|
On April 18 2009 01:07 Ziph wrote:
How are hunter seeker missiles imba? Its like a just like a reaver scarab only slower, this makes reaver scarabs also imba right.
You're forgetting a few important points:
- The reaver does not fly, and moves much more slowly than the Nighthawk
- Hunter-Seeker missiles don't have trouble moving around your dragoons, and don't dud due to bad pathing.
- Unlike reavers, Nighthawks are not defenseless vs. air because Hunter-Seeker missiles also work vs. air units.
- Hunter-Seeker missile accelerates significantly when it's close to its target (kind of like Troll Batriders do with its kamikaze attack in WC3)
Reavers traveled in shuttles, you'll say. True, but the Nighthawk doesn't need to unload units on land to get a worker harass off.
The only downside I see to the Hunter-Seeker missile atm, is that it can damage your own units, unlike reaver scarabs. As shown on BR#2, it looked quite OP.
EDIT: Oh, there's also the fact that Nighthawks stack a lot better than Reavers. Nothing like shooting four scarabs at a stray zergling that dies to dragoon fire anyway. With the smart casting in SC2, managing several Nighthawks should be pretty simple.
|
Please shut up about balance with an ability that was introduced to the game a week or two ago.
|
question: is smart casting still in SC2? Because if so there is going to be a shit ton of hunterseeker missiles owning stuff up all at once. It would be crazy if you can snipe the hunterseeker missles since they look pretty big.
|
The whole game feels very very c&c-ish ... especially if you played uprising.
|
United States6173 Posts
Hmm...Hunter-seeker missile was hilarious...it's like a sieged tank shot you need to micro.
The game looks...odd. Nothing like BW anymore...the way it plays, the pacing...I'm hoping it was just because those were bad players.
|
On April 18 2009 12:45 PH wrote:
Hmm...Hunter-seeker missile was hilarious...it's like a sieged tank shot you need to micro.
The game looks...odd. Nothing like BW anymore...the way it plays, the pacing...I'm hoping it was just because those were bad players.
Don't need to hope when it's as plain as day.
|
yeah they were brutal
+ Show Spoiler + man when the zerg had two banelings near the beginning of the game with four lings running into t's expo after z just killed all of t's units and he wasted the banelings on that fucking bunker and not the scv line... made me cringe
|
On April 18 2009 13:02 Typho0n wrote:
yeah they were brutal
dont be disrespecting sir D-Kim
|
Selecting a lot of mining SCVs to attack cause them to freak the hell out and start spinning wildly while being microed, I noticed. Is there anything Blizzard can do to make it, I dunno, look realistic? I always pictures the SCVs using their jet packs to burn the crap out of zerglings.
|
On April 18 2009 12:22 rOlEx wrote:
Please shut up about balance with an ability that was introduced to the game a week or two ago.
Oh, I'm sorry, is there anything else that's taboo that I should know of?
Grow up. Some folks from Blizz are probably reading this thread. If our impressions on balance are valuable as feedback, we're doing the game a favor. No one here's saying SC2 will be bad or unbalanced because of the H-S missile. The ability was introduced recently, it has some balancing to go through, and we're giving our opinions of where those balance tweaks should be directed.
H-S missile does look too strong in BR#2. It's strong versus few units, strong versus groups of units. Its caster, the nighthawk, is a flying unit; to counter it, you can use Hydras- with very low HP for their cost, H-S missiles blow them up; they also can't chase for long if the Nighthawks have ground support units to run to- or Corruptors. Corruptors would have the same problem, probably; they die to one missile hit, and things only get uglier in larger scale battles where the splash damage from each missile adds up.
I think the H-S missile was designed around the idea that the proper counter to it is to run away from it. I'm not sure if that is indeed the case and the Zerg player simply didn't react properly, but I find it unlikely. It's not obvious which unit the missile is chasing, so to make sure it won't hit you need to run pretty much your whole army away, getting shot at from behind all the while and possibly retreating from a strategically advantageous position. And it's not like the Terran player can't just shoot more missiles at you later. So unless the targeted units glow bright red or get a large bullseye painted on their heads, either the missile will hit, or the entire opposing army has to run away for 15 seconds to ensure the missile will dud.
If the missile does hit, it looks too powerful for its cost, at least vs. Zerg. At 17:45 in the battle report, there's a fight between Hydras and Nighthawks. Hydras shoot the nighthawks, Nighthawks use their missiles. Death count: 6 hydras, 2 Nighthawks. You just know there's something wrong when you're facing a larger force of a unit type that happens to be your counter, and you come out ahead in terms of resources.
Maybe the Hydra doesn't have enough HP, or maybe the missile hits too hard. Sure, Psi Storm can be even more devastating against hydras in SC1, but the unit that casts it doesn't fly, moves slowly, and has low health. The Nighthawk is just too hard to kill compared to the High Templar to have comparable destructive power. The fact that the damage from its spell is front-loaded only helps to make it harder to hunt them down because of the Nighthawk's ability to pick off its pursuers.
|
I like the new Zerg movement. I just think that they need a way to make the starting few seconds of animation chosen randomly so they are all hopping, but not all at the same pace. It kind of looks like lag when there's only Zerglings on the screen all hopping at once. But when their hops are offset it looks really really nice.
