On January 26 2016 07:38 Maxie wrote: I still don't understand the spore nerf.
explicitly: they want to encourage more muta play in ZvZ implicitly: they want to have a matchup to point to for the importance of parasitic bomb as an AA option
I think Blizzard is too afraid to actually redesign any of the match ups and they are just trying to balance the current design despite the numerous problems IMO. I guess I'll take it over nothing, but it's still disappointing. Nerfing the siege tank's pick up in exchange for a reasonable buff of the siege tank's attack could work wonders to improving TvT/TvZ design, but it looks like they're going to postpone it for an unknown period of time.
On January 25 2016 15:25 seemsgood wrote: I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
doesn't work protoss can just kite back and you can't chase them because of blinkstalkers + storm. the only way to win vs tempests is to pull him apart with multipronged pressure. tempests are slow and need time to kill liberators so you can just run circles around them with drops + liberators.
with high number vikings you alway win micro war again tempests.
On January 26 2016 08:26 RavingRaver wrote: I think Blizzard is too afraid to actually redesign any of the match ups and they are just trying to balance the current design despite the numerous problems IMO. I guess I'll take it over nothing, but it's still disappointing. Nerfing the siege tank's pick up in exchange for a reasonable buff of the siege tank's attack could work wonders to improving TvT/TvZ design, but it looks like they're going to postpone it for an unknown period of time.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
I would be fine with this dynamic if it was so hard to transition to mass air that it only happens in 5-10% of the games. the problem right now is that terran needs mass libs to deal with the other races ground armies which forces the other races to go mass air themselves.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
The BC is primarily a TvT unit designed to absorb Viking Shots. For the most part, a large part of the air fight in WoL was the proper ratio of PDD, forward BC's, and Vikings. This created fantastic game states where two deathballs would clash and you NEVER knew which one would win out outside of supply leads. This was mainly because of the low firing rate of Vikings versus the high firing rate of Battlecruisers when fighting within a point defense drone blanket. You wanted to make sure that you fired the fewest "dead" viking shots by having BC's drain point defense drones of energy, and having your first few viking volleys killing as much of their viking forces as possible.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
I would be fine with this dynamic if it was so hard to transition to mass air that it only happens in 5-10% of the games. the problem right now is that terran needs mass libs to deal with the other races ground armies which forces the other races to go mass air themselves.
I do not see this reflected in highlevel games. I cannot remember a LotV tournament game that featured a mass air vs mass air battle, but then again, I'm not watching them quite as much as I used to so I might be totally wrong here.
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
I would be fine with this dynamic if it was so hard to transition to mass air that it only happens in 5-10% of the games. the problem right now is that terran needs mass libs to deal with the other races ground armies which forces the other races to go mass air themselves.
I do not see this reflected in highlevel games. I cannot remember a LotV tournament game that featured a mass air vs mass air battle, but then again, I'm not watching them quite as much as I used to so I might be totally wrong here.
it happens rarely because the game isn't really figured out and so many players die to early timings atm that we hardly see any lategame games however in the few games that go late terran always go mass libs (TY vs Soulkey or TY vs Patience come to mind) and to counter that protoss/zerg have to go mass air themselves (Patience didn't do it and so lost)
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
The BC is primarily a TvT unit designed to absorb Viking Shots. For the most part, a large part of the air fight in WoL was the proper ratio of PDD, forward BC's, and Vikings. This created fantastic game states where two deathballs would clash and you NEVER knew which one would win out outside of supply leads. This was mainly because of the low firing rate of Vikings versus the high firing rate of Battlecruisers when fighting within a point defense drone blanket. You wanted to make sure that you fired the fewest "dead" viking shots by having BC's drain point defense drones of energy, and having your first few viking volleys killing as much of their viking forces as possible.
I really miss those fights.
I didn't follow Starcraft during WoL, but could be those games something like this one?
(Battlecruisers enter the battle around the 20min mark.)
