Printable View
=Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
=Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
=Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Understand now?Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Dustin Browder is one man. Regardless of his positon, the game does not succeed or fail solely based on him.
I had assumed you would understand this but I guess not. Then again, you think you know better than someone who does this for a living, quite successfully too.
It's pretty simple, really.
The world editor is out. It lets you do anything from change the damage of a zergling to add a completely new unit with completely new abilities.
You really think you can design better than Blizzard? You're free to try.
It is not that simple at all. People that think they know how to balance game and what changes should they add, will not see anything except "successful balance".Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
I know people that said Stalkers need 7 range(!?) or any kind of buff, and if they try it out in Map Editor, they won't see something imbalanced, they will see that it is easier to play, and that they have less problems when using Stalkers on the some fields, but they won't admit that it is bad change.
I mean, we will see it, but we can see it anyway, even before some of the changes are implemented, they won't, and they will think they are good as/better than Blizzard.
It just doesn't matter what game you play there's always this ignorant contingent who thinks they can armchair design a better game in a couple hours with only a few pro games and their personal experience as their source material.
I have to say though....
I think the lurker could be added back.
I'm only a casual 1v1 diamond with around 1000++ points, but my TvZ opening is pretty lethal IMO
-blocked ramp
-4 hellion + blue flame +
Usually causes a baneling bust on me
-Micro hellions and then proceed to BBQ drones
-Start Amory/Transistion to 2nd factory+Reactor = Thors + Hellions
-Force Zerg player to transist to Roaches due to the hellion harass
-Finish the game
Is pretty strong. I don't see any counter to this except an all in early zergling rush. Turtle'ing doesn't work either due to thor cannons. Roaches get BBQ'd by the Thors. Baneling/Speedlings can't touch the hellions. A transistion to Mutalisks takes too long, especially after being BBQ'd by hellions. Plus with some marine support, 1 thor can easily take out 3 Mutalisks so long as you bring SCV's to repair.
I've beat several 2500+ Point Diamond zerg players with this, and I'm probably a solid 80%+ Win rate against Zerg.
The only unit I really see that could counter this is the lurker... BUT with the existence of the thor, it won't be that hard to just "Assault" lurkers (Unlike Brood war). Especially with the 250MM cannon stun, the lurkers are sitting ducks.
But they could ward off hellion rush abuse. But I can see the design team's concern. With the inclusion of Marauders/Thors, the lurkers will only tickle them and still prove ineffective.
That's not necessarily a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
Balance can't be found through theorycraft. It needs to be tested, and actually doing something is always one step closer to learning about how balance works. Even if it changes the gameplay, it's a good way to figure out what works and what doesn't, and why.
I do see your point that it would bolster the ideals of those who just don't get it, but it's not like not like anything else is going to be any more effective at proving it wrong. Theorycraft vs theorycraft ends up nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinsWage
For the first time, I understand why people call you my sidekick.
You counter illogical posts and bring forth reason. We are a match made in heaven.
Let the wedding commence. Demolitionsquid is in charge of decoration and catering. Do we have a registered minister here?Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Don't make me go Bridezilla on your ass. I've put a lot of thought into this and my day WILL be purrrrrfect.
Sarov is decoration and catering. Gradius will be the minister.
Indeed, I am ordained in StarCraftism. I will bless you in the name of the Zerry, the Kerry, and the Holy Raynor.
May Christ Metzen look favorably upon this upcoming matrimony.
God, I love SCL OT :D
Someone else really should make a good post so I can rep it and get back to reppin' Gradius.
I'm just a man who has hated that idiots turn opinions into facts on the internet since Al Gore invented it. If that makes me a catch then who am I to stop destiny? Commence with the ceremony.
alas, the rep-system in place is clearly not optimized to deal with the significant disparity between our high standards of rep-deserval on the one hand and the scarcity of high quality posts on the other... (or even quality low enough to warrant neg-rep)Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
(no sarcasm intended)
as for the wedding, you have my blessing. but dont expect any fancy gift... you'll have to settle for me bringing the cheese:Hidden Content:
lastly, this actually isnt SCL OT, so i guess we all deserve neg reps for this massive derail.
I love cheese. As long as its sticky.
