|
If you have criticism, you need to address the content, not the hosts. Idra and Artosis are 2 (1.5) Zerg players, but you can't point that out and then blanket them as biased. Respond to the content.
You can't tell them to "get 2 Terran and Protoss players". That's fucking obtuse advice. "Yo just get 4 more high level players to record with you." Yes, I think everyone sees the value in getting it, but it's not practical.
Respond to the content and use evidence / logic to back up your claims. |
On February 04 2011 23:35 Rabiator wrote:And that helps them how when they are on the right side of Shakuras Plateau attacking and their home base gets attacked and they have to get back to the left side? Colossus: 2.25 Stalker: 2.953 Zealot: 2.25 (2.75 with Charge upgrade) So the Stalker is a good 30% faster than the Colossus ... even without blinking to get back faster. So far this slow speed doesnt matter due to map size, but we will see in the next GSL.
Everything is situationnal, but if you're a good player of course you are gonna abuse their weird mobility, which is GOING UP AND DOWN CLIFF.
Stop saying colossus are just 2.25 movement speed units, they are 2.25 movement speed units with the ability to walk over cliff, which is a pretty mobility good overall. A 2.75 movement speed zealot must turn around any obstacle (center cliff in shakuras) to go from one point of the map to another, and not a 2.25 colossus, so overall they are not especially slow units.
If you attack at one point of the map (especially shakuras plateau where you almost have to pass through the center if you wanna attack fast) and you are not good enough to cut any opponent from countering with observer positionning or using your brain on an attack path that gives you an easy route to any of your bases, then it's not the pb of colossi, it's your own lack of understanding the game.
Not to mention you can always warp in sentries and delay any attack long enough to get your colossus back.
|
On February 04 2011 16:20 Jumbled wrote:Spoilered for length. Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 15:51 Blacklizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Excuse formatting... i gotta sleep.
I seriously doubt colossus are truly an OP problem in ZvP. I spent a good hour testing stuff and will share results below.
Logically, P have to beat Z with a gateway timing or colossus 95% of the time... so since all most people lose to is colossus, it would be a target for criticism. Can't criticize high templar b/c P never beats Z with it in a typical match.
Besides nothing in tournaments really showing an imbalance problem with colossus, there are several unit compositions that do fine against colossus + stalker. If Zergs can find a way to tech switch to heavy banelings, a few lings, + medium to light roach late game, that'd be the way to go IMO. Why?
1. Against a splash ranged army, you want unit variety so that splash doesn't kill much. In other words, first volley hit some lings miss others, next volley might hit some banes miss others, next might hit roaches, miss others, etc.
2. Banelings strangely are possibly the best answer vs colossus stalker. Especially with baneling drops, + corruptors or empty OLs to draw fire, during
the fight. With the unit tester stuff... about 100 food worth of army vs about 100 food... zerg trades armies pretty well if heavy baneling (40 to 55 banelings I think). The way banelings and lings go almost single file around roaches helps them avoid splash A LOT. FF is the only scary thing... OL drops and/or a couple of Ultras to break FF help a ton. If they don't have any FF (or if your ultra break most of them) it's gg.
Overlord drops seem pretty great in the fight b/c stalkers have medicore dps. And if they try to focus fire the lings/banes coming single file get on them pretty quick. If stalkers try to blink micro away, the colossus are left vulnerable due to their bad speed.
Another option is heavy heavy corruptor + mixed ground, mostly roach. This is probably the most practical and the most seen. Again I also recommend 2-4 ultras (I dont ever see this enough though) to break FFs and screw up colossus splash. You won't have gas to go heavy ultra and have leftover for broodlords anyway... plus Ultras wont dps this army well anyway unless you get a crazy surround or want to risk Ultras in OL drops.
You lose your Zerg ground army, but you can pretty much kill all colossus and get away with nearly all of your corruptors. Then you just have to rebuild
roaches and maybe make a few broodlords. Colossus take too long to rebuild and the Protoss is now under the gun.
One more way to deal with this army might be killing observers and burrow. Popping unburrowed in a non-line pattern is bad for splash. Engage with rest of army a second before unburrow and stalkers cant focus fire. I didn't test this, but it theorycraftily makes sense.
Finally, infestors have to have some serious potential. Out of time to test them.
Some of the WORST zerg compositions against colossus+stalker in the tests were
All roach. They just line up perfectly for splash. You want VARIETY in your army to make splash target on tiny sections of your army!!!!
8 to 10 ultras + roach. Ultras just spaz out too much in big numbers. (Sometimes Ultras in numbers above 12 did OK when I micro'd the shit out of Zerg though. Wasn't convincing though and had a strange tipping point. Would require more testing)
Heavy hydra. Obvious.
Disclaimer: Real tournament matches mean more than unit testing, obviously, because getting into the situation needs to be possible. However I stacked the fight slightly in the Protoss favor on purpose to make sure it was winnable by Zerg.
Obviously you often lost most of your ground as Z, but if you take out all colossus and half the stalkers I consider it a Z "win" since you can rebuild roaches and possibly roll P. The more banelings you have though, the easier it is to kill the whole P army. All Test battles were done in no choke + no flank options (5 and a half colossuses could fit across). This seemed neutral enough that players would engage on either side without huge disadvantages. So in real games with similar battles more choke is better for P and more flank options better for Z. No creep was used in all tests.
I did not test sentry heavy builds!!! But if they go heavy sentry, I'd recommend more reliance on banes in overlords or ultras in overlords to drop on FFs, burrow ultras (their own control grp), let the banelings and lings in.
Most tests were done with a little above or below 100 food armies (80 to 130 food per army). Protoss ratio was usually 6-10 colossus, the rest mostly stalkers (2 to 6 sentries mixed in with full energy). Tried putting in a couple of immortals here and there... only seemed to help against heavy heavy roach or ultra armies... surprise. Zerg ratios differed, see above.
Did attack moves and also did micro on one or both sides. Results were not heavily reliant on micro. Micro helped Ultra + roach + corruptor the most I think. Heavy Banelings pretty much required no Z micro except OL drops. Sometimes I would burrown move roaches closer or further from fight or to allow Ultras to get better positions. Corruption seemed to help if you went corruptor heavy... get the kills and get out quicker with your air.
Played on slowest speed so I could micro both sides at the same time when I wanted.
Upgrades:
All units had their special abilities upgraded (bane speed, blink, colo range, etc.). I did more tests with + 2 range (ground) attack + 1 (ground) armor and +1 air attack on both sides than anything else. More armor would favor Zerg a little bit I believe. Here again banelings have the luxury of being just as effective even with lots of upgrades on both sides.
Finally, imbalance can sometimes be caught in the unit tester. Remember siege tanks before the damage nerf? No army could stand up to them... even mass immortals. Unit tests have their place to find a composition you want. It's up to the players to make it possible.
Nice work Blacklizard. May just be the only truly excellent post in the thread. I'm curious about a couple of the things you tested though: 1. When doing your corruptor+ground compositions, what organisation did you use for the zerg attack? Did you send certain units in ahead of others, or just throw everything at the protoss ball at once. 2. What made you decide to mix roaches into your ultra attacks, as opposed to other units? Wouldn't roaches exacerbate the crowding problem ultras face?
Thanks. For zerg attacks, it seemed very important to go in with ground first then go in with corruptors immediately after. If you go in with corruptors first, wait a few moments, then engage in ground you lose your corruptors too easily as Stalkers can focus and colossi can kite a bit. Then how will your ground army catch up? So going headlong with ground, with better speed than P's army (especially colossi) seemed to be critical.
When going a heavy ground mix, the thing I tried the hardest to do was get Ultras in front of roaches. Sometimes I'd move them in front first, then attack move the army. Somtimes I'd let them ball up, then when they got stuck behind roaches I'd burrow the roaches and move them behind the ultras.
The reason I liked roaches is hydras seem too prone to being screwed by FF and colossus. Roaches have HP, burrow and regen, so if they have to retreat under FF they have a chance, IMO. And you can rearrange them with ultras or other units that get stuck nicely w/ burrow movement. Aslo, you want your ground to basically stay alive as long as possible for corruptors to do damage if you aren't doing banelings.
|
Lol artosis acting to be a protoss player so he can whine even more about zerg being up :D.
Nice concept tho, just imba talk with idra/artosis is bound to be zerg biased.
|
Reducing corruptor mineral cost by 50 would probably balance the matchup prefectly.
|
On February 04 2011 23:45 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 16:20 Jumbled wrote:Spoilered for length. On February 04 2011 15:51 Blacklizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Excuse formatting... i gotta sleep.
I seriously doubt colossus are truly an OP problem in ZvP. I spent a good hour testing stuff and will share results below.
Logically, P have to beat Z with a gateway timing or colossus 95% of the time... so since all most people lose to is colossus, it would be a target for criticism. Can't criticize high templar b/c P never beats Z with it in a typical match.
Besides nothing in tournaments really showing an imbalance problem with colossus, there are several unit compositions that do fine against colossus + stalker. If Zergs can find a way to tech switch to heavy banelings, a few lings, + medium to light roach late game, that'd be the way to go IMO. Why?
1. Against a splash ranged army, you want unit variety so that splash doesn't kill much. In other words, first volley hit some lings miss others, next volley might hit some banes miss others, next might hit roaches, miss others, etc.
