|
On December 20 2015 03:32 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 03:25 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. Nah, just needs to do more dmg. The Lurkers shows that even low mobility when it's put together with a strong attack makes for a very powerful unit. The lurker doesn't have much higher DPS than siege tanks (it has lower DPS against armored units actually) and it's easier to micro against. Seriously the lurker attack damage is only 30, the tank is 35 but slightly slower (50 vs armored).
Big potential AOE though
|
On December 20 2015 03:44 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 03:32 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 03:25 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. Nah, just needs to do more dmg. The Lurkers shows that even low mobility when it's put together with a strong attack makes for a very powerful unit. The lurker doesn't have much higher DPS than siege tanks (it has lower DPS against armored units actually) and it's easier to micro against. Seriously the lurker attack damage is only 30, the tank is 35 but slightly slower (50 vs armored). Big potential AOE though
Potential yeah, although mostly from the fact that it can't be seen. By which I mean its attack, that animation is awful.
|
Wow, today until now no Terran won a single matchup at Home Cup, they are 12-1 on maps 
|
On December 20 2015 03:49 TW wrote:Wow, today until now no Terran won a single matchup at Home Cup, they are 12-1 on maps
I mean Blizzard pretty much said during beta that that's not the level they're balancing the game around. At least it was implied considering they repeatedly said "Top level pros aren't playing yet" when all that was missing were a few KeSPA players.
|
On December 20 2015 03:55 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 03:49 TW wrote:Wow, today until now no Terran won a single matchup at Home Cup, they are 12-1 on maps I mean Blizzard pretty much said during beta that that's not the level they're balancing the game around. At least it was implied considering they repeatedly said "Top level pros aren't playing yet" when all that was missing were a few KeSPA players.
Good thing no kespa players played yet in any tourney or pre season or qualifiers!
|
On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse.
You define what is a solution or a workaround by looking at the function of the unit. Siege Tanks are meant to siege areas and hold positions. As stated from someone else, the siege units that compare to this are Brood Lords, Lurkers, Liberators, Disruptors, and Tempest. All aformentioned units you don't attack into unless you're positive that you can break through the contained position, or dismantle the Siege unit. All of these units except the Siege Tank fulfill this solidly. What we have instead is a requirement to have a secondary unit in order for it to function. This is not depth added to the Siege Tank but rather depth added to the Medivac.
What you're saying is being a siege unit isn't the tank's role anymore, when it still is and I don't really think that can be contested. Otherwise, what is it's role supposed to be? A Harass unit? Backline support? If that's the case then you can buff tank mode and increase it's movement speed so it can keep up with Bio. But that would be really silly.
|
On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do.
No, they can't.
And all of those are without upgrades.
A marauder in "blank state" does not slow. It also does not stim. "Things marauders do" is only after two upgrades, where as the adept comes straight out of the box with all it's strengths. And that's the idiotic part.
Make shade a researchable ability in cybercore, for 100-100, taking 120 seconds to research (same as stim) - adept fixed. It's so stupid to watch adept/warpprism over and over again.
edit: or, you know, change them from light to armored, since they kinda are armored. I never understood why marauders count as "armored" but the adept does not.
|
On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do.
Marauders are pretty clearly on the whole a much weaker unit without their upgrades. And I doubt Adepts will ever be balanced unless they're made into a Protoss version of the HotS reaper (useful early for scout/mild harass, crap later).
On December 20 2015 05:37 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. You define what is a solution or a workaround by looking at the function of the unit. Siege Tanks are meant to siege areas and hold positions. As stated from someone else, the siege units that compare to this are Brood Lords, Lurkers, Liberators, Disruptors, and Tempest. All aformentioned units you don't attack into unless you're positive that you can break through the contained position, or dismantle the Siege unit. All of these units except the Siege Tank fulfill this solidly. What we have instead is a requirement to have a secondary unit in order for it to function. This is not depth added to the Siege Tank but rather depth added to the Medivac. What you're saying is being a siege unit isn't the tank's role anymore, when it still is and I don't really think that can be contested. Otherwise, what is it's role supposed to be? A Harass unit? Backline support? If that's the case then you can buff tank mode and increase it's movement speed so it can keep up with Bio. But that would be really silly.
I think it's pretty clear that Liberators preform the function that Tanks were supposed to. Lurkers appear to work well so far. It does seem to be hard to justify the position that units of the Tank's type can't function in LotV. Not sure why some people are trying to argue the point. But then again, a bunch of people think that 8 armor Ultras, current cracklings, and beta Adepts were fine, so, I guess there's no hope for some people.
|
On December 20 2015 06:04 m4ini wrote:
edit: or, you know, change them from light to armored, since they kinda are armored. I never understood why marauders count as "armored" but the adept does not.