(And, I didn't mean the subforum so this is OT in the forum of SCLegacy; not SC Legacy's off-topic subforum.)
I have to disagree on 2 points. First, Mass voids w/ an MS is just terrible to behold when you are on the receiving end and have harassed 2-3 expos consistently and scouted voids early. I have found but 3 counters. As a Terran, mass Thors with enough scouting to have an upgrade advantage, or mass Vikes, again with the upgrade advantage, which especially applies given equal numbers. As a Zerg, mass corruptors. A detector is optional as a MS isn't that hard to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Genopath
My second point is I feel the presence of roaches overlaps and improves on any offensive use the lurker would have. I admit to the possibility that lurkers might do more damage in some circumstances, but my current Zerg strats don't feel Lurker amenable. I don't use banelings often, but they do eliminate terran infantry more effectively than Lurkers ever could.
I may have to try a baneling drop. I feel Toss is more mobile than they get credit for. Sure, average unit speed is the slowest overall (pre-upgrades at least) but proxy pylons are deadly when undetected. Also, I use warp prisms fairly often, or at least I did before the map pool changed. I still use them occassionally to warp-in dts. The speed upgrade helps a lot. I will admit that Toss seems slow when trying to expand, so opponents seem to have a greater harassment opportunity and likelihood to overwhelm.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
Great! All the happy couple needs now is a Baggins to bring forth the ring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
dude, Voidrays shouldnt be a problem for terran, with or without mothership. if the opponent is actually investing heavily in churning out VR's and not colossi n'or HT's, youre in the green to basically mass marines for the win. if you want to tech to support your marines, "mass thors" is needlessly expensive and not even all that cost effective vs voidrays; vikings are vastly supperior, and though superior mobily AND range, you dont even need to reach any cirtical number of vikings for them to be useful; they can kite voidrays infinitely.Quote:
Originally Posted by flak4321
i said it once and i'll say it again. the lurker isn't coming back unless it does something new. and if it does something new it probably won't be called "the lurker" anymore. so if they added it from a expansion it would be considered a new unit instead of an old unit.
if you mean when you use the roach to burrow, move, unburrow, attack, and repeat in micro ability, then yes i agree. though i think that aspect of the roach still needs some work like an underground speed upgrade to be as fast as the infestor.Quote:
My second point is I feel the presence of roaches overlaps and improves on any offensive use the lurker would have
it is the lurker's attack that people really want, not the lurker itself. people think back to the broodwar days and forget the present. they remember how the lurkers attack owned everything that walked the ground. some will tell you different but zerg could do the old sstrooper UMS map of holding off nonstop waves of ground forces, like the terrans can, using solely lurkers.
they think of how the lurker would tear apart sc2's current bio ball tactics but what they forget is how sc2 changed the attack system. attack types are more varied than in sc1. this ruins the lurkers attack, making the lurker seem weaker. for example, in sc1 the lurker owned zealots and dragoons, in sc2 the changes would make it so it still owns zealots but because stalkers are armored and mechanical the lurker would be weak. the stalkers would own the lurker and this is not including the blink ability for further ownage. the lurker would not have an attack type that owned every unit type, that would be in-balanced.
the only thing the lurker has going for it is its ability to attack in narrow paths and step like ramp layouts in non open terrain. without hindering themselves in a crowded mass like every other ground zerg unit does, a map weakness the sc1 zerg do not have because the ranged swarm of hydralisk was usually the answer.
i still like my lurker idea in my previous post. it stayed with the lurkers role of heavy defender, something the zerg in sc2 do not have, a turtling unit in a race without turtling units. i think the baneling perfectly reflects the sc2 zerg in the saying "the best defense is a strong offense, but once they go boom your left defenseless."
Well, the Protoss army as a Whole isn't that mobile, but I would say that Stalkers are one of the most mobile units with blink.Quote:
Originally Posted by flak4321
Banelings drops on Toss are pretty good at our level, since not a lot of Toss players know to micro properly and to spread army. But on Korean level, I would say there will be more times that it won't work than vica versa.