2. Banelings strangely are possibly the best answer vs colossus stalker. Especially with baneling drops, + corruptors or empty OLs to draw fire, during
the fight. With the unit tester stuff... about 100 food worth of army vs about 100 food... zerg trades armies pretty well if heavy baneling (40 to 55 banelings I think). The way banelings and lings go almost single file around roaches helps them avoid splash A LOT. FF is the only scary thing... OL drops and/or a couple of Ultras to break FF help a ton. If they don't have any FF (or if your ultra break most of them) it's gg.
Overlord drops seem pretty great in the fight b/c stalkers have medicore dps. And if they try to focus fire the lings/banes coming single file get on them pretty quick. If stalkers try to blink micro away, the colossus are left vulnerable due to their bad speed.
Another option is heavy heavy corruptor + mixed ground, mostly roach. This is probably the most practical and the most seen. Again I also recommend 2-4 ultras (I dont ever see this enough though) to break FFs and screw up colossus splash. You won't have gas to go heavy ultra and have leftover for broodlords anyway... plus Ultras wont dps this army well anyway unless you get a crazy surround or want to risk Ultras in OL drops.
You lose your Zerg ground army, but you can pretty much kill all colossus and get away with nearly all of your corruptors. Then you just have to rebuild
roaches and maybe make a few broodlords. Colossus take too long to rebuild and the Protoss is now under the gun.
One more way to deal with this army might be killing observers and burrow. Popping unburrowed in a non-line pattern is bad for splash. Engage with rest of army a second before unburrow and stalkers cant focus fire. I didn't test this, but it theorycraftily makes sense.
Finally, infestors have to have some serious potential. Out of time to test them.
Some of the WORST zerg compositions against colossus+stalker in the tests were
All roach. They just line up perfectly for splash. You want VARIETY in your army to make splash target on tiny sections of your army!!!!
8 to 10 ultras + roach. Ultras just spaz out too much in big numbers. (Sometimes Ultras in numbers above 12 did OK when I micro'd the shit out of Zerg though. Wasn't convincing though and had a strange tipping point. Would require more testing)
Heavy hydra. Obvious.
Disclaimer: Real tournament matches mean more than unit testing, obviously, because getting into the situation needs to be possible. However I stacked the fight slightly in the Protoss favor on purpose to make sure it was winnable by Zerg.
Obviously you often lost most of your ground as Z, but if you take out all colossus and half the stalkers I consider it a Z "win" since you can rebuild roaches and possibly roll P. The more banelings you have though, the easier it is to kill the whole P army. All Test battles were done in no choke + no flank options (5 and a half colossuses could fit across). This seemed neutral enough that players would engage on either side without huge disadvantages. So in real games with similar battles more choke is better for P and more flank options better for Z. No creep was used in all tests.
I did not test sentry heavy builds!!! But if they go heavy sentry, I'd recommend more reliance on banes in overlords or ultras in overlords to drop on FFs, burrow ultras (their own control grp), let the banelings and lings in.
Most tests were done with a little above or below 100 food armies (80 to 130 food per army). Protoss ratio was usually 6-10 colossus, the rest mostly stalkers (2 to 6 sentries mixed in with full energy). Tried putting in a couple of immortals here and there... only seemed to help against heavy heavy roach or ultra armies... surprise. Zerg ratios differed, see above.
Did attack moves and also did micro on one or both sides. Results were not heavily reliant on micro. Micro helped Ultra + roach + corruptor the most I think. Heavy Banelings pretty much required no Z micro except OL drops. Sometimes I would burrown move roaches closer or further from fight or to allow Ultras to get better positions. Corruption seemed to help if you went corruptor heavy... get the kills and get out quicker with your air.
Played on slowest speed so I could micro both sides at the same time when I wanted.
Upgrades:
All units had their special abilities upgraded (bane speed, blink, colo range, etc.). I did more tests with + 2 range (ground) attack + 1 (ground) armor and +1 air attack on both sides than anything else. More armor would favor Zerg a little bit I believe. Here again banelings have the luxury of being just as effective even with lots of upgrades on both sides.
Finally, imbalance can sometimes be caught in the unit tester. Remember siege tanks before the damage nerf? No army could stand up to them... even mass immortals. Unit tests have their place to find a composition you want. It's up to the players to make it possible.
Nice work Blacklizard. May just be the only truly excellent post in the thread. I'm curious about a couple of the things you tested though: 1. When doing your corruptor+ground compositions, what organisation did you use for the zerg attack? Did you send certain units in ahead of others, or just throw everything at the protoss ball at once. 2. What made you decide to mix roaches into your ultra attacks, as opposed to other units? Wouldn't roaches exacerbate the crowding problem ultras face? Thanks. For zerg attacks, it seemed very important to go in with ground first then go in with corruptors immediately after. If you go in with corruptors first, wait a few moments, then engage in ground you lose your corruptors too easily as Stalkers can focus and colossi can kite a bit. Then how will your ground army catch up? So going headlong with ground, with better speed than P's army (especially colossi) seemed to be critical. When going a heavy ground mix, the thing I tried the hardest to do was get Ultras in front of roaches. Sometimes I'd move them in front first, then attack move the army. Somtimes I'd let them ball up, then when they got stuck behind roaches I'd burrow the roaches and move them behind the ultras. The reason I liked roaches is hydras seem too prone to being screwed by FF and colossus. Roaches have HP, burrow and regen, so if they have to retreat under FF they have a chance, IMO. And you can rearrange them with ultras or other units that get stuck nicely w/ burrow movement. Aslo, you want your ground to basically stay alive as long as possible for corruptors to do damage if you aren't doing banelings.
LoL, it's so wrong and clueless about zerg. First, you cannot have ultra at 12-14 minutes like colossi, so it's just not possible.
Second, going with ground army before corruptor is also wrong, you absolutly want to take down colossi really fast, if not BEFORE any fight, so most of the time you abuse the map to take down 1 or 2 colossi and hit colossi with your corruptor while stalkers cannot fights back (abusing cliff or any doodle where stalker cannot see you/hit you/come to you).
Try to fight an even cost colossi stalker sentry army with roach hydra corruptor, going with roach and hydra first and corruptor just after, you're gonna get stomped if the protoss just know how to use sentries, pull back and target corruptor one after another.
|
On February 04 2011 23:39 elsx wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 22:49 roadrunner343 wrote:
@ Rabiator
I think you are missing the point. Core units are fine. Their point is, that when PvP armies clash, the one with the most colossus wins. It's basically a rush to colossus and it is the determining factor in the game. What's wrong with that? It's very similar to the reaver in BW, usually when the armies clash, the guy with 2 reavers is going to win if the opponent only has 1.
1. Brood War mirrors should not be held up as examples of perfect game design.
2. No, thats not true. The Reaver in BW PvP is such a key and interesting unit because it has many qualitys that the collossus lacks.
a. It takes incredible skill to use reavers effectively
b. It cannot get around on its own without a shuttle, and only 2 per shuttle
c. It is a giant glass cannon with extremely hard counters
you will never see a "reaver death ball" in BW PvP, because it is simply impossible for even progamers to effectively handle the micro required to use more than 2 shuttles of reavers at the same time. Any more than 2 and you start getting extremely diminishing returns as you can't keep your incredible investment positioned correctly or avoid it dying to one psi storm or a few poking dragoons.
Armies with 1 reaver vs 2 reavers win all the time simply due to better positioning or micro, and due to the above reason you will nearly never see more than 4 reavers per player ever. PvP in BW is never a "reaver arms race".
|
Great video, my thoughts 100%
|
On February 04 2011 23:51 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 23:45 Blacklizard wrote:On February 04 2011 16:20 Jumbled wrote:Spoilered for length. On February 04 2011 15:51 Blacklizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Excuse formatting... i gotta sleep.
I seriously doubt colossus are truly an OP problem in ZvP. I spent a good hour testing stuff and will share results below.
Logically, P have to beat Z with a gateway timing or colossus 95% of the time... so since all most people lose to is colossus, it would be a target for criticism. Can't criticize high templar b/c P never beats Z with it in a typical match.
Besides nothing in tournaments really showing an imbalance problem with colossus, there are several unit compositions that do fine against colossus + stalker. If Zergs can find a way to tech switch to heavy banelings, a few lings, + medium to light roach late game, that'd be the way to go IMO. Why?
1. Against a splash ranged army, you want unit variety so that splash doesn't kill much. In other words, first volley hit some lings miss others, next volley might hit some banes miss others, next might hit roaches, miss others, etc.
2. Banelings strangely are possibly the best answer vs colossus stalker. Especially with baneling drops, + corruptors or empty OLs to draw fire, during
the fight. With the unit tester stuff... about 100 food worth of army vs about 100 food... zerg trades armies pretty well if heavy baneling (40 to 55 banelings I think). The way banelings and lings go almost single file around roaches helps them avoid splash A LOT. FF is the only scary thing... OL drops and/or a couple of Ultras to break FF help a ton. If they don't have any FF (or if your ultra break most of them) it's gg.
Overlord drops seem pretty great in the fight b/c stalkers have medicore dps. And if they try to focus fire the lings/banes coming single file get on them pretty quick. If stalkers try to blink micro away, the colossus are left vulnerable due to their bad speed.
Another option is heavy heavy corruptor + mixed ground, mostly roach. This is probably the most practical and the most seen. Again I also recommend 2-4 ultras (I dont ever see this enough though) to break FFs and screw up colossus splash. You won't have gas to go heavy ultra and have leftover for broodlords anyway... plus Ultras wont dps this army well anyway unless you get a crazy surround or want to risk Ultras in OL drops.
