|
On October 05 2009 01:54 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 01:42 Integra wrote:On October 04 2009 09:47 Zato-1 wrote:
- Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator? Zato, If your opponent doesn't have a C&C/Nexus/hatchery it's buildings will become visible after X amount of seconds. Only way to cancel the reveal effect is to put down a new hatch/nexus/C&C Depending on your opponent's color and the terrain color in the minimap, it can still be nontrivial to spot those hidden pylons. At any rate, I for one won't complain if they make the "hide the farm" tactic even less viable.
You can switch the colours, in SC1 you simply press shift+tab and your opponent gets the colour red in both the minimap and the actuall game. it will work about the same in SC2.
But yea, building hiding will prolly still exist, C&C/hatchery/nexys hiding that is. People do this in Warcraft3 all the time. Sure it's one big and expensive building but you can still hide it 
|
Wow man :D thanks for your insight about Archons 
I was thinking about doing my own thread but I think I'll post here:
What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters"  ?
Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream?
No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it.
No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it.
Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair.
Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes.
No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them.
For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter.
Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...?
The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell.
BTW I wonder what kills Tank faster: Warp / Void Ray or Immortal and what is going to happen to Carrier, some sources say Interceptors deal 5x2 dmg and have 50/50 HP now so will Carrier be just a siege unit now?
|
Immortals probably kill tanks faster (in three hits). While they're very strong vs tanks, they'll still take some damage. Void rays can kill tanks while taking no damage at all, but they're really specialized against very high hit point units (battlecruisers, buildings).
|
On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters" ? Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream? No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it. No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it. Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair. Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes. No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them. For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter. Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...? The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell.
The phoenix. As a Protoss fan, I'm actually pretty excited about the unit! The old Scout + Corsair got replaced by Void Ray + Phoenix, and I doubt anything can be quite as bad as the Scout. The Corsair is a good unit- but mostly just in PvZ.
Protoss is very dependent on the Zealot-Goon combo in SC1; the only strategy that doesn't rely heavily on those two units is Sair-Reaver in PvZ. It might be this will change in SC2- I find that in order to analyze the Phoenix properly, you have to also consider its partner in crime, the Void Ray.
Do you remember Battle Report 1? David Kim owning some Protoss player as Terran? The unit combo with which he ran the Protoss over was Hellion - Marauder - Banshee. Hellions tore up the Zealots, Marauders were effective against Stalkers and Colossi, and Banshees helped to dismantle the Colossus threat. These units have something in common: none of them can attack air. In SC1, you got something similar in Tanks + Vultures, but the only serious air counters are Zealot bombs on top of the tanks + mines, and Carriers- Carriers are so far up the tech tree and such a huge investment, they're not something you can build to support your standing army. Unlike, say, Reavers or Templars.
Back to SC2. Void Rays and Phoenix are not a huge investment like Carriers; they're more akin to switching from Hydras to Mutas against a meching Terran (although Zerg can do so more quickly thanks to the nature of larvae). Lings, banelings, roaches are all incapable of shooting air, and Void Rays can actually deal a lot of damage if left unchecked- unlike, say, Scouts. To turn this into an air superiority force, you have the Phoenix: they're really cheap, they're fast, and they're fairly straightforward- first, they take out any enemy air, then they support your ground units by picking on Siege Tanks, Immortals, Lurkers and such.
Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk:
- A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta).
- A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate.
- A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta).
How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
Phoenix vs. Arbiters: I think the comparison to the Corsair is better, actually. Instead of Disruption Web which affects an area, they have Graviton Beam which only affects one unit at a time but allows the other Phoenix to take out the incapacitated unit. Besides, Protoss still have a Stasis Field in SC2, it's called Vortex.
Also- I lol'd at the "Arbiter hero" fighting turrets concept :p
|
On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:BTW I wonder what kills Tank faster: Warp / Void Ray or Immortal and what is going to happen to Carrier, some sources say Interceptors deal 5x2 dmg and have 50/50 HP now so will Carrier be just a siege unit now?