Yeah, because Voids will chase your Vikings? Hell no, they will destroy your base and everything in it before you are able to take few of them down, if you don't have enough Vikings as you say of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todie
letting big bad things sneak up on you is never good, but even assuming inferrior numbers, vikings still give you principal mapcontrol against voidrays, much as phoenix give P's map-control against mutas; if caught midmap voids(or mutas) are forced to either escape with some loses or suicide into the enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
if actually caught more or less off guard with Voids smelting a terran base, Marines are the straightforward answer.
I would guess that a big reason such strategies can seem as problems not that easy to solve for lower level player, is that its probably more mechanically demanding to build the needed infrastructure, mass the marines and use them right, than it is to build some voids and attack your base.. But evne if its harder, it still surely worth the effort, knowing how well marines do vs Voidrays.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurluash
I just played a game of the mod... lurkers are a definite need in Starcraft 2.
It's just ridiculous how much they add to zerg:
I can safely just put lurkers as base defense now, no problems. If they had a bit more range, I can just stick them as map control areas or if you want to hit me with bioball, lurkers FTW, utterly obliterates bioball.
Even better is that, even if you scan, unlike banelings, lurkers will still fire back.
I don't understand their own strategy with the "can't find role for lurkers"...
What they'll probably do is create a shitty version of the lurker (a la mothership arbiter debate) and put it in the expansion pack.
Well, they tried to change some units. I would say that Reavers would be a lot better than Colossi, but that is just me.
"Can't find role for Lurkers" thing was back then when Lurkers were Tier 3 Siege units for Zerg and had an Upgrade for 9 Range, just like Colossi. Thing is, at tier 3, everyone has detection, so Lurker is immobile Colossi, sort of. The only thing Lurkers have and Brood Lords don't, is splash, and Ultras even have that. All 3 of them are Siege units, and Zerg at that time had to many of them in my opinion. So, they said that "Lurker isn't needed".
I don't justify their removal of Lurker, just think that they were thinking along those lines. Also, I would love to see Lurker at tier 2 or 3, it doesn't have to be the one from SC2, good old SC1 Lurker would be just fine.
The problem here is not the Mothership. The problem was that in this case the player would have failed to scout it. Furthermore, the MS is extremely slow. You really have a lot of time to prepare. Having your Starport making Vikings instead of Medivacs is the most viable counter here. Vikins are essentially the best AA unit in the game. If you add the fact that because of the MS the P will have a smaller unit composition. Thus, I wouldn't say it's a "terrible strat" to withhold.Quote:
Originally Posted by flak4321
Here is the heart of the problem. Massing Thors against MS + Voids isn't a viable counter resource wise or time wise.Quote:
I have found but 3 counters. As a Terran, mass Thors with enough scouting to have an upgrade advantage
This is a much more viable strat.Quote:
or mass Vikes, again with the upgrade advantage, which especially applies given equal numbers.
I would say Hydras are much more cost-effective and are faster to get together with Queens. The only problem is that a player that commits to Hydras can be destroyed if P mixes Carriers in the mix.Quote:
As a Zerg, mass corruptors. A detector is optional as a MS isn't that hard to kill.
Voids directly counter Thors. Why would you mass them? That's like massing Zerglings against Hellions. They're only somewhat effective but there's so many and easy to get counters.
Additionally, you don't have to baby-sit them to see exactly when a bioball is directly over them in the off chance that they don't scan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wankey
Auto-explode says hi.
Auto-explode says hi to 1 Marine crossing over Banelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Then they should've spread those Banelings out.
Besides, it's not like a Lurker wouldn't attack that one Marine also, which was the point.
Yeah that was my point exactly, Lurkers aren't better in every way, Banelings won't attack, Lurker will, and they said that they would disable Hold Lurkers in SC2 when they wanted to implement it, only way you could do that is by clicking 'S' thousand times and then let it go...Quote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Lurkers aren't massable, Banelings are. You can burrow 2-3 Banelings on every choke, or where you think he will be crossing, and he must waste scan, to see if there are Banelings or there aren't, while with Lurkers, you just need to send one Marine.