You lose your Zerg ground army, but you can pretty much kill all colossus and get away with nearly all of your corruptors. Then you just have to rebuild
roaches and maybe make a few broodlords. Colossus take too long to rebuild and the Protoss is now under the gun.
One more way to deal with this army might be killing observers and burrow. Popping unburrowed in a non-line pattern is bad for splash. Engage with rest of army a second before unburrow and stalkers cant focus fire. I didn't test this, but it theorycraftily makes sense.
Finally, infestors have to have some serious potential. Out of time to test them.
Some of the WORST zerg compositions against colossus+stalker in the tests were
All roach. They just line up perfectly for splash. You want VARIETY in your army to make splash target on tiny sections of your army!!!!
8 to 10 ultras + roach. Ultras just spaz out too much in big numbers. (Sometimes Ultras in numbers above 12 did OK when I micro'd the shit out of Zerg though. Wasn't convincing though and had a strange tipping point. Would require more testing)
Heavy hydra. Obvious.
Disclaimer: Real tournament matches mean more than unit testing, obviously, because getting into the situation needs to be possible. However I stacked the fight slightly in the Protoss favor on purpose to make sure it was winnable by Zerg.
Obviously you often lost most of your ground as Z, but if you take out all colossus and half the stalkers I consider it a Z "win" since you can rebuild roaches and possibly roll P. The more banelings you have though, the easier it is to kill the whole P army. All Test battles were done in no choke + no flank options (5 and a half colossuses could fit across). This seemed neutral enough that players would engage on either side without huge disadvantages. So in real games with similar battles more choke is better for P and more flank options better for Z. No creep was used in all tests.
I did not test sentry heavy builds!!! But if they go heavy sentry, I'd recommend more reliance on banes in overlords or ultras in overlords to drop on FFs, burrow ultras (their own control grp), let the banelings and lings in.
Most tests were done with a little above or below 100 food armies (80 to 130 food per army). Protoss ratio was usually 6-10 colossus, the rest mostly stalkers (2 to 6 sentries mixed in with full energy). Tried putting in a couple of immortals here and there... only seemed to help against heavy heavy roach or ultra armies... surprise. Zerg ratios differed, see above.
Did attack moves and also did micro on one or both sides. Results were not heavily reliant on micro. Micro helped Ultra + roach + corruptor the most I think. Heavy Banelings pretty much required no Z micro except OL drops. Sometimes I would burrown move roaches closer or further from fight or to allow Ultras to get better positions. Corruption seemed to help if you went corruptor heavy... get the kills and get out quicker with your air.
Played on slowest speed so I could micro both sides at the same time when I wanted.
Upgrades:
All units had their special abilities upgraded (bane speed, blink, colo range, etc.). I did more tests with + 2 range (ground) attack + 1 (ground) armor and +1 air attack on both sides than anything else. More armor would favor Zerg a little bit I believe. Here again banelings have the luxury of being just as effective even with lots of upgrades on both sides.
Finally, imbalance can sometimes be caught in the unit tester. Remember siege tanks before the damage nerf? No army could stand up to them... even mass immortals. Unit tests have their place to find a composition you want. It's up to the players to make it possible.
Nice work Blacklizard. May just be the only truly excellent post in the thread. I'm curious about a couple of the things you tested though: 1. When doing your corruptor+ground compositions, what organisation did you use for the zerg attack? Did you send certain units in ahead of others, or just throw everything at the protoss ball at once. 2. What made you decide to mix roaches into your ultra attacks, as opposed to other units? Wouldn't roaches exacerbate the crowding problem ultras face? Thanks. For zerg attacks, it seemed very important to go in with ground first then go in with corruptors immediately after. If you go in with corruptors first, wait a few moments, then engage in ground you lose your corruptors too easily as Stalkers can focus and colossi can kite a bit. Then how will your ground army catch up? So going headlong with ground, with better speed than P's army (especially colossi) seemed to be critical. When going a heavy ground mix, the thing I tried the hardest to do was get Ultras in front of roaches. Sometimes I'd move them in front first, then attack move the army. Somtimes I'd let them ball up, then when they got stuck behind roaches I'd burrow the roaches and move them behind the ultras. The reason I liked roaches is hydras seem too prone to being screwed by FF and colossus. Roaches have HP, burrow and regen, so if they have to retreat under FF they have a chance, IMO. And you can rearrange them with ultras or other units that get stuck nicely w/ burrow movement. Aslo, you want your ground to basically stay alive as long as possible for corruptors to do damage if you aren't doing banelings. LoL, it's so wrong and clueless about zerg. First, you cannot have ultra at 12-14 minutes like colossi, so it's just not possible. Second, going with ground army before corruptor is also wrong, you absolutly want to take down colossi really fast, if not BEFORE any fight, so most of the time you abuse the map to take down 1 or 2 colossi and hit colossi with your corruptor while stalkers cannot fights back (abusing cliff or any doodle where stalker cannot see you/hit you/come to you). Try to fight an even cost colossi stalker sentry army with roach hydra corruptor, going with roach and hydra first and corruptor just after, you're gonna get stomped if the protoss just know how to use sentries, pull back and target corruptor one after another.
Please read the big post I made he was talking about before commenting to get an idea of what is being tested. These were unit tester tests against very light sentry play since the focus of the video seemed to be heavy stalker heavy colossus light sentry. Also I named ways to deal with FF that I think are critical. OL drops and a few ultras.
In a regular game I agree it is a good idea to snipe the colossus with corruptors when cliffs give an advantage... as long as blink stalkers won't kill too many. But the tests were to see if you forced an engagement with zerg, what unit composition killed all or most colossus and as many stalkers as possible. I was surprised that there was more than one unit composition that did either OK or even well (heavy banelings).
|
On February 05 2011 00:01 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2011 23:51 WhiteDog wrote:On February 04 2011 23:45 Blacklizard wrote:On February 04 2011 16:20 Jumbled wrote:Spoilered for length. On February 04 2011 15:51 Blacklizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Excuse formatting... i gotta sleep.
I seriously doubt colossus are truly an OP problem in ZvP. I spent a good hour testing stuff and will share results below.
Logically, P have to beat Z with a gateway timing or colossus 95% of the time... so since all most people lose to is colossus, it would be a target for criticism. Can't criticize high templar b/c P never beats Z with it in a typical match.
Besides nothing in tournaments really showing an imbalance problem with colossus, there are several unit compositions that do fine against colossus + stalker. If Zergs can find a way to tech switch to heavy banelings, a few lings, + medium to light roach late game, that'd be the way to go IMO. Why?
1. Against a splash ranged army, you want unit variety so that splash doesn't kill much. In other words, first volley hit some lings miss others, next volley might hit some banes miss others, next might hit roaches, miss others, etc.
2. Banelings strangely are possibly the best answer vs colossus stalker. Especially with baneling drops, + corruptors or empty OLs to draw fire, during
the fight. With the unit tester stuff... about 100 food worth of army vs about 100 food... zerg trades armies pretty well if heavy baneling (40 to 55 banelings I think). The way banelings and lings go almost single file around roaches helps them avoid splash A LOT. FF is the only scary thing... OL drops and/or a couple of Ultras to break FF help a ton. If they don't have any FF (or if your ultra break most of them) it's gg.
Overlord drops seem pretty great in the fight b/c stalkers have medicore dps. And if they try to focus fire the lings/banes coming single file get on them pretty quick. If stalkers try to blink micro away, the colossus are left vulnerable due to their bad speed.
Another option is heavy heavy corruptor + mixed ground, mostly roach. This is probably the most practical and the most seen. Again I also recommend 2-4 ultras (I dont ever see this enough though) to break FFs and screw up colossus splash. You won't have gas to go heavy ultra and have leftover for broodlords anyway... plus Ultras wont dps this army well anyway unless you get a crazy surround or want to risk Ultras in OL drops.
You lose your Zerg ground army, but you can pretty much kill all colossus and get away with nearly all of your corruptors. Then you just have to rebuild
roaches and maybe make a few broodlords. Colossus take too long to rebuild and the Protoss is now under the gun.
One more way to deal with this army might be killing observers and burrow. Popping unburrowed in a non-line pattern is bad for splash. Engage with rest of army a second before unburrow and stalkers cant focus fire. I didn't test this, but it theorycraftily makes sense.
Finally, infestors have to have some serious potential. Out of time to test them.
Some of the WORST zerg compositions against colossus+stalker in the tests were
All roach. They just line up perfectly for splash. You want VARIETY in your army to make splash target on tiny sections of your army!!!!
8 to 10 ultras + roach. Ultras just spaz out too much in big numbers. (Sometimes Ultras in numbers above 12 did OK when I micro'd the shit out of Zerg though. Wasn't convincing though and had a strange tipping point. Would require more testing)
Heavy hydra. Obvious.
Disclaimer: Real tournament matches mean more than unit testing, obviously, because getting into the situation needs to be possible. However I stacked the fight slightly in the Protoss favor on purpose to make sure it was winnable by Zerg.
Obviously you often lost most of your ground as Z, but if you take out all colossus and half the stalkers I consider it a Z "win" since you can rebuild roaches and possibly roll P. The more banelings you have though, the easier it is to kill the whole P army. All Test battles were done in no choke + no flank options (5 and a half colossuses could fit across). This seemed neutral enough that players would engage on either side without huge disadvantages. So in real games with similar battles more choke is better for P and more flank options better for Z. No creep was used in all tests.
I did not test sentry heavy builds!!! But if they go heavy sentry, I'd recommend more reliance on banes in overlords or ultras in overlords to drop on FFs, burrow ultras (their own control grp), let the banelings and lings in.