I was so noob at that time* so I was in total awe watching this! Nowadays I'd find it a bit boring but well... I'm not a Terran
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
Then terran will compensate with ghosts, what's your point? There's a reason why Protoss never go Carriers vs Terran. And stalkers sniping broodlords is a common sight as well (or was).
On January 25 2016 18:34 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ Lategame SC2 will almost always be mass air vs mass air as long as one of the players decides to go for liberators, broodlords or tempests/carriers imo.
Protoss ground to air is a joke, I don't think there's any protoss ground unit that can trade decently against mass range upgraded libs.The counter to both liberators and broodlords are tempests, simple as that. Similarly for terran, the best anti air in lategame is vikings. For Zerg it's some combination of ravagers+infestors or corruptor/viper/infestor.
there isn't a ground unit from any race that can trade with mass liberators. Same for broodlords and carriers/tempests
Marines demolish carriers actually. Also stalkers do pretty decently against broodlords.
in monocompositions maybe. but any decent player will support their broodlords/carriers with infestors/high templars + a small ground army and then your stalkers/marines won't do shit.
We have a classic dilemma here between the viability of high tech, supply efficient combat units and being forced into high tech, supply efficient combat units. By design the supply efficient, high investment combat army MUST be the best in the game, otherwise it's completely useless. It's nonesensical to have a combat-focused unit with hardly any utility like the BC, the Broodlord or the Carrier being beaten by much cheaper, much easier to produce, much earlier available generalists like the stalker, the marine or the hydralisk.
If we talk about very mobile air units like the mutalisk, or very specialized air units (anti-air, anti-armored), yeah sure you should be able to combat them with your low tier ground units. But something like the BC needs to be an ultimate weapon when you are dirty rich or it has no place in the game to begin with. (in fact, the BC isn't even really such an ultimate weapon to begin with; it seems hardly useful in any matchup and has historically been on the more useless side of things) In my opinion such air units - or any other similar "ultimate hightier supplyefficiency unit" - simply shouldn't exist to begin with to prevent the dilemma.
The BC is primarily a TvT unit designed to absorb Viking Shots. For the most part, a large part of the air fight in WoL was the proper ratio of PDD, forward BC's, and Vikings. This created fantastic game states where two deathballs would clash and you NEVER knew which one would win out outside of supply leads. This was mainly because of the low firing rate of Vikings versus the high firing rate of Battlecruisers when fighting within a point defense drone blanket. You wanted to make sure that you fired the fewest "dead" viking shots by having BC's drain point defense drones of energy, and having your first few viking volleys killing as much of their viking forces as possible.
I really miss those fights.
I didn't follow Starcraft during WoL, but could be those games something like this one?
(Battlecruisers enter the battle around the 20min mark.)
I was so noob at that time* so I was in total awe watching this! Nowadays I'd find it a bit boring but well... I'm not a Terran
* Not that I am not a noob anymore now
It wasn't necessarily the comp itself--although it definitely was a big part of it. It was also the meta and skill level of the time.
For example: the BC was great at absorbing shots and draining point defense drone--but that was mainly because no one had the balls to go FULL raven retard yet. They didn't realize you could just... make more Ravens and suddenly a combination of PDD, (old) seeker missiles, and Vikings hard countered all TvT air comps. But it was also the pace and tempo of the game as well. Most TvT at the time were drawn out Marine/Tank or MMM compositions fighting for dominance. Two fairly mobile armies in tight maps with little open space. The tighter pathways made it almost impossible for bio to just swarm the tank/marine comp and the small maps allowed the slower tank to keep up with medivac drops. This lead to VERY midgame focused play that rarely, if ever, could find a proper transition into the late game. When the late game did come--it was chaos with almost as many ghost Ghost or Thor games as BC games.
As people got better that dynamic just got--flattened. Much like Marine/Tank/Medivac vs Muta/Ling/Bling was the absolutely most amazing TvZ matches in the past--we will never get that back again with maps as big as they are now, with the skill as high as it is now. its just not the same game.
EPT