Hunter seeker is a nice move and will be balanced well. It will be no more or less OP than any other spell from SC.
|
I think Zato really has the wrong idea on the Nitehawk based on the battle report (which is a good testament to why you shouldn't try to discern balance from a single match). David Kim was clearly economically ahead when the zerg decided he didn't need any more drones or to expand very early on in the match. The nitehawks looked fairly overpowered, but thats because Kim was quite ahead at that point. Imagine them as science vessels. How is a 2 base zerg with an army of less than 12 hydras and only a couple other units going to handle a Terran with 2 control groups of MnM and 5+ vessels. Replace MnM with Marine/Marauder/Reaper, and Science vessels with Nitehawks, and you have what we saw. It was not a fair fight. I don't know exactly how Nitehawks will match up against a zerg on equal footing with Scourges gone, but don't make the mistake of thinking this game demonstrated that situation; it did not. Hopefully we will get to see what Zerg's late game answer to a Nitehawk ball is soon enough; if it is imbalanced, theorycrafting won't prove it, actual games will.
And you really should be comparing Nitehawks to Science vessels btw, not reavers. H-S missiles are far more like Irradiate than scarabs. Both have AoE damage that can hurt your own units (irradiate was stronger AoE damage just like it was a stronger spell, but it was over time and in a smaller area). Both will generally kill the main unit they are cast on unless of course the unit has enough HP to survive. Both have a delay between cast and attack where the zerg has some tactical options. Both cost energy and therefore are subject to cost benefit analysis - with Science Vessels in TvZ, short of extremely special circumstances, the choice was almost always clear to use or save for irradiate - with Nitehawks, who knows, auto-turrets may actually be appealing enough to have to make you choose.
There are some obvious differences of course. I think Hunter-Seeker can target non bio units? If so that's kind of a big one. On the other side of the token, Irradiate does more damage I believe; If the stats on SC2 Armory are correct, although many bread and butter units would be one shotted, it would take 4-5 Hunter-Seekers to take down an ultra counting for regen. Another big difference is kill time. Irradiate had a set rate of damage, so kill time was directly based on HP. Hunter-Seeker is instead based on the zerg's actions. If they run forward, it can be almost instant. If they run back, might not kill at all.
Finally, regarding balance, shouldn't be a concern right now imo. Its been said a million times but, there are soooo many differences in this game from what we are used to in broodwar, trying to figure out balance while accounting for all the changes is just impossible. Wait for beta where people have opportunities to really get a feel for how the game plays out.
As an aside and completely separate from balance, I like H-S missles a lot. The whole concept appeals to me a lot more than irradiate.
|
Decoup, I don't know what you're talking about. I thought zato's analysis was perfect. Science vessels irradiate can't be compared because of how small their AOE is and how *long* it takes before they kill something. In the meantime the SV is extremely vulnerable to attack. But the nighthawk blows up everything it targets.
Also, do you people really not realize this whole match was scripted? I mean... do you actually think this was a legitimate game? It's a battle report. It's meant to showcase specific units and build orders, not to demonstrate an actual game in progress. How has almost every single person in this thread missed that?
|
Do you know that the Hunter Missile is one of the last thing in Terran tech tree?? It's researched in building which is requiered for building Battlecruisers! And you are complaining that it wiped the floor with lings and roaches, which are hatchery tech? Seriously?
It's like calling Ultralisks OP because they rape Marines...
|
God I want to see someone flawlessly Boxer clone 7 or 8 hunter-seeker missiles into an oncoming army's front line... *fap fap fap*
Fuck, let's get some progamers on BR and have Tasteless shoutcast it if possible *more fap fap*
|
They need higher game speed and bigger open areas for flanking in the middle of the map.
This looks like a fun game atm. Hopefully there will be diversity in build orders and army unit composition and not 1 way optimized cookie cutter works all the time build orders like in war3.
|
On April 18 2009 14:30 A3iL3r0n wrote:
God I want to see someone flawlessly Boxer clone 7 or 8 hunter-seeker missiles into an oncoming army's front line... *fap fap fap*
Fuck, let's get some progamers on BR and have Tasteless shoutcast it if possible *more fap fap*
Don't think you need to be boxer to do that. Smartcasting is in the current build isnt it?
|
In BW:
MnM + SV
In SC2:
Marine, Maurauder, Medivac, Nighthawk
Diff between TvZ in BW and SC2:
-Marines have more HP in SC2
-Medivac is an air unit in SC2 comapared to the Medic in BW
-Roaches create the need to use Mauraders in addition to Marines in SC2
-Nighthawk vs SV, Hunter Seeker Missile vs. Irridiate
-No Dark Swarm or Plague
-No Scourge to destroy SV/Nighthawks/Medivacs, alternative: Corruptor
-Lurker is Tier 3, Siege Tank is Tier 2.5
-No Medic unit early game = No Stim
Right now it seems like early game, Terrans are weaker vs Zerg, but late game are better than BW because there isn't Dark Swarm or Plague. Also Zerg don't have scourge to snipe Nighthawks, unless Corruptors are good enough..but we have yet to see them in action in an actual game.
|
Did anyone mirror the DL yet? Blizzard downloader isnt working..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