Most tests were done with a little above or below 100 food armies (80 to 130 food per army). Protoss ratio was usually 6-10 colossus, the rest mostly stalkers (2 to 6 sentries mixed in with full energy). Tried putting in a couple of immortals here and there... only seemed to help against heavy heavy roach or ultra armies... surprise. Zerg ratios differed, see above.
Did attack moves and also did micro on one or both sides. Results were not heavily reliant on micro. Micro helped Ultra + roach + corruptor the most I think. Heavy Banelings pretty much required no Z micro except OL drops. Sometimes I would burrown move roaches closer or further from fight or to allow Ultras to get better positions. Corruption seemed to help if you went corruptor heavy... get the kills and get out quicker with your air.
Played on slowest speed so I could micro both sides at the same time when I wanted.
Upgrades:
All units had their special abilities upgraded (bane speed, blink, colo range, etc.). I did more tests with + 2 range (ground) attack + 1 (ground) armor and +1 air attack on both sides than anything else. More armor would favor Zerg a little bit I believe. Here again banelings have the luxury of being just as effective even with lots of upgrades on both sides.
Finally, imbalance can sometimes be caught in the unit tester. Remember siege tanks before the damage nerf? No army could stand up to them... even mass immortals. Unit tests have their place to find a composition you want. It's up to the players to make it possible.
Nice work Blacklizard. May just be the only truly excellent post in the thread. I'm curious about a couple of the things you tested though: 1. When doing your corruptor+ground compositions, what organisation did you use for the zerg attack? Did you send certain units in ahead of others, or just throw everything at the protoss ball at once. 2. What made you decide to mix roaches into your ultra attacks, as opposed to other units? Wouldn't roaches exacerbate the crowding problem ultras face? Thanks. For zerg attacks, it seemed very important to go in with ground first then go in with corruptors immediately after. If you go in with corruptors first, wait a few moments, then engage in ground you lose your corruptors too easily as Stalkers can focus and colossi can kite a bit. Then how will your ground army catch up? So going headlong with ground, with better speed than P's army (especially colossi) seemed to be critical. When going a heavy ground mix, the thing I tried the hardest to do was get Ultras in front of roaches. Sometimes I'd move them in front first, then attack move the army. Somtimes I'd let them ball up, then when they got stuck behind roaches I'd burrow the roaches and move them behind the ultras. The reason I liked roaches is hydras seem too prone to being screwed by FF and colossus. Roaches have HP, burrow and regen, so if they have to retreat under FF they have a chance, IMO. And you can rearrange them with ultras or other units that get stuck nicely w/ burrow movement. Aslo, you want your ground to basically stay alive as long as possible for corruptors to do damage if you aren't doing banelings. LoL, it's so wrong and clueless about zerg. First, you cannot have ultra at 12-14 minutes like colossi, so it's just not possible. Second, going with ground army before corruptor is also wrong, you absolutly want to take down colossi really fast, if not BEFORE any fight, so most of the time you abuse the map to take down 1 or 2 colossi and hit colossi with your corruptor while stalkers cannot fights back (abusing cliff or any doodle where stalker cannot see you/hit you/come to you). Try to fight an even cost colossi stalker sentry army with roach hydra corruptor, going with roach and hydra first and corruptor just after, you're gonna get stomped if the protoss just know how to use sentries, pull back and target corruptor one after another. Please read the big post I made he was talking about before commenting to get an idea of what is being tested. These were unit tester tests against very light sentry play since the focus of the video seemed to be heavy stalker heavy colossus light sentry. Also I named ways to deal with FF that I think are critical. OL drops and a few ultras. In a regular game I agree it is a good idea to snipe the colossus with corruptors when cliffs give an advantage... as long as blink stalkers won't kill too many. But the tests were to see if you forced an engagement with zerg, what unit composition killed all or most colossus and as many stalkers as possible. I was surprised that there was more than one unit composition that did either OK or even well (heavy banelings).
Sure there are a lot of composition when the protoss just a-move. Silver ZvP should be balanced.
|
Might sound strange, but i watched the clip and instantly, Idra doesnt look as retarded as he looks at times.
So, for him especially, its a good thing to get this kind of clips; makes him look more like someone that cares for the community intrests, and doesnt give a shit about them.
Good job, like it and want to see more.
|
Hiding all this in a spoiler because it feels like the thread has gone to a better place. Keep testing shit out, Blacklizard. You are awesome. Can you share with me your methods? Like, did you use a custom map or whatnot?
+ Show Spoiler +On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote:
What Saechiis said because this is getting huge. If your post was succinct enough to address all at once, I would have done so. You said a lot and it would have been shortsighted not to break up such a robust post and point out examples as they showed up. I disagree about there being an issue with doing so, however - suggesting that people can't take what you say and analyze it on a point-by-point basis and instead must appreciate it as a whole means that there is an excess of things which should be left out. I participate in other communities where doing exactly this is a bannable offense (elitistjerks). What could have been removed is what I addressed, broken up, in my original post, and I definitely got your point - I highlighted where I thought you stated it, and responded to it on its own. That being said, the bulk of your 'thoughts' don't make sense or follow the pattern of a snide comment and then repeating what you said in the first place, neither of which address anything I said. I'm going to bury another point-by-point in a spoiler. + Show Spoiler +On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote:
First of all, I never questioned IdrA and Artosis' credentials; I questioned their ability to objectively judge balance. I've even commented on their talent as Zerg players, which gets lost in your selectiveness of quoting. It's frankly a baseless accusation aimed at damaging my credibility, "violating many rules of debate and offering little in the way of legitimate criticism" along the way.
As for the dramatic claims of ad-hominem; questioning someone's ability to be objective in the subjectiveness that surrounds balance, is a completely valid concern. Especially when it comes to two iconic community figures discussing (im)balance on a public stage. I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming amount of people would testify that Artosis and IdrA, over the last decade, have had a tendency of being overly vocal and extreme in their claims of imbalance; most notably the overpoweredness of the other races in relation to their own. As such, it isn't exactly a stretch to question their objectiveness in judging imbalance while it IS a stretch to expect viewers to believe there not being a hidden agenda. They're grown men and they're completely responsible for their own public image. If they're not judging balance they should say so, because several thousands of people "somehow" got the idea that that's what their show "IMBALANCE" is all about.
Calling into question objectivity is an attack on source instead of an attack upon argument - a source's objectivity counts as a credential. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false. Idra and Artosis being balance whiners do not affect the absolute truth of their analysis. Another thing that your arguments fixate upon is 'judgment'. Artosis and Idra hold no absolute judgment over Starcraft 2, and the show is actually painfully devoid of judgment, even from Idra, the most inflammatory personality in all of esports. I agree that bias is definitely questionable when someone is trying to convince you of something, but my critical thinking didn't sound that alarm for IMBALANCED. Both the content of the video and the method of presentation are not of a persuasive effort, but instead an exchange of opinions with reasoning. Within the first minute and a half, Artosis explains that, "We want to inform people, show you, the professional player perspective." A few minutes later, he goes on to open the distinct colossus talk with, "... talking about something that, y'know, may or may not be imbalanced." If they opened with an explicit, 'This is why the Colossus is game-breakingly imba in PvP/Z,' and closed with 'And so you should go +1 this thread on the Blizzard forums until there's a patch!' then everything changes, and it moves from a discussion to something that -is- detrimental. As it is, no matter what they say, anyone can rebut with 'Well, that doesn't make sense, and I have an argument to the contrary.' On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote:
You realize that stating something as if it's a fact doesn't make it true right? Because making unfounded conclusions would "violate many rules of debate" and would "offer little in the way of legitimate criticism".
Additionally, the race preference of the hosts is completely relevant since, in regards to balance, there isn't any hard truths in a complex game like Starcraft. There's only a collection of anecdotal arguments and subjective judgements on how hard it is to do something.
For instance: IdrA states it's relatively too hard to balance corrupter count with Colossi in comparison to what Toss has to do. I think results show that when it comes to competence of play, Artosis is a perfectly valid Protoss source given his recent almost-qualification for Code A. A lot of the other things you say here don't really make sense. There are no hard truths in a complex game? There are a handful of things cited in this episode - original warpgate research timing, 'alpha roaches' - were these not distinctly excessively strong? Idra actually states the opposite of what you refer to: "It feels like it's much, much easier for Protoss to deal with that situation than Zerg." This is an important distinction - far less incriminating than something being 'too hard'. On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote:
Saying that it "was actually already assumed" is just another way of admitting that the show lacked a non-Zerg perspective on the case, which is what I pointed out in the first place. I never implied they were saying the Colossus is "fundamentally broken", nor did I imply that they were saying the Colossus should be removed, nor that it doesn't need the damage it provides ... seems a bit pointless to point out things they've never said when I never implied they did.
