|
Please consider the following 2 suggestions:
1. A speed and/or acceleration buff for vikings.
2. An armor and/or attack buff for marauders.
Poll: Need to raise kitability of Viking and MarauderYes (13) 20% No (51) 80% 64 total votes Your vote: Need to raise kitability of Viking and Marauder (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
|
On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote:
But please don't buff the liberator, It doesn't encourage entertaining gameplay for either the player or an audience watching.
Agree 100%
|
On April 20 2018 05:13 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 05:06 ReachTheSky wrote:On April 20 2018 04:52 Kalera wrote:On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen.
Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late. You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event. I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events. I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad. Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense. And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier.
Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. Why on earth would I want to care about a caster's/event's bottom line when they exclude the entire community minus a handful of players?
|
Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ?
Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T
this code S : 80% for T
last GSL : 58% for T
WESG : 52% for for T
so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic.
Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven...
We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT.
Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
|
On April 20 2018 05:18 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +Win rates, overall, slightly favor Zerg in this matchup so we want to be cautious about changes here. We want to focus more on Terran’s mid-game power that scales into the late game. Increasing options for a race in the mid game can also improve their late game through having greater control over pacing of the game. Mid-game options can also encourage more counterplay, as options in the late game usually trend towards closing out the match rather than providing control over transitioning. Ongoing results from GSL and WCS will better inform our decisions, and we do have to be careful overall, as this matchup seems to be trending in a good direction.
I have no idea which games bliz look to say "Zerg slightly favored" ? Serral vs Terran foreigner lol ? Aligulac winrate : 50.3% for T this code S : 80% for T last GSL : 58% for T WESG : 52% for for T so you just have GSL super tournament : with 46% for T... because solar beat gumiho and dark beat alive... but innovation beat rogue, maru beat soo, and dark avoid maru thx to classic. Every zerg have experienced the mass raven camping in ladder, 70% of my games vs T are like that, Terran with passive play little harass, mass tanks so you can't attack and they look for lategame with mass raven... We have seen it on GSL, on challenger, on TvZ or on TvT. Late game is so bad balanced in this game since the beginning. Only mid-game is good in this game, the early is quite boring but ok, the lategame is just super lame.
Methinks the best way to keep midgame decent while limiting lategame op is to limit conventional bases to 3 or so, while scattering mineral patches and geysers (either seeded or randomly generated each load) throughout the rest of the map. That way you can increase your bank but not your income moving into the lategame.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On April 20 2018 05:18 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 05:13 Nakajin wrote:On April 20 2018 05:06 ReachTheSky wrote:On April 20 2018 04:52 Kalera wrote:On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen.
Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late. You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event. I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events. I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad. Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense. And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier. Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. We don't care about your money.
I mean these guys need to pay their bills and the prize pool...
|
On April 20 2018 05:25 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 05:18 ReachTheSky wrote:On April 20 2018 05:13 Nakajin wrote:On April 20 2018 05:06 ReachTheSky wrote:On April 20 2018 04:52 Kalera wrote:On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen.
Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late. You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event. I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events. I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad. Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense. And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier. Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. We don't care about your money. I mean these guys need to pay their bills and the prize pool...
You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote:
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM.
On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better.
However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse.
Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor.
At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage.
https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/32tyoe/analyzing_the_marauder_change/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list
|
Canada8989 Posts
On April 20 2018 05:28 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 05:25 Nakajin wrote:On April 20 2018 05:18 ReachTheSky wrote:On April 20 2018 05:13 Nakajin wrote:On April 20 2018 05:06 ReachTheSky wrote:On April 20 2018 04:52 Kalera wrote:On April 20 2018 04:15 ReachTheSky wrote:Lastly, The only other change I can suggest is for blizzard to not allow tournament organizers to host invitationals anymore. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" This is the most anti-community and f**ked up business model i've ever seen.
Invitationals are pretty much rude and disrespectful to the rest of the community. Invitational tournaments serve no purpose other than as a short term money fix for tournament organizers(that also hurts long term growth, this is why we rarely see new blood) and exclude/alienate the rest of the hardworking playerbase(another reason why the playerbase is dwindling). Invitationals should be completely forbidden. I hope blizzard takes action sooner before it's too late. You want them to completely forbid anyone from hosting an invitational? Does that not strike you as rather draconian? How would they even enforce that unless they start having Twitch take down streams. I can already envision the outrage when Blizzard shuts off streamers because they are hosting an invitational event. I don't see how you can say invitationals are anti-community when as you say, the community itself is funding and supporting invitational tournaments. Nobody is forced to watch at all. The vast majority of tournaments small and large have competitive qualifiers, and those that don't are a relatively small portion of the total prize pool. I don't see the big issue in having some invitational events. I explained it very clearly, I think maybe you didn't read it. In the event you did not, here is why they are bad. When you have a party, You don't announce it to the world and then only invite a select few. Why? Because that's a rude thing to do. No one announces a party, says you aren't invited and then invites you to watch from outside the gates(pretty screwed up). Invitationals are an indirect insult to ever player not invite. "Hey you aren't invited to play, but can you stand on the outside looking in so that way can make money off you through twitch views?, While you are at it, please donate as much as you can" It really resembles an abusive relationship. "You aren't good enough to even participate, but you really need to gives us your money to fund this or we won't get a paycheck" It's very sad. Ya but they don't make tournament to have fun, they make it to make money, also it would be the kind of party where you only have a limited number of place, so maybe your best friend wouldn't be able to come since someone else took their place (also in this case your best friend also come with money while the other guy dosen't). Anyway the party analogy dosen't make sense. And I'm pretty sure invitational don't make their money with the view of the 40-50 players who could have try the qualifier. Starcraft is about playing, not about money. Stop using the same old "but we won't make any money" excuse. We don't care about your money. I mean these guys need to pay their bills and the prize pool... You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
Then why the hell should it be my responsability that some high master can't try to qualify for some tournament only to lose in the first round and if no one watch they just won't have sponsor (plus sponsor more then anyone want the big names). Anyway this is way of the balance point, so I will end it here, do a blog about it if you want to talk about it more.
|
Mr. Blizzard sir, thx for analyzing all 6 matchups.
i really like the state the 3 mirror matchups are in right now.