Air units and Immortals are both a good counter to tanks. I'd say the supporting Terran cast is more important in this case: If he has a ground-heavy force with Hellions or Ghosts, Immortals will melt to tank fire once their shields are taken down. If he has Thors, those will shoot your Phoenix out of the air so fast it's not funny- but Immortals will chew 'em up :p
|
You know the damage buff to Zealots might be to encourage Zerg players to use the Roach?
|
On October 05 2009 03:55 Median wrote:
You know the damage buff to Zealots might be to encourage Zerg players to use the Roach?
Well, it'll certainly make Zerglings stop being the early game answer to everything the Protoss has.
|
i dont agree with this not being able to build supply depot without command centre thing
it could be useful in do or die situations to build a supply instead of a new cc , why take that option out?
|
On October 05 2009 01:42 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2009 09:47 Zato-1 wrote:
- Hide the farm. Apparently, pylons require a Nexus to be built now, and I suppose the same is true of Supply Depots with Command Centers. I guess the new tactic will be called Hide the Assimilator? Zato, If your opponent doesn't have a C&C/Nexus/hatchery it's buildings will become visible after X amount of seconds. Only way to cancel the reveal effect is to put down a new hatch/nexus/C&C
Really? There goes those fun elimination games where both people have armies but no real base ;/
|
Since we were talking about Archons earlier, something just occured to me now that you can make archons from DTs.
1 - Sneak 2 DTs into enemy base
2 - Morph into Archon out of site near mineral patches
3 - ?!?!?
4 - Profit!
Edit: man, I really should save these for beta/release...
|
On October 06 2009 02:56 0neder wrote:
Since we were talking about Archons earlier, something just occured to me now that you can make archons from DTs.
1 - Sneak 2 DTs into enemy base
2 - Morph into Archon out of site near mineral patches
3 - ?!?!?
4 - Profit!
Edit: man, I really should save these for beta/release...
i think the two dts can do enough damage by themselves, and they stay invisible.. so
|
Canada11172 Posts
On October 06 2009 03:04 da_head wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2009 02:56 0neder wrote:
Since we were talking about Archons earlier, something just occured to me now that you can make archons from DTs.
1 - Sneak 2 DTs into enemy base
2 - Morph into Archon out of site near mineral patches
3 - ?!?!?
4 - Profit!
Edit: man, I really should save these for beta/release... i think the two dts can do enough damage by themselves, and they stay invisible.. so
Plus the time it takes to make said Archons could be better spent killing units and buildings and dodging detection.
|
Anyone ever accidentally merge their DTs into a dark archon during a DT drop? I have 
|
I guess the only useful context would be if you knew they had air units they'd bring back to defend.
|
Dragoons originally used to build faster and shoot faster, but cost a little bit more. PvT it wasn't uncommon for mass dragoons to be a strong strategy, even against a terran with many tanks. Maybe the stalker will resemble the early dragoon a bit?
|
On October 06 2009 10:28 ][-][eretic wrote:
Dragoons originally used to build faster and shoot faster, but cost a little bit more. PvT it wasn't uncommon for mass dragoons to be a strong strategy, even against a terran with many tanks. Maybe the stalker will resemble the early dragoon a bit?
this is wrong
dragoons had one less range before the patch changes , making them useless
|
On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:
Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk:
- A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta).
- A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate.
- A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta).
How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
Um, mutas deals more damage than phoenixes, since their attack bounces. 10+5+2=17, meaning that mutas deals almost 50% more damage than phoenixes while phoenixes have 50% more health. Of course mutas damage is spread a bit but I'd still say that it is far from a one sided battle and since mutas are better against ground so he is more likely to have more mutas than you have nixes since you need other units for ground.
And by mixing in 1-2 corrupters he will get corrupted units during the battle so then he most likely will win with equal resources.
|
I need to divide your post because you've touched different subjects ;P
On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters" ? Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream? No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it. No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it. Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair. Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes. No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them. For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter. Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...? The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell. Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk: - A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta). - A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate. - A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta). How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
I have no idea how much damage will 2nd and 3rd muta hits deal (and this would be pretty huge if those were 5 and 2) but I agree with Klockan that you can't make as much Phoenixes as you would like to because Zerg will just switch to ground forces and roll over you most likely before toss air can take care of Overlords.
This is even if you win against Mutalisk / Corrupter combo - talking about Corrupters I wonder how final corrupting mechanic will look like, so far killing hit has to be done by Corrupter in order to corrupt unit right?