I did imply their show is, unsurprisingly, Zerg-focused and that it might be useful to clearly point out that Colossi balance out the relative weakness of gateway units. As to not give people the idea that balance is as one dimensional as "unit A has dual ranged laz0rz WITH splash, this game is ridiculous". The need to have ranged splash damage during midgame and the fact that Colossi are cheaper, faster and safer to tech to than Storm was my reasoning behind the popularity of Colossi, as to not imply they're built much because they're too strong. At your first sentence, and the bulk of this, just... no. Not at all. The context of the discussion was Colossus and its effects, and the buildup to this decision point in the metagame is discussed. Protoss had vulnerability to mass Mutalisk and a set of timings until Toss players developed safe expansion builds. -Then- the ball was thrown back into the Zerg court, wherein Idra, Artosis and Ret had substantial success with 3 Base Broodlord builds, throwing the decision back into Toss play, and they responded with Blink Stalkers. I think this is an awesome way of outlining the metagame shift, and it also highlights the strength of the Colossus by example instead of just hearsay. That said, this is some high-level shit - they don't need to explain that the warpgate units need support (even though Idra does explain that once the colossus are taken care of, the resulting warpgate army is "weak"). This show isn't meant for the bitter, six-pooling bronze leaguer, and it's evident. Additionally, your unprovoked insistence that colossus are needed by the protoss suggested that you thought it was insisted otherwise. I assumed we were at the same point in the discussion - how Zerg can best respond to Colossi. I don't really see the point of extra details like this, and if a dedicated Toss would have had that to say, I would have been pretty disappointed. If that's all that they can bring, that's solid evidence to the contrary of a United Nations of hosts. On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote:
That's right, you don't know whether he's right, in fact, no-one can say with certainty that they're right. Which brings us back to the questioning of the objectivity of the show. For the rest, I've never touched upons IdrA's conclusion, so summing it up doesn't really serve a purpose. We know that IdrA knows how to play Zerg.
Actually, since the purpose (and content, somehow) of the show is discussion, it brings us to discussion, not judging the people who provided an initial opinion. Bringing up Idra's conclusion serves a very important purpose - 'The Colossus gives favor at the moment to P in PvZ, but there are two distinct routes (unit comp, heavy harassment styles) that should be explored in order to throw the ball back into 'Toss court.' This is pretty much the opposite of 'judgment', something you continually question and state Idra and Artosis have no right to do. This is Idra trying to predict the next shift in the metagame. This is actually extremely proactive and the community you claim will misuse this media would do very well to begin thinking in such a way, as some in this thread have already begun testing. On February 04 2011 14:54 Saechiis wrote:
Being a community celebrity has already given IdrA and Artosis significant amounts of leniency and attention. It should, however, not be a carte blanche to do whatever they please in the community. For instance, offensive, childish and flamebaiting posts are still unwanted on the forums, regardless of who does it. Doing a show on IMBALANCE knowing full well how it's going to affect SC communities, could also be described as such. I've got little more than surprise at this, honestly. Reread what I had to say about the SC community in my first response. Also, in Artosis's own words, he is the most legit motherfucker around when it comes to SC, and in the words of those much more qualified than myself, anyone thinking that they love starcraft more than Artosis is completely and totally incorrect. Not implying you ever claimed that - I only mean you'll have to do better to convince me any malicious intent went into this, and the fact that you accuse these guys of having some ulterior motive totally stuns me. As I wrote this out, I started to discern more and more where we diverge. I would agree with you totally if this were two gamedevs talking about the future of balance, casually talking about the judgment they had passed and the changes destined to be made, people with some serious swing - it would be very reminiscent of any video interviews with Riot about League of Legends, for example. I'm not - as is no one that actually winds up using this media constructively - listening to this video going 'oh fuck yeah, colossi are totally imba.' I watched a video of a conversation between two guys essentially shooting the breeze, being totally reasonable and making sure not to drop strong opinions without a basis, discussing a single unit in depth and in both terms of 'imbalance' - being too strong for a matchup, and being so strong in mirror there is no alternative strategy. To me, and many others, that is awesome. Those that were looking for ammunition to cry are going to find it - but I promise you, none of them needed it. Rereading your first post, I see someone that is convinced the hosts are using an inflammatory topic to rake in Youtube views or something. Where you see Artosis eager to utter 'imbalance', I see the same excitable dork that gets geek chills all day erry day while casting GSL. To each their own, I guess, but I can't help but point out the views you harbor are so much worse than the bitter ignorance of someone new to the game complaining about issues they don't understand. Anyway, hypocrisy isn't so bad. I didn't want to refer to your post towards beetlelisk because it was so disgusting that I couldn't respond to it without going ad hominem. Nazgul posted something that might have been funny as a friendly jab at Artosis & Idra, but it set a terrible precedent for moderation in a thread already covered in shit wall to wall. Beetle was right to criticize, really, and what he asked for was actually a good jump for insight in terms of how Ret was doing. Your response, wherein you jumped down his throat with no provocation and spewed hate for the subjects of the original post in addition to revealing a crusade against 'zerg whiners', was just repulsive to me and your insults/rebuttals of his frustration were so poorly formed I was once again taken aback. This was an interesting exercise in critical thinking, but there is nothing else to be gleaned from picking apart your logic. Thanks for your time.
|
Of course this show will be zerg biased, which is fine - let some pros and casters that whine about their own race do a similar show.
However, I don't think the two of you were able to keep it neutral enough for what you advertise this as. How about having guests on the show from the race in question, having a discussion? If not I fear this will forever be called a Idra and Artosis whining outlet - even if you are able to keep neutral.
|
The Colossus is a Siege unit with no mobility restrictions
============================================
Let's take a look at the Siege-level units and make a direct comparison with mobility and it's relationship with effectiveness.
Terran's Siege Level Units
• Siege Tank in SieGe Mode
- Range: Requires upgrade. 2-11 (2-13 w/ spotter)
- Cooldown: 3 Seconds
- AoE: Three tiers, 1.25 Max radius at 25% damage. Causes friendly fire (1).
- Movement Speed: Stationary. 4 second transformation time.
- Health: 160 (very low)
• Battlecruiser w/ Yamato Cannon
- Range: 10, Requires upgrade. Not available immediately upon unit completion.
- Cooldown: ONE Shot Per Engagement
- AoE: Single Target
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow)
- Health: Very High
Zerg
• Baneling
- Range: Melee
- Cooldown: Suicide Unit
- AoE: 2.2, full damage.
- Movement Speed: 2.5 (2.9531 with Centrifugal Hooks) x1.3 on creep (extremely fast). Can burrow (effectively invisible).
- Health: Very low
• Broodlord
- Range: 9.5 (slightly more after Broodlings land)
- Cooldown: 2.5
- AoE: Spawns multiple units per attack.
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow). Is a Flying unit.
- Health: 225 (medium-high)
Protoss
• Colossus w/ Thermal Lance
- Range: 9, requires upgrade
- Cooldown: 1.65 (attacks twice per attack)
- AoE: 100% damage, both lasers, .15 radius per laser, linear splash (can't find how long each Line is. My guess is 2, at least)
- Movement Speed: 2.25 (Fast) Can walk over small cliffs and units.
- Health: 350 (High)
• Carrier / Interceptors
- Range: 8 (effective 12 after Interceptors are launched)
- Cooldown: Interceptor release .5 (0.125/0.25 affected by upgrade)
- AoE: Interceptors can be focus fired or attack multiple targets.
- Movement Speed: 1.875 (Very slow)
- Health: 450 (Very High)
When looking at this analysis the Colossus is clearly the most mobile and effective siege unit in the game when compared to the other units. It moves quickly, unrestrained by terrain, has a quick cooldown and attacks twice per volley. The splash damage is 100% across the entire linear radius and benefits doubly from ground attack upgrades at the forge.
The AoE DPS of multiple Colossus combined with their mobility is un-rivaled. Nothing even comes close. The Colossus moves almost as quickly as a Stalker, which is a fast moving unit. All of the above combined with their very long range and high hit-points the DPS required to take them down before an entire ground force is obliterated seems too high.
I agree with IdrA that over-making the A2A counter is the only way to effectively deal with Colossus which has major repercussions on the ground-battle aftermath. Current Protoss gameplay is bolstering their Colossus with Phoniex as air tanks making the investment in Vikings even more futile.
The siege tank has a longer range but requires a spotter, cannot move, and fires extremely slowly in comparison. The Siege Tank is basically the antithesis of the Colossus. The Siege Tank fires so slowly, and has such poor mobility, that colossus heavy army with proper ground support will absolutely roll Siege Tanks in Siege Mode.
I cannot suggest a fix, because I do not know what it would be, nor am I qualified to offer a fix, but the data certainly suggests that the Colossus has a high probability of being overpowered in every matchup.
p.s. I hope this is not the last post on this page ... no one will see it. Darn.
Footnotes
(1) Units within .4687 of the Target are dealt full damage, units from a distance of .4687 to .7812 are dealt 50% of the full damage, and units from a distance of .7812 to 1.25 are dealt 25%
|
On February 05 2011 00:37 TimeSpiral wrote:
The Colossus is a Siege unit with no mobility restrictions
============================================
Let's take a look at the Siege-level units and make a direct comparison with mobility and it's relationship with effectiveness.
Terran's Siege Level Units
• Siege Tank in SieGe Mode
- Range: Requires upgrade. 2-11 (2-13 w/ spotter)
- Cooldown: 3 Seconds
- AoE: Three tiers, 1.25 Max radius at 25% damage. Causes friendly fire (1).
- Movement Speed: Stationary. 4 second transformation time.
- Health: 160 (very low)
• Battlecruiser w/ Yamato Cannon
- Range: 10, Requires upgrade. Not available immediately upon unit completion.
- Cooldown: ONE Shot Per Engagement
- AoE: Single Target
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow)
- Health: Very High
Zerg
• Baneling
- Range: Melee
- Cooldown: Suicide Unit
- AoE: 2.2, full damage.
- Movement Speed: 2.5 (2.9531 with Centrifugal Hooks) x1.3 on creep (extremely fast). Can burrow (effectively invisible).