Oh, then we were trying to prove the same point then :D
Good. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by TychusFindlay
Well, in any case, I do think Zerg need more base defense type units. Terrans have insanely durable PF's with turret support, Protoss have Warp In units and possible Warp In Psi Storm (will have to see how much khaydarin will affect em, and if it will every be changed/returned in the future). Zerg don't really have a great base-defense unit outside of the queen, and even then the Queen is only good for the early game, not viable against mid-late game drops or harass.
Lurkers would help fill in that roll, even if players micro against them it's at least one unit that can control territory, like sunkens do.
Try infestors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
As for Lurkers, the argument against them all along hasnt had anything to do with contesting their usefulness, its just so obvious that they'd deminish the usefulness of banelings.
above all, im trying to steer clear of this discussion because its a done deal; Lurkers were tried extensively during alpha and deemed not to fit; one reason might be the desire to move past sc/bw norms for zerg gameplay. i never wanted the lurker back, and i know many agreed with that (dropping names or nubmers on that is just pointless)
I have always been of the opinion that "less returning units is better." I even once suggested scrapping the Zergling and making the (significantly nerfed) Roach the base Zerg unit. I am thusly, anti-Lurker.
@Genopath & Todie: I'll admit mass Thors is less viable vs. Viods since the bonus vs armored was added. As for the vikings, you are ignoring the MS in my very specific example. While slow, void speed now is equal to MS (almost) since the upgrade removal and the fall behind problem doesn't really exist in this example. Further, you can't kite voids you can't target. You have to get the MS first, which forces you into the voids. Marines are not an effective counter in my specific example either. If there was no MS, the voids themselves are easily beatable, even with a numbers disadvantage. Even the occasional mixing in of carriers is not a problem minus the MS.
As far as scouting is concerned, I usually do scout the voids coming. As much as I scout now, I still can't manage to scout a MS. It also depends on how the Toss is pressuring you while he's pumping voids and an MS. A void rush can be countered by marines definitely, but a mass void after consistent harass leaves you undermanned so you have to get what you can get. Again, the MS presence is key because you must target it first. Unless you can EMP the suckers.
I'm only stating the counters that have worked in my experience, which does have dependence on my skills admittedly. I will not ever deny the existence of better ways. I will however admit that my skill set does not lend itself to to some counters. I'll also agree that while Terran has a lot of counters, they are very much a generalist race, meaning that Terran will never have a standout unit. I'm actually much better as a Toss or Zerg these days. All in all, I greatly appreciate the responses as they have undoubtedly shaped my game, but it would be most helpful if you considered the whole example rather than one unit type within it. :)
A more on topic comment: As the lurker-centric part of this conversation has progressed, we can clearly see why the Lurker was removed. Do we like it? No. Could the lurker be useful? Yes, definitely. Do we absolutely need it? No.
Nothing's wrong with 'diminishing the usefulness of banelings' if the unit is effective at what it does, and ultimately functions differently than said unit. Both Lurker and Baneling would be used to counter masses of units (ie Marine balls), and there's nothing wrong with having more options to counter those matchups.
Banelings will still be used to bust through defenses or expansion lines. Banelings can still be dropped out of overlords like bombs. Banelings can still be used as inexpensive burrowed mines.
If anything, there is less overlap of the Baneling and Lurker than there is overlap of Reapers and Hellions, both which are fast, worker-killing anti-light units. Despite this they are still used at different stages in the game for different reasons.
Despite the fact that one is used in almost every match-up and one isn't used at all... XDQuote:
If anything, there is less overlap of the Baneling and Lurker than there is overlap of Reapers and Hellions, both which are fast, worker-killing anti-light units. Despite this they are still used at different stages in the game for different reasons.
Well they nerfed one to hell, that's why. It seems Blizzard doesn't want 2 different types of units to do the same. I find that game design philosophy really stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
It is not that, but Blizzard said that Reapers were too Strong in team games so they nerfed it, which is retarded, who the hell cares about Team games? Also, after the Roach buff and Supply before Barrack nerf, Reapers were at the great spot. Don't know why they needed to nerf them even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wankey
Well that's my thought about blizzard balancing as well. They nerf something to fix something else, but buff other things but forget the original unit is still nerfed. You have a bunch of weird balances because units sometimes get underpowered without being touched because they're focusing on another unit.