It's so they're in less of a counter relationship with marauders. Blizzard wanted them to become a core unit for Protoss. But they came to the conclusion that the new core unit shouldn't be armored in the face of stimmed marauders existing in the game. I guess because it turned out that the stalker was too squishy against upgraded bio and it was armored.
The zealot was better against bio in an actual fight but only with bandaid charge because of Concussive Shells. But Concussive Shells is already its own bandaid to help Terran hold attacks before stim (and combat creep movement speed bonuses), so they didn't wish to take that out. So they came up with the adept - tanks like a zealot and moves more smoothly than a stalker.
|
On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do.
Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game?
I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch
Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe.
|
On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe.
Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades or its full potential?
Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. The longer any matchup goes the less adepts you see. Marauders are built throughout the game in TvP and have use in TvZ all game.
|
On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades? So thors are better than ultras. Wow that's really OP, they should be nerfed. Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different.
Well that's partially because you described things that any unit that does +armored can. It's kind of the point of them.
It's like me saying "adepts are better at looking like adepts". Or i could do the same as you, and say "they're better at killing light, they're better at tanking damage, they're better at "not dying", they're also better at scouting thanks to shade.
That's kind of a non-argument, really.
edit: that's also leaving out the fact that two adepts can win you a game, whereas two marauders pretty much do fuck all.
|
On December 20 2015 07:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades? So thors are better than ultras. Wow that's really OP, they should be nerfed. Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. Well that's partially because you described things that any unit that does +armored can. It's kind of the point of them. It's like me saying "adepts are better at looking like adepts". Or i could do the same as you, and say "they're better at killing light, they're better at tanking damage, they're better at "not dying", they're also better at scouting thanks to shade. That's kind of a non-argument, really. edit: that's also leaving out the fact that two adepts can win you the game easily, whereas two marauders pretty much do fuck all.
And the point of that was to show that they fill different roles and have different strengths. Which goes against what the first guy implied that adepts are flatly better units. When you get hit with a roach attack, adepts or marauders? When you get hit with a blink all-in, adepts or marauders? When you want to kill workers, adepts or marauders? When you're attacked by mass zerglings, adepts or marauders?
What's better, a hellion or a zealot? A thor or an ultra? A medivac or a mutalisk? A phoenix or a corruptor? They cost the same but do different things. Can you flatly call one always better?
On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D
|
On December 20 2015 07:36 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 07:25 m4ini wrote:On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades? So thors are better than ultras. Wow that's really OP, they should be nerfed. Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. Well that's partially because you described things that any unit that does +armored can. It's kind of the point of them. It's like me saying "adepts are better at looking like adepts". Or i could do the same as you, and say "they're better at killing light, they're better at tanking damage, they're better at "not dying", they're also better at scouting thanks to shade. That's kind of a non-argument, really. edit: that's also leaving out the fact that two adepts can win you the game easily, whereas two marauders pretty much do fuck all. And the point of that was to show that they fill different roles and have different strengths. Which goes against what the first guy implied that adepts are flatly better units. When you get hit with a roach attack, adepts or marauders? When you get hit with a blink all-in, adepts or marauders? What's better, a hellion or a zealot? A thor or an ultra? A medivac or a mutalisk? A phoenix or a corruptor? They cost the same but do different things. Can you flatly call one always better? Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D
Yeah, you can. Upgraded Marines are the best basic infantry unit in the game, in terms of cost, microablity, mobility, etc. Are they better than Marauders vs. Banelings? Nope. Are they better in general? You can bet your ass they are.
When I played League a few years ago, Karma was the worst hero in the game. Was she a better healer than [insert hero with no heal here]? Yeah, she was. Was she better than that hero in some situations (situations that required heals, for example)? Yep. Was she a weaker hero in general? Sure was.
|
On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades or its full potential? Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. The longer any matchup goes the less adepts you see. Marauders are built throughout the game in TvP and have use in TvZ all game.
Yeah, you usually see Marauders wrecking buildings and fight armored units pre-upgrades.
....
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed.
|
On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed.
Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc?
I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it.
|
An adrenal buff at all really makes no sense in the context of the 'down with T1' arguments made in TvZ regarding the ultralisk.
|
Well, you know a unit is broken when the Korean protosses repeats how broken the unit is in PvT, calling the match up a free win 
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it.
they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me!
I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