- Health: Very low
• Broodlord
- Range: 9.5 (slightly more after Broodlings land)
- Cooldown: 2.5
- AoE: Spawns multiple units per attack.
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow). Is a Flying unit.
- Health: 225 (medium-high)
Protoss
• Colossus w/ Thermal Lance
- Range: 9, requires upgrade
- Cooldown: 1.65 (attacks twice per attack)
- AoE: 100% damage, both lasers, .15 radius per laser, linear splash (can't find how long each Line is. My guess is 2, at least)
- Movement Speed: 2.25 (Fast) Can walk over small cliffs and units.
- Health: 350 (High)
• Carrier / Interceptors
- Range: 8 (effective 12 after Interceptors are launched)
- Cooldown: Interceptor release .5 (0.125/0.25 affected by upgrade)
- AoE: Interceptors can be focus fired or attack multiple targets.
- Movement Speed: 1.875 (Very slow)
- Health: 450 (Very High)
When looking at this analysis the Colossus is clearly the most mobile and effective siege unit in the game when compared to the other units. It moves quickly, unrestrained by terrain, has a quick cooldown and attacks twice per volley. The splash damage is 100% across the entire linear radius and benefits doubly from ground attack upgrades at the forge.
The AoE DPS of multiple Colossus combined with their mobility is un-rivaled. Nothing even comes close. The Colossus moves almost as quickly as a Stalker, which is a fast moving unit. All of the above combined with their very long range and high hit-points the DPS required to take them down before an entire ground force is obliterated seems too high.
I agree with IdrA that over-making the A2A counter is the only way to effectively deal with Colossus which has major repercussions on the ground-battle aftermath. Current Protoss gameplay is bolstering their Colossus with Phoniex as air tanks making the investment in Vikings even more futile.
The siege tank has a longer range but requires a spotter, cannot move, and fires extremely slowly in comparison. The Siege Tank is basically the antithesis of the Colossus. The Siege Tank fires so slowly, and has such poor mobility, that colossus heavy army with proper ground support will absolutely roll Siege Tanks in Siege Mode.
I cannot suggest a fix, because I do not know what it would be, nor am I qualified to offer a fix, but the data certainly suggests that the Colossus has a high probability of being overpowered in every matchup.
Footnotes
(1) Units within .4687 of the Target are dealt full damage, units from a distance of .4687 to .7812 are dealt 50% of the full damage, and units from a distance of .7812 to 1.25 are dealt 25%
I don't think you can make this comparison fairly without including the costs of the units, tech structures, and the build times. Banelings are tier 1.5 and relatively cheap considering how much damage they can produce, for instance.
|
On February 05 2011 00:37 TimeSpiral wrote:
The Colossus is a Siege unit with no mobility restrictions
============================================
Let's take a look at the Siege-level units and make a direct comparison with mobility and it's relationship with effectiveness.
Terran's Siege Level Units
• Siege Tank in SieGe Mode
- Range: Requires upgrade. 2-11 (2-13 w/ spotter)
- Cooldown: 3 Seconds
- AoE: Three tiers, 1.25 Max radius at 25% damage. Causes friendly fire (1).
- Movement Speed: Stationary. 4 second transformation time.
- Health: 160 (very low)
• Battlecruiser w/ Yamato Cannon
- Range: 10, Requires upgrade. Not available immediately upon unit completion.
- Cooldown: ONE Shot Per Engagement
- AoE: Single Target
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow)
- Health: Very High
Zerg
• Baneling
- Range: Melee
- Cooldown: Suicide Unit
- AoE: 2.2, full damage.
- Movement Speed: 2.5 (2.9531 with Centrifugal Hooks) x1.3 on creep (extremely fast). Can burrow (effectively invisible).
- Health: Very low
• Broodlord
- Range: 9.5 (slightly more after Broodlings land)
- Cooldown: 2.5
- AoE: Spawns multiple units per attack.
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow). Is a Flying unit.
- Health: 225 (medium-high)
Protoss
• Colossus w/ Thermal Lance
- Range: 9, requires upgrade
- Cooldown: 1.65 (attacks twice per attack)
- AoE: 100% damage, both lasers, .15 radius per laser, linear splash (can't find how long each Line is. My guess is 2, at least)
- Movement Speed: 2.25 (Fast) Can walk over small cliffs and units.
- Health: 350 (High)
• Carrier / Interceptors
- Range: 8 (effective 12 after Interceptors are launched)
- Cooldown: Interceptor release .5 (0.125/0.25 affected by upgrade)
- AoE: Interceptors can be focus fired or attack multiple targets.
- Movement Speed: 1.875 (Very slow)
- Health: 450 (Very High)
When looking at this analysis the Colossus is clearly the most mobile and effective siege unit in the game when compared to the other units. It moves quickly, unrestrained by terrain, has a quick cooldown and attacks twice per volley. The splash damage is 100% across the entire linear radius and benefits doubly from ground attack upgrades at the forge.
The AoE DPS of multiple Colossus combined with their mobility is un-rivaled. Nothing even comes close. The Colossus moves almost as quickly as a Stalker, which is a fast moving unit. All of the above combined with their very long range and high hit-points the DPS required to take them down before an entire ground force is obliterated seems too high.
I agree with IdrA that over-making the A2A counter is the only way to effectively deal with Colossus which has major repercussions on the ground-battle aftermath. Current Protoss gameplay is bolstering their Colossus with Phoniex as air tanks making the investment in Vikings even more futile.
The siege tank has a longer range but requires a spotter, cannot move, and fires extremely slowly in comparison. The Siege Tank is basically the antithesis of the Colossus. The Siege Tank fires so slowly, and has such poor mobility, that colossus heavy army with proper ground support will absolutely roll Siege Tanks in Siege Mode.
I cannot suggest a fix, because I do not know what it would be, nor am I qualified to offer a fix, but the data certainly suggests that the Colossus has a high probability of being overpowered in every matchup.
p.s. I hope this is not the last post on this page ... no one will see it. Darn.
Footnotes
(1) Units within .4687 of the Target are dealt full damage, units from a distance of .4687 to .7812 are dealt 50% of the full damage, and units from a distance of .7812 to 1.25 are dealt 25%
altough its hard ( amlost impossible) to compare units of different races with eatch other. (it wouldnt like roughly comparable races, so doesnt Blizzard) If you still want to compare them maybe you should at least put cost in the comparison. (you can amlost make two tanks for the price of one Colossus)
Edit: typo
|
On February 05 2011 00:37 TimeSpiral wrote:
The Colossus is a Siege unit with no mobility restrictions
============================================
Let's take a look at the Siege-level units and make a direct comparison with mobility and it's relationship with effectiveness.
Terran's Siege Level Units
• Siege Tank in SieGe Mode
- Range: Requires upgrade. 2-11 (2-13 w/ spotter)
- Cooldown: 3 Seconds
- AoE: Three tiers, 1.25 Max radius at 25% damage. Causes friendly fire (1).
- Movement Speed: Stationary. 4 second transformation time.
- Health: 160 (very low)
• Battlecruiser w/ Yamato Cannon
- Range: 10, Requires upgrade. Not available immediately upon unit completion.
- Cooldown: ONE Shot Per Engagement
- AoE: Single Target
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow)
- Health: Very High
Zerg
• Baneling
- Range: Melee
- Cooldown: Suicide Unit
- AoE: 2.2, full damage.
- Movement Speed: 2.5 (2.9531 with Centrifugal Hooks) x1.3 on creep (extremely fast). Can burrow (effectively invisible).
- Health: Very low
• Broodlord
- Range: 9.5 (slightly more after Broodlings land)
- Cooldown: 2.5
- AoE: Spawns multiple units per attack.
- Movement Speed: 1.4062 (Extremely slow). Is a Flying unit.
- Health: 225 (medium-high)
Protoss
• Colossus w/ Thermal Lance
- Range: 9, requires upgrade
- Cooldown: 1.65 (attacks twice per attack)
- AoE: 100% damage, both lasers, .15 radius per laser, linear splash (can't find how long each Line is. My guess is 2, at least)
- Movement Speed: 2.25 (Fast) Can walk over small cliffs and units.
- Health: 350 (High)
• Carrier / Interceptors
- Range: 8 (effective 12 after Interceptors are launched)
- Cooldown: Interceptor release .5 (0.125/0.25 affected by upgrade)
- AoE: Interceptors can be focus fired or attack multiple targets.
- Movement Speed: 1.875 (Very slow)
- Health: 450 (Very High)
When looking at this analysis the Colossus is clearly the most mobile and effective siege unit in the game when compared to the other units. It moves quickly, unrestrained by terrain, has a quick cooldown and attacks twice per volley. The splash damage is 100% across the entire linear radius and benefits doubly from ground attack upgrades at the forge.
The AoE DPS of multiple Colossus combined with their mobility is un-rivaled. Nothing even comes close. The Colossus moves almost as quickly as a Stalker, which is a fast moving unit. All of the above combined with their very long range and high hit-points the DPS required to take them down before an entire ground force is obliterated seems too high.
I agree with IdrA that over-making the A2A counter is the only way to effectively deal with Colossus which has major repercussions on the ground-battle aftermath. Current Protoss gameplay is bolstering their Colossus with Phoniex as air tanks making the investment in Vikings even more futile.
The siege tank has a longer range but requires a spotter, cannot move, and fires extremely slowly in comparison. The Siege Tank is basically the antithesis of the Colossus. The Siege Tank fires so slowly, and has such poor mobility, that colossus heavy army with proper ground support will absolutely roll Siege Tanks in Siege Mode.
