Printable View
Now let's say that all those abilities cost 150 energy - it's not like out of the box they're gonna be able to crush an opponent's army. And of course you have to actually build those 5-6 BCs, research each upgrade and retrofit them. And once that's done they'll only be able to use their abilities in combat once.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
So I heard immortals are now OP & actually live up to their name.
Yes, they will do it once per combat, just enough to win that fight? Anyway, I am pretty sure that Old BCs and Corruptors were left out because of the balance issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang
Balance issues had little to do with it, at least in the Battlecruisers case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
IIRC, the various BC upgrades were axed from multiplayer because researching them individually was tedious and counter-intuitive, and most play testers just went with the yamato canon anyway.
If that's true then it would seem that contrary to Ramzi's claims, the other abilities weren't good enough compared to YC. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by phazonjunkie
A) You didn't research all the abilities individually.
B) They WERE removed because everyone was just getting Yamato Gun.
C) Same with the Corruptors, it was removed for lack of use, rather than being too strong.
They would never remove a mechanic for being too strong, because anything can be adjusted or nerfed.
I don't get this. Blizzard is known for removing things because "they don't really like it", I don't know a guy that would prefer current Corruptors over old Corruptors. Also, why would anyone get Yamato Cannon instead of other two abilities which are far superior in fight versus huge number of small units, it just boggles my mind. It doesn't make any sense at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
Uh..I dunno, maybe because terrans already have more cost effective ways of dealing with 'huge numbers of small units' which can be obtained at earlier tiers?Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
Hells yeah. I've been 2v2'ing a lot recently, both before and after the patch, and I've been having a lot of success by going double robo immortals + upgrades. It feels so good steamrolling your opponents with 10+ immortals : DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gradius
yeah i've seen it first hand... i feel like Imortals are becoming alittle akin to the effective semi-mineral sink taht marauders are. ofc you need otehr untis to cover yuo from air and swarming attacks, but imortals are a good core unit now.
That is still not the reason for choosing something you don't really need. If my enemy is going Muta/Ling/Banes and I have Marines, Thors and BCs, I certainly wouldn't choose Yamato Cannon for BC because it probably would be wasted. There will be certain situations where your Marines and Thors won't be able to deal enough damage to the mass Mutalisks, I would choose the Missile Barrage or even Defensive Matrix.Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonjunkie
So...you'd choose an ability that's a one trick pony and basically useless outside of one or two possible theorycrafted situations over a far more utilitarian spell that instakills the vast majority of other units (air and ground) and defensive structures in the game?Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
Remember, the key word here is permanent. What if the zerg player decides to transition out of mutaliks and go corruptors, or worse yet, hydras (which are far more cost effective at dealing with BC's anyway)? You'd be stuck with a spell that's basically useless for the rest of the game, whereas the yamato cannon can be useful in the majority of situations.
Yamato is as much of a one trick pony as missile barrage. Sure, it can one shot some stuff but most of the stuff that it can one shot(stalkers, marines, hydra, etc), you don't want to waste it on them. It's really only useful in a straight up battle against vrays/corruptors/carriers/bc/ms and I'm not convinced that yamato would be better than missile barrage against those(except the ms of course) thanks to the AoE. I mean, a maxed thor army would beat a maxed bc army simply because of the AoE even though their missiles are supposed to be only good against smaller air units. I don't see why this would be any different with missile barrage.Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonjunkie
If he decide to transition to the Corruptors, missile barrage is still great since you won't be able to defeat few BCs with few Corruptors, but with many of them, where missile barrage is still better than Yamato because of the splash. And if he switch to mass Hydras, Yamato cannon certainly won't help there... and I will make new BCs with Defensive Matrix. That is the whole point of being able to choose between abilities, not to have one that is the best or to serve the purpose of being all-around ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonjunkie
Easier said than done, since BCs are such a costly investment.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
Indeed they are, but the whole point is that Defensive Matrix and Missile Barrage are more useful than Yamato Cannon, at least in my eyes they are. I am talking if I have good economy and can remake them, If I can't, the whole story is pointless, since I would just use another kind of units.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake Clawfang
Completely off-topic for a second but relevant to new patches... Why don't they show my Win-Loss ratio anymore (I know this has been the case since season 3 or something)?!? Are they afraid people will discover that everyone isn't being matched perfectly cuz it's not 50/50? Are they worried it will crush our egos and discourage us from playing?
