StarCraft 2 Balance Team is...

Starbase was cool but kind of worthless. I mean this flying building made air units which themselves could fly which sort of limited the usefulness of the SB.

@norfindel: slight misunderstanding. When I say tier I am mostly referring to cost not when you can get it. Even in BW two air units were at basically the same time (ex: corsairr/ scout). But compare the difference in cost of the VR vs he Phoenix:200/150 and 60 seconds vs 125/75 and 45 seconds.

Viking: 125/100 42 seconds and can be double pumped with reactor.
banshee: 150/100 60 seconds

so it's actually encouraging you to get AtA rather than AtG.

In the current System the only reason to get phoenix first is for an AntiGrav harass... But you need two at least. Wouldn't one VR be better if that's the purpose?

I think the AtG attackers should cost less and the AtA fighters should cost more.

@aiur: no you smell coffee :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KneeofJustice

Starbase was cool but kind of worthless. I mean this flying building made air units which themselves could fly which sort of limited the usefulness of the SB.

---

The SB wasn't worthless, it was just flawed in two ways:

1. Of all three Terrran production buildings, the Starport/Starbase is the one which least needs the ability to produce units "on the fly" or as proxy.

2. Creating Starbases meant leaving unused Reactors and Tech Labs littering the map. Yes, they could be salvaged, but then if you wanted another Factory or Barracks you'd have to rebuild them all over again, so it was counter productive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The SB wasn't worthless, it was just flawed in two ways:

1. Of all three Terrran production buildings, the Starport/Starbase is the one which least needs the ability to produce units "on the fly" or as proxy.

2. Creating Starbases meant leaving unused Reactors and Tech Labs littering the map. Yes, they could be salvaged, but then if you wanted another Factory or Barracks you'd have to rebuild them all over again, so it was counter productive.

---

I liked the idea of a mobile hatchery. It could uplift and move around like the spine and spore crawler. Since a planted hatchery generates creep would also serve as another means by which zerg could move creep.

I also liked the idea of allowing the Terran buildings to produce units while in lift off. The units would then be dropped off when the building landed. This would give us our Starbase (which wouldnt need to land to drop off) and also replace the ferry SCV abilty the CC currently has (except you wouldnt be able to bunker SCVs into the CC if raided but I think bunkers will do fine for that).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

It is at this point that I would like to bring up the idea of a mobile hatchery. It could uplift and move around like the spine and spore crawler.

---

Ummm...

Way to kill racial diversity. Hatcheries are not Command Centers. They're Barracks, Factories, and Starports. They can already be built anywhere, for cheap, and be effective, unlike the CC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Since a planted hatchery generates creep would also serve as another means by which zerg could move creep.

---

What point is there in having this ability just to help produce creep? The Zerg can already create creep anywhere they want through their second most common unit - Overlords - and cloaked creep tumors created by mass-able queens.

So pointless.

I’m with DS on this one Archero. A mobile hatchery is rather pointless in the sense of unit production. The Zerg want to make more of them, so they can produce more units. Yes, there is the Queens larva ability but if I recall they move slowly off creep and so to get to another expansion both the hatchery and the Queen will have to crawl their way there. Even without that fact, I’m sure a Zerg player will still want multiple hatcheries.

The more I think abouT it the more I think Zerg should have moving buildings, not Terran. But this is so off topic.

Can anyone think of a way to make the VR better against smaller targets without giving it a disadvantage to larger targets and without makign it OP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KneeofJustice

The more I think abouT it the more I think Zerg should have moving buildings, not Terran. But this is so off topic.

Can anyone think of a way to make the VR better against smaller targets without giving it a disadvantage to larger targets and without makign it OP?

---

That is so not what we want to do with the Void Ray. Let the Carrier plow through light units, the Void Ray has a very good niche right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KneeofJustice

Can anyone think of a way to make the VR better against smaller targets without giving it a disadvantage to larger targets and without makign it OP?

---

Well in the G-Star videos, i think one of the first ones that came up, we saw void rays harrasment, and they did very well against marines. I mean they are supposed to destroy larger targets, but we saw them attacking marines and it did very well. Like squid said, i think right now the VR is cool.

On the other hand... the thor.... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

Thats how its always been no? If you need a lore explaination the reconstruction of the body includes regeneration of organ and tissue yada yada

On another note, Im guessing unlike zerg evolution the battlecruiser does not regain hitpoints when being refitted.

---

But why it should be like that? The Guardian cost is based on the Mutalisk cost, why do you get a 100% healthy Guardian from an almost-dead Mutalisk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfindel

But why it should be like that? The Guardian cost is based on the Mutalisk cost, why do you get a 100% healthy Guardian from an almost-dead Mutalisk?

---

Cause.