I cannot suggest a fix, because I do not know what it would be, nor am I qualified to offer a fix, but the data certainly suggests that the Colossus has a high probability of being overpowered in every matchup.
p.s. I hope this is not the last post on this page ... no one will see it. Darn.
Footnotes
(1) Units within .4687 of the Target are dealt full damage, units from a distance of .4687 to .7812 are dealt 50% of the full damage, and units from a distance of .7812 to 1.25 are dealt 25%
Beside completely ignoring the mechanics of the game .. your data lacks supply, mineral and gas costs.
|
I think my biggest gripe with the video was really what Idra said, basically stating that Zerg's ground army is hurt by making corrupters... so is the Terran army by making vikings....
And other people are stating that FF is ruining the zerg army...Guess what. It does the same for the terran army too, since vikings arent that great after the colossus is dead. So i'm not exactly sure how it's entirely OP against Zerg, but perfectly balanced for terran.
|
On February 05 2011 00:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 00:01 Blacklizard wrote:On February 04 2011 23:51 WhiteDog wrote:On February 04 2011 23:45 Blacklizard wrote:On February 04 2011 16:20 Jumbled wrote:Spoilered for length. On February 04 2011 15:51 Blacklizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Excuse formatting... i gotta sleep.
I seriously doubt colossus are truly an OP problem in ZvP. I spent a good hour testing stuff and will share results below.
Logically, P have to beat Z with a gateway timing or colossus 95% of the time... so since all most people lose to is colossus, it would be a target for criticism. Can't criticize high templar b/c P never beats Z with it in a typical match.
Besides nothing in tournaments really showing an imbalance problem with colossus, there are several unit compositions that do fine against colossus + stalker. If Zergs can find a way to tech switch to heavy banelings, a few lings, + medium to light roach late game, that'd be the way to go IMO. Why?
1. Against a splash ranged army, you want unit variety so that splash doesn't kill much. In other words, first volley hit some lings miss others, next volley might hit some banes miss others, next might hit roaches, miss others, etc.
2. Banelings strangely are possibly the best answer vs colossus stalker. Especially with baneling drops, + corruptors or empty OLs to draw fire, during
the fight. With the unit tester stuff... about 100 food worth of army vs about 100 food... zerg trades armies pretty well if heavy baneling (40 to 55 banelings I think). The way banelings and lings go almost single file around roaches helps them avoid splash A LOT. FF is the only scary thing... OL drops and/or a couple of Ultras to break FF help a ton. If they don't have any FF (or if your ultra break most of them) it's gg.
Overlord drops seem pretty great in the fight b/c stalkers have medicore dps. And if they try to focus fire the lings/banes coming single file get on them pretty quick. If stalkers try to blink micro away, the colossus are left vulnerable due to their bad speed.
Another option is heavy heavy corruptor + mixed ground, mostly roach. This is probably the most practical and the most seen. Again I also recommend 2-4 ultras (I dont ever see this enough though) to break FFs and screw up colossus splash. You won't have gas to go heavy ultra and have leftover for broodlords anyway... plus Ultras wont dps this army well anyway unless you get a crazy surround or want to risk Ultras in OL drops.
You lose your Zerg ground army, but you can pretty much kill all colossus and get away with nearly all of your corruptors. Then you just have to rebuild
roaches and maybe make a few broodlords. Colossus take too long to rebuild and the Protoss is now under the gun.
One more way to deal with this army might be killing observers and burrow. Popping unburrowed in a non-line pattern is bad for splash. Engage with rest of army a second before unburrow and stalkers cant focus fire. I didn't test this, but it theorycraftily makes sense.
Finally, infestors have to have some serious potential. Out of time to test them.
Some of the WORST zerg compositions against colossus+stalker in the tests were
All roach. They just line up perfectly for splash. You want VARIETY in your army to make splash target on tiny sections of your army!!!!
8 to 10 ultras + roach. Ultras just spaz out too much in big numbers. (Sometimes Ultras in numbers above 12 did OK when I micro'd the shit out of Zerg though. Wasn't convincing though and had a strange tipping point. Would require more testing)
Heavy hydra. Obvious.
Disclaimer: Real tournament matches mean more than unit testing, obviously, because getting into the situation needs to be possible. However I stacked the fight slightly in the Protoss favor on purpose to make sure it was winnable by Zerg.
Obviously you often lost most of your ground as Z, but if you take out all colossus and half the stalkers I consider it a Z "win" since you can rebuild roaches and possibly roll P. The more banelings you have though, the easier it is to kill the whole P army. All Test battles were done in no choke + no flank options (5 and a half colossuses could fit across). This seemed neutral enough that players would engage on either side without huge disadvantages. So in real games with similar battles more choke is better for P and more flank options better for Z. No creep was used in all tests.
I did not test sentry heavy builds!!! But if they go heavy sentry, I'd recommend more reliance on banes in overlords or ultras in overlords to drop on FFs, burrow ultras (their own control grp), let the banelings and lings in.
Most tests were done with a little above or below 100 food armies (80 to 130 food per army). Protoss ratio was usually 6-10 colossus, the rest mostly stalkers (2 to 6 sentries mixed in with full energy). Tried putting in a couple of immortals here and there... only seemed to help against heavy heavy roach or ultra armies... surprise. Zerg ratios differed, see above.
Did attack moves and also did micro on one or both sides. Results were not heavily reliant on micro. Micro helped Ultra + roach + corruptor the most I think. Heavy Banelings pretty much required no Z micro except OL drops. Sometimes I would burrown move roaches closer or further from fight or to allow Ultras to get better positions. Corruption seemed to help if you went corruptor heavy... get the kills and get out quicker with your air.
Played on slowest speed so I could micro both sides at the same time when I wanted.
Upgrades:
All units had their special abilities upgraded (bane speed, blink, colo range, etc.). I did more tests with + 2 range (ground) attack + 1 (ground) armor and +1 air attack on both sides than anything else. More armor would favor Zerg a little bit I believe. Here again banelings have the luxury of being just as effective even with lots of upgrades on both sides.
Finally, imbalance can sometimes be caught in the unit tester. Remember siege tanks before the damage nerf? No army could stand up to them... even mass immortals. Unit tests have their place to find a composition you want. It's up to the players to make it possible.
Nice work Blacklizard. May just be the only truly excellent post in the thread. I'm curious about a couple of the things you tested though: 1. When doing your corruptor+ground compositions, what organisation did you use for the zerg attack? Did you send certain units in ahead of others, or just throw everything at the protoss ball at once. 2. What made you decide to mix roaches into your ultra attacks, as opposed to other units? Wouldn't roaches exacerbate the crowding problem ultras face? Thanks. For zerg attacks, it seemed very important to go in with ground first then go in with corruptors immediately after. If you go in with corruptors first, wait a few moments, then engage in ground you lose your corruptors too easily as Stalkers can focus and colossi can kite a bit. Then how will your ground army catch up? So going headlong with ground, with better speed than P's army (especially colossi) seemed to be critical. When going a heavy ground mix, the thing I tried the hardest to do was get Ultras in front of roaches. Sometimes I'd move them in front first, then attack move the army. Somtimes I'd let them ball up, then when they got stuck behind roaches I'd burrow the roaches and move them behind the ultras. The reason I liked roaches is hydras seem too prone to being screwed by FF and colossus. Roaches have HP, burrow and regen, so if they have to retreat under FF they have a chance, IMO. And you can rearrange them with ultras or other units that get stuck nicely w/ burrow movement. Aslo, you want your ground to basically stay alive as long as possible for corruptors to do damage if you aren't doing banelings. LoL, it's so wrong and clueless about zerg. First, you cannot have ultra at 12-14 minutes like colossi, so it's just not possible. Second, going with ground army before corruptor is also wrong, you absolutly want to take down colossi really fast, if not BEFORE any fight, so most of the time you abuse the map to take down 1 or 2 colossi and hit colossi with your corruptor while stalkers cannot fights back (abusing cliff or any doodle where stalker cannot see you/hit you/come to you). Try to fight an even cost colossi stalker sentry army with roach hydra corruptor, going with roach and hydra first and corruptor just after, you're gonna get stomped if the protoss just know how to use sentries, pull back and target corruptor one after another. Please read the big post I made he was talking about before commenting to get an idea of what is being tested. These were unit tester tests against very light sentry play since the focus of the video seemed to be heavy stalker heavy colossus light sentry. Also I named ways to deal with FF that I think are critical. OL drops and a few ultras. In a regular game I agree it is a good idea to snipe the colossus with corruptors when cliffs give an advantage... as long as blink stalkers won't kill too many. But the tests were to see if you forced an engagement with zerg, what unit composition killed all or most colossus and as many stalkers as possible. I was surprised that there was more than one unit composition that did either OK or even well (heavy banelings). Sure there are a lot of composition when the protoss just a-move. Silver ZvP should be balanced.
There is more than one way to force an engagement if you can find a way to have a unit comp that deals with the enemy or enough economy that you don't mind losses. The problem is getting to that point, which I made very clear was taken out of the equation. Hence the word "test".
But colossi are really really slow when they try to attack kite. And stalker dps vs ground is not enough without colossi... so I fail to believe it's impossible to find a way to engage a stalker+colossus ball. I'm sure it's a bitch on some maps... but certainly not all.