On April 20 2018 04:02 Musicus wrote:
Reverting the Marauder nerf might be a good start imo.
Please don't buff the liberator!
i agree. in general Terran has too many air options and too much air tech.
|
On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote:
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM.
On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ.
zealots are hard countering marauder heavy comp but terran need it to survive colossi+storm, about ultrals yes, they need also revert it to early lotv state with 8 armor and that should be it.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On April 20 2018 05:16 dbm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 04:18 Nakajin wrote:
But please don't buff the liberator, It doesn't encourage entertaining gameplay for either the player or an audience watching. Agree 100%
Damn I forgot I said something that smart 
But seriously it was Z3nith
|
On April 20 2018 05:28 ReachTheSky wrote:
You say this like it's my responsibility to care about their livelihood....I don't. It's not my responsibility to care about complete strangers or take on their problems. Maybe they should go negotiate with real technology companies(ya know for real sponsorship) like a real business person would instead of milking the community like it's momma's titty.
And conversely why should hosts care that some random TL poster doesn't like their tournaments when the majority of the community seems to be happy with it? So some players feel left out, per your logic, maybe they should "negotiate with tournament hosts" to get included in the next invitational then.
They don't expect the players to fund the tournaments, it's the viewers than do, so your earlier argument about the poor players watching is a strawman to begin with. No one is forcing anyone to support an invitational that doesn't want to. They exist purely because there is a demand for it.
I could see this argument if the vast majority of tournaments were invitationals, but they make up a tiny fraction. There are plenty of opportunities for a player to show off their skill. If they get that offended by being excluded from an invitational, they need to grow up a bit.
|
maybe giving marauders a lil more power and leaving the other races the same as they are now.
|
On April 20 2018 05:30 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote:
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM.
On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ. The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better. However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse. Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor. At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/32tyoe/analyzing_the_marauder_change/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list
But when does Terran ever have an upgrade lead against Protoss? Double forge gets memed about for a reason.
Marauders could definitely use a buff imo, they're a shadow of what they were in HotS.
|
On April 20 2018 05:30 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote:
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM.
On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ. The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better. However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse. Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor. At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/32tyoe/analyzing_the_marauder_change/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list
Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones.
Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
|
On April 20 2018 05:54 MrWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 05:30 FrkFrJss wrote:On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote:
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM.
On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ. The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better. However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse. Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor. At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/32tyoe/analyzing_the_marauder_change/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder.
I mean, the Marauder is weaker overall than it was in HotS, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that splitting attacks is anything besides a net nerf. It's just that in some niche scenarios, it can be better. Most of the time, it's worse.
|
On April 20 2018 05:55 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 05:54 MrWayne wrote:On April 20 2018 05:30 FrkFrJss wrote:On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote:
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM.
On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ. The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better. However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse. Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor. At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/32tyoe/analyzing_the_marauder_change/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder. I mean, the Marauder is weaker overall than it was in HotS, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that splitting attacks is a net buff. It's just that in some niche scenarios, it can be better. Most of the time, it's worse.
I would have to go back to the editor to see what marauders get.
|
On April 20 2018 05:55 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 05:55 pvsnp wrote:On April 20 2018 05:54 MrWayne wrote:On April 20 2018 05:30 FrkFrJss wrote:On April 20 2018 04:51 MrWayne wrote:
Can someone explain to me why everyone is so eager to bringing back the HotS Marauder? Wouldn't this just change the Marauders attack from 2x 5(+5 vs armored) to 1x 10(+10 vs armored), that's only +1 dmg per attack against Stalker, Colossi and Immortals, a 5% increase doesn't sound that great and it would also nerf the synergie with the AAM.
On the flip side this change would probably kick the Ultra out of TvZ. The funny thing is that vs. non-ultra armoured on even upgrades, marauders actually do slightly more. This guy on reddit did the math, and whenever Terran bio has an attack upgrade lead against the opponent's armour, the marauder does much better. However, against any non-armoured unit with armour as well as the ultra, marauders do much worse. Also of note is that because of how the marauder attacks, it is buff vs shields because shields have no armor. At 0 shields upgrades and 3/3 on both sides, the new marauder will be doing 16 damage vs the 13 damage it would do otherwise at HotS damage. At 3/3 and against buildings with no shield upgrades, a HotS marauder will do 26 damage. A LotV marauder does 32 damage. https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/32tyoe/analyzing_the_marauder_change/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list Thank you, I didn't know that HotS Marauders get +2 from every attack upgrade, that obviously makes them way better than the LotV ones. Btw this guy on reddit is either outdated or just wrong in regardes of attack upgrades for LotV Marauders, they only get 2x +1 , so they as good vs buildings as the old Marauder. I mean, the Marauder is weaker overall than it was in HotS, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that splitting attacks is a net buff. It's just that in some niche scenarios, it can be better. Most of the time, it's worse. I would have to go back to the editor to see what marauders get.
It's always a good idea to be sure. I would be very shocked if the numbers say otherwise though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
