation animation (can still move during this time) to give the opponent time to snipe them and make sure it does not replace medivac micro. it's a short Cloak for a couple of seconds to allow repositioning, retreating, sniping a few more units. Healing does not work during the cloak. Cooldown is long enough to make it not spammable. ( somewhat comparable to Medivac Boosters in a way)
- Jetpack Detonation when Reaper dies, similar to the Baneling, Reapers deal a small AOE when dieing. Probably too much overlap with the Baneling and Widow Mine, but it might be fun, somehow?
- Allow Reapers to benefit more from upgrades. Give +2/shot/upgrade or combine the damage into one tick so armor applies only once. This way, Reapers become high-DPS glass cannons mid-lategame with superior mobility compared to the marine.
- Spider Mines. Allowing Reapers to upgrade Spider Mine after Factory tech would massively help Mech get off the ground. Coupled with maybe another stat buff Reapers could be the unit that allows Mech to properly transition without having to turtle for too long.
Some comments?
|
Don't reapers still have those timed bombs in LotV or was it scrapped?
|
On March 02 2015 19:26 Tuczniak wrote:
Don't reapers still have those timed bombs in LotV or was it scrapped?
Pretty sure that was WOL Campaign. Haven't heard about that btw
|
Scotland188 Posts
I think some of those suggestions for reapers overlap too much with what already exists.
Such as spider mines and widow mines.
Giving the reaper upgrades for mid-lategame we have to ask for what reason would you
use a group of reapers instead of dropping marine/marauders in a medivac?
|
On March 02 2015 21:29 Startyr wrote:
I think some of those suggestions for reapers overlap too much with what already exists.
Such as spider mines and widow mines.
Giving the reaper upgrades for mid-lategame we have to ask for what reason would you
use a group of reapers instead of dropping marine/marauders in a medivac?
Spider Mines and Widow Mines wouldn't overlap that much. Most important thing is not having 2 supply/mine wasted.
Reapers are faster and more mobile and deal their damage earlier (dropping 8 marines takes a lot of time).
The cloak thing might be gimmicky but also funny.
The old weapon set gives them back the role they had in the ending of WOL (QXC experimented with Reaper raids vs Toss, as Protoss warp ins suck vs Reapers and the damage vs structured was very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