Making enough Phoenixes to match initial Mutas would be hard to do alone - good Zerg would just fake Muta openings to make Protosses spend big amount of their resources on Stargates and air units.
Phoenix vs. Arbiters: I think the comparison to the Corsair is better, actually. Instead of Disruption Web which affects an area, they have Graviton Beam which only affects one unit at a time but allows the other Phoenix to take out the incapacitated unit. Besides, Protoss still have a Stasis Field in SC2, it's called Vortex.
I disagree:
- Escaping Disruption Web is easy, that's why it's not used in modern PvT instead of Stasis.
- I haven't seen info saying Graviton Beam affects only 1 target: this doesn't make any sense - to choose for example 1 Zergling / 1 Marine or 1 Ultralisk / Siege Tank?
What's more AFAIK this spell was supposed to lift buildings into air too, it was described as possible counter against "turtles".
- GB may be another reason why energy transfer ratio was so poor.
- Even Dustin Browder himself said in an interview that he considers Mothership as unit made for fun, i.e. not made in competitive games.
You wrote about Carriers being too high in tech earlier even though they are being used and you mention Mothership?
|
On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:What do you think about Phoenixes? Zatic wrote they are bad against Mutas and I started thinking what if they are not new Corsairs but new "mini-Arbiters" ? Wouldn't Graviton Beam as "new Stasis Field" be every Protoss wet dream? No tech buildings other than Stargate and no upgrades required to be able to cast it. No need to wait entire duration to kill units affected by it. Cast by unit that costs 75gas (at least for now) which is less than original Corsair. Smartcasting making it easy to cast with group of Phoenixes. No threat of "Arbiter hero's" fighting Turrets when player forgets to hold them. For the same amount of gas you get faster units with definitely more HP than single Arbiter. Old Stasis would be ineffective - with much more time freed to micro good players will prevent their units from clumping too much - weaker in duration and area spell but cast by much more units should be better...? The only con is they have to stay near lifted targets for entire duration and killing them stops the spell. The phoenix. As a Protoss fan, I'm actually pretty excited about the unit! The old Scout + Corsair got replaced by Void Ray + Phoenix, and I doubt anything can be quite as bad as the Scout. The Corsair is a good unit- but mostly just in PvZ. Protoss is very dependent on the Zealot-Goon combo in SC1; the only strategy that doesn't rely heavily on those two units is Sair-Reaver in PvZ. It might be this will change in SC2- I find that in order to analyze the Phoenix properly, you have to also consider its partner in crime, the Void Ray. Do you remember Battle Report 1? David Kim owning some Protoss player as Terran? The unit combo with which he ran the Protoss over was Hellion - Marauder - Banshee. Hellions tore up the Zealots, Marauders were effective against Stalkers and Colossi, and Banshees helped to dismantle the Colossus threat. These units have something in common: none of them can attack air. In SC1, you got something similar in Tanks + Vultures, but the only serious air counters are Zealot bombs on top of the tanks + mines, and Carriers- Carriers are so far up the tech tree and such a huge investment, they're not something you can build to support your standing army. Unlike, say, Reavers or Templars. Back to SC2. Void Rays and Phoenix are not a huge investment like Carriers; they're more akin to switching from Hydras to Mutas against a meching Terran (although Zerg can do so more quickly thanks to the nature of larvae). Lings, banelings, roaches are all incapable of shooting air, and Void Rays can actually deal a lot of damage if left unchecked- unlike, say, Scouts. To turn this into an air superiority force, you have the Phoenix: they're really cheap, they're fast, and they're fairly straightforward- first, they take out any enemy air, then they support your ground units by picking on Siege Tanks, Immortals, Lurkers and such.
On October 05 2009 03:14 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 02:11 beetlelisk wrote:BTW I wonder what kills Tank faster: Warp / Void Ray or Immortal and what is going to happen to Carrier, some sources say Interceptors deal 5x2 dmg and have 50/50 HP now so will Carrier be just a siege unit now? Air units and Immortals are both a good counter to tanks. I'd say the supporting Terran cast is more important in this case: If he has a ground-heavy force with Hellions or Ghosts, Immortals will melt to tank fire once their shields are taken down. If he has Thors, those will shoot your Phoenix out of the air so fast it's not funny- but Immortals will chew 'em up :p
Zatic wrote he liked using infantry against toss opponents so much he almost made no Tanks - Marines have much bigger role in PvT now and it was confirmed again and they are going to be primary threat to any Protoss air imo, even in the 1st SC2 gameplay shown during WWI in Seoul Marines were used against Warp Rays, they may be enough against Phoenixes too.