Cuz if so, stop coddling this game for kids. I want to know without having to check my match history. It's absolutely ridiculous to see my name displayed with 22 wins and not know if I've lost 10 or 100 times... I can handle the truth Blizz
If I remember correctly it was a bit of that. Also, since the system forces you to lose 50% of the time, they said that loses were irrelevant if you know how many times you won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jabber Wookie
Personally, I think it's pretty stupid but... I'm still more pissed at the fact that we still don't have an ally resource counter in team games because they think it would make us rage over our partners more...
Well in my eyes, the fact that the yamato cannon can be used against air or ground, and can be used as a long range siege or sniping weapon against static defenses/high priority targets makes it a more useful abiltiy by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by RamiZ
In any case, the play testers in early alpha, who did have access to the other 2 abilities for a time, for whatever reason decided to stick with YC in the majority of cases; presumably after giving the other 2 abilities a fair try. So apparently the other 2 didn't work as intended or just weren't all that good in the end.
This is one of those things I wish they'd tried out in a more public beta instead of bailing on them during the alpha. I mean making mechanics like that, and the Corruptors corruption ability WORK would have been worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by phazonjunkie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aldrius
While I'm sure the community could think of several niches scenarios where they'd be useful, in the end what did missile barrage and d matrix in (in my estimation anyways) was their very nature. They were purely situational and reactionary abilities on a unit that was neither. Generally speaking, a battlecruiser is not a unit that you get on a whim or in response to what your opponent is doing. Is a long term investment that you plan for because it fits into your overall strategy. The afformentioned abilities and the BC were probably just i'll suited for each other.
This is especially true of the missile barrage, being a strict anti-air ability. Any ability (or unit) that can attack air and ground (or even a pure anti-ground ability) will always be more useful than a pure ata attack, no matter how powerful the latter. This is probably the main reason why units like the valkyrie, devourer, and to a lesser extent the scout were essentially failed units.
The D-matrix, IMO is something that would've worked better as a researchable passive ability, like the marine's shield or perhaps something like a reverse-hardened shield: maybe something that would kick in only after the BC was critically damaged, kinda like emergency force fields.
IMHO, blizzard had a good thing going with the first optional upgrade they gave the BC, the plasma torpedoes (which actually DID see a lot of usage btw). I really wish they would've found some way to make that work.
Just to note, now that we've discussed the BC's abilities, to get back to the reason I brought it up :p - giving the Carrier similar capabilities via interchangable interceptors to adapt to the opponent's army composition.
Devourers, Scouts and Valkyrie weren't bad because they were ATA units. They were bad because they were expensive and you needed quite a bit of them to make it worth it. (Actually I'd say the Devourer's problem was more that it was late-tech and that the Guardian wasn't very good.)
Corruptor has the same problem really. It's pretty costly for it's damage output and versatility (one of the LEAST versatile units in the game). It's sturdy but it doesn't kill anything very quickly for it's cost.
While the Viking is cheaper and has a higher damage output (and is more versatile), and range. The corruptor doesn't even have burst damage going for it.
So in essence the Battlecruiser's missile barrage ability would not be useless simply because it only targeted air. Though, speaking of I don't think missile barrage was a particularly useful-sounding ability.
Defensive Matrix on the other hand is a completely different story. I think the ability to increase your Battlecruiser's health would see quite a bit of use, though Yamato Gun is still obviously more useful.
And granted this is all on a unit which sees little use as it is.
...but Corruption was totally solid. They should definitely have let us test that out.
It's a fun idea, probably has more use in the campaign, though.Quote:
Just to note, now that we've discussed the BC's abilities, to get back to the reason I brought it up - giving the Carrier similar capabilities via interchangable interceptors to adapt to the opponent's army composition.