What I'd like to see some serious zergs try, if they are facing stalker+colossus, is
1. Is it possible to somehow transition to tons of banelings + a couple of ultras without dying
2. Burrow movement + ultras vs FFs
3. OL drops during fight
The corruptor option is already used enough that it's obvious it's a legitimate option under some circumstances.
|
On February 05 2011 00:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2011 00:01 Blacklizard wrote:On February 04 2011 23:51 WhiteDog wrote:On February 04 2011 23:45 Blacklizard wrote:On February 04 2011 16:20 Jumbled wrote:Spoilered for length. On February 04 2011 15:51 Blacklizard wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Excuse formatting... i gotta sleep.
I seriously doubt colossus are truly an OP problem in ZvP. I spent a good hour testing stuff and will share results below.
Logically, P have to beat Z with a gateway timing or colossus 95% of the time... so since all most people lose to is colossus, it would be a target for criticism. Can't criticize high templar b/c P never beats Z with it in a typical match.
Besides nothing in tournaments really showing an imbalance problem with colossus, there are several unit compositions that do fine against colossus + stalker. If Zergs can find a way to tech switch to heavy banelings, a few lings, + medium to light roach late game, that'd be the way to go IMO. Why?
1. Against a splash ranged army, you want unit variety so that splash doesn't kill much. In other words, first volley hit some lings miss others, next volley might hit some banes miss others, next might hit roaches, miss others, etc.
2. Banelings strangely are possibly the best answer vs colossus stalker. Especially with baneling drops, + corruptors or empty OLs to draw fire, during
the fight. With the unit tester stuff... about 100 food worth of army vs about 100 food... zerg trades armies pretty well if heavy baneling (40 to 55 banelings I think). The way banelings and lings go almost single file around roaches helps them avoid splash A LOT. FF is the only scary thing... OL drops and/or a couple of Ultras to break FF help a ton. If they don't have any FF (or if your ultra break most of them) it's gg.
Overlord drops seem pretty great in the fight b/c stalkers have medicore dps. And if they try to focus fire the lings/banes coming single file get on them pretty quick. If stalkers try to blink micro away, the colossus are left vulnerable due to their bad speed.
Another option is heavy heavy corruptor + mixed ground, mostly roach. This is probably the most practical and the most seen. Again I also recommend 2-4 ultras (I dont ever see this enough though) to break FFs and screw up colossus splash. You won't have gas to go heavy ultra and have leftover for broodlords anyway... plus Ultras wont dps this army well anyway unless you get a crazy surround or want to risk Ultras in OL drops.
You lose your Zerg ground army, but you can pretty much kill all colossus and get away with nearly all of your corruptors. Then you just have to rebuild
roaches and maybe make a few broodlords. Colossus take too long to rebuild and the Protoss is now under the gun.
One more way to deal with this army might be killing observers and burrow. Popping unburrowed in a non-line pattern is bad for splash. Engage with rest of army a second before unburrow and stalkers cant focus fire. I didn't test this, but it theorycraftily makes sense.
Finally, infestors have to have some serious potential. Out of time to test them.
Some of the WORST zerg compositions against colossus+stalker in the tests were
All roach. They just line up perfectly for splash. You want VARIETY in your army to make splash target on tiny sections of your army!!!!
8 to 10 ultras + roach. Ultras just spaz out too much in big numbers. (Sometimes Ultras in numbers above 12 did OK when I micro'd the shit out of Zerg though. Wasn't convincing though and had a strange tipping point. Would require more testing)
Heavy hydra. Obvious.
Disclaimer: Real tournament matches mean more than unit testing, obviously, because getting into the situation needs to be possible. However I stacked the fight slightly in the Protoss favor on purpose to make sure it was winnable by Zerg.
Obviously you often lost most of your ground as Z, but if you take out all colossus and half the stalkers I consider it a Z "win" since you can rebuild roaches and possibly roll P. The more banelings you have though, the easier it is to kill the whole P army. All Test battles were done in no choke + no flank options (5 and a half colossuses could fit across). This seemed neutral enough that players would engage on either side without huge disadvantages. So in real games with similar battles more choke is better for P and more flank options better for Z. No creep was used in all tests.
I did not test sentry heavy builds!!! But if they go heavy sentry, I'd recommend more reliance on banes in overlords or ultras in overlords to drop on FFs, burrow ultras (their own control grp), let the banelings and lings in.
Most tests were done with a little above or below 100 food armies (80 to 130 food per army). Protoss ratio was usually 6-10 colossus, the rest mostly stalkers (2 to 6 sentries mixed in with full energy). Tried putting in a couple of immortals here and there... only seemed to help against heavy heavy roach or ultra armies... surprise. Zerg ratios differed, see above.
Did attack moves and also did micro on one or both sides. Results were not heavily reliant on micro. Micro helped Ultra + roach + corruptor the most I think. Heavy Banelings pretty much required no Z micro except OL drops. Sometimes I would burrown move roaches closer or further from fight or to allow Ultras to get better positions. Corruption seemed to help if you went corruptor heavy... get the kills and get out quicker with your air.
Played on slowest speed so I could micro both sides at the same time when I wanted.
Upgrades:
All units had their special abilities upgraded (bane speed, blink, colo range, etc.). I did more tests with + 2 range (ground) attack + 1 (ground) armor and +1 air attack on both sides than anything else. More armor would favor Zerg a little bit I believe. Here again banelings have the luxury of being just as effective even with lots of upgrades on both sides.
Finally, imbalance can sometimes be caught in the unit tester. Remember siege tanks before the damage nerf? No army could stand up to them... even mass immortals. Unit tests have their place to find a composition you want. It's up to the players to make it possible.
Nice work Blacklizard. May just be the only truly excellent post in the thread. I'm curious about a couple of the things you tested though: 1. When doing your corruptor+ground compositions, what organisation did you use for the zerg attack? Did you send certain units in ahead of others, or just throw everything at the protoss ball at once. 2. What made you decide to mix roaches into your ultra attacks, as opposed to other units? Wouldn't roaches exacerbate the crowding problem ultras face? Thanks. For zerg attacks, it seemed very important to go in with ground first then go in with corruptors immediately after. If you go in with corruptors first, wait a few moments, then engage in ground you lose your corruptors too easily as Stalkers can focus and colossi can kite a bit. Then how will your ground army catch up? So going headlong with ground, with better speed than P's army (especially colossi) seemed to be critical. When going a heavy ground mix, the thing I tried the hardest to do was get Ultras in front of roaches. Sometimes I'd move them in front first, then attack move the army. Somtimes I'd let them ball up, then when they got stuck behind roaches I'd burrow the roaches and move them behind the ultras. The reason I liked roaches is hydras seem too prone to being screwed by FF and colossus. Roaches have HP, burrow and regen, so if they have to retreat under FF they have a chance, IMO. And you can rearrange them with ultras or other units that get stuck nicely w/ burrow movement. Aslo, you want your ground to basically stay alive as long as possible for corruptors to do damage if you aren't doing banelings. LoL, it's so wrong and clueless about zerg. First, you cannot have ultra at 12-14 minutes like colossi, so it's just not possible. Second, going with ground army before corruptor is also wrong, you absolutly want to take down colossi really fast, if not BEFORE any fight, so most of the time you abuse the map to take down 1 or 2 colossi and hit colossi with your corruptor while stalkers cannot fights back (abusing cliff or any doodle where stalker cannot see you/hit you/come to you). Try to fight an even cost colossi stalker sentry army with roach hydra corruptor, going with roach and hydra first and corruptor just after, you're gonna get stomped if the protoss just know how to use sentries, pull back and target corruptor one after another. Please read the big post I made he was talking about before commenting to get an idea of what is being tested. These were unit tester tests against very light sentry play since the focus of the video seemed to be heavy stalker heavy colossus light sentry. Also I named ways to deal with FF that I think are critical. OL drops and a few ultras. In a regular game I agree it is a good idea to snipe the colossus with corruptors when cliffs give an advantage... as long as blink stalkers won't kill too many. But the tests were to see if you forced an engagement with zerg, what unit composition killed all or most colossus and as many stalkers as possible. I was surprised that there was more than one unit composition that did either OK or even well (heavy banelings). Sure there are a lot of composition when the protoss just a-move. Silver ZvP should be balanced.
That is impossible. Silver Players will always struggle with basic larva mechanics. Zerg is easily the hardest race to get the hang of for newer players. There is no way you could balance it for both.
Personally I think Ultralisks are crap vs. Colossus, which I've discovered mainly just with experience. However, it could be just that the current maps really don't have a lot of open space for the Ultralisks to engage in. So it might just be something to do with maps. I think Ultralisks are a poor choice on almost all of the maps.
1. Is it possible to somehow transition to tons of banelings + a couple of ultras without dying
2. Burrow movement + ultras vs FFs
3. OL drops during fight
1 would actually be pretty cool. But I think you would die simple to colossus splash. Banelings might not be able to get there.
2 has been tried plenty. Burrow Movement really isn't that great a way to deal with. You simply take too much damage.
3 Wouldn't the stalkers just kill your overlords? They don't have that much health.
|
On February 05 2011 00:47 Schamus wrote:
I think my biggest gripe with the video was really what Idra said, basically stating that Zerg's ground army is hurt by making corrupters... so is the Terran army by making vikings....
And other people are stating that FF is ruining the zerg army...Guess what. It does the same for the terran army too, since vikings arent that great after the colossus is dead. So i'm not exactly sure how it's entirely OP against Zerg, but perfectly balanced for terran.
They said why right in the video. Vikings are much better against collossi than corruptors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