Colossi are their doom but as sites you've given links to confirm Vikings are supposed to be answer to them - Colossi are so big they are treated as air units too and Vikings even have damage bonus against Massive units.
Will we see any Thors in PvTs if Terrans are going to have sufficient AA before Thor tech, AA that's not as susceptible to units with damage bonus against armoured?
Phoenix lost it's role as superiority fighter when it's only spell was changed, they may help to keep enemy air units at bay but I don't think they are going to be the main answer.
I'm extremely curious if Carriers take role of ultimate AA in SC2 (against smaller units, I don't mean BCs or other Carriers here ;d)
|
On October 07 2009 00:08 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2009 03:07 Zato-1 wrote:
Zatic claims he overpowered them with Mutas. To this, I say: Did you know 63 mutas will absolutely tear up 12 Battlecruisers in Brood Wars at equal upgrade levels? 63 mutas cost 50% more than 12 BCs (in total mineral+gas cost). However, in an even fight between 12 BCs and 42 mutas, the BCs will win handily. What I mean by this is: If his mutas overpowered the enemy Phoenix, it's likely because the mutas outnumbered the Phoenix significantly. Consider the following- when compared to a Mutalisk:
- A Phoenix costs about as much (125min 75gas vs. 100min 100gas for the muta).
- A Phoenix attack deals more damage, with more range, and at similar attack rate.
- A Phoenix is significantly tougher (120 health / 60 shields vs. 120 health for the muta).
How can mutas possibly win? By significantly outnumbering the Phoenix- I see no other way.
Um, mutas deals more damage than phoenixes, since their attack bounces. 10+5+2=17
Excuse me- where did you get these numbers?
In Brood Wars, mutas deal 9+3+1 damage. I know the primary hit now deals 10 damage, but if I had to extrapolate on the total attack damage, it would probably be 10+3+1.
Now, assuming that's the case, I ran an excel simulation of how a muta vs. phoenix battle would ensue. The assumptions I used are:
No Overkill: Players have perfect focus-firing and take advantage of every last point of damage, never dealing more damage to a unit than its total health. (Note that I can modify this assumption to make it more realistic, I just need more realistic estimates of how much damage is lost in overkill).
Muta splash: A muta has a main target, a first bounce target, and a second bounce target. As long as the phoenix numbers are high (more than half), mutas only take advantage of a small portion of their splash damage (1/3 of the damage dealt to the first bounce target) for the purposes of getting additional kills. As phoenix numbers get lower (less than half), there's less targets to spread the bounces around, so mutas take better advantage of their splash damage (2/3 of damage dealt to first bounce target + 1/3rd of damage dealt to second bounce target) for the purpose of getting kills. At really low phoenix numbers, all of the targets are damaged and all previous splash damage is counted against the few remaining phoenix.
No regen: No shields regen, no health regen for the mutas because of how fast they're getting killed.
No range advantage: The phoenix range advantage has no impact on this model.
Simultaneous fire: Both Phoenix and Mutas have the exact same firing rate, and all units attack at the same time.
Since Mutas and Phoenix cost almost exactly the same, I ran a first test with equal numbers of each. Here's my results:
![[image loading]](http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/5070/phoenixmuta10.png)
![[image loading]](http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/1033/phoenixmuta15.png)
![[image loading]](http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/6600/phoenixmuta40.png)
As I said- phoenix will murder an equal number of mutas, according to the stats we've been given. If you want access to my model, here it is:
http://www.filefront.com/14695177/Phoenix vs. Mutas.xls
Feel free to ask any questions about it. Note that I've only modeled the possibility of losing up to 5 units per volley, although that can be increased if you feel the burning need to test 100 phoenix vs. 100 mutas or some such.
Also, you can experiment by how much mutas need to outnumber Phoenix in order to beat them. Not much: About 20%. Still, that's probably too fine a measurement for a tool that makes so many assumptions, so you should take it with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
