The Void Ray may well be the best 'new for SC2' idea Blizzard has had so far, and now they're going to tinker with it? Be careful, Blizzard, or you'll be going backwards...
Printable View
The Void Ray may well be the best 'new for SC2' idea Blizzard has had so far, and now they're going to tinker with it? Be careful, Blizzard, or you'll be going backwards...
what if you made it so that the corrupter would spawn turrets on another unit, but that unit would still be able to attack? so it's like parasite, only the parasite shoots at other units as well.
just a thought.
That's more-or-less what I was proposing imdrunkontea.
Except I was thinking that the turret would live on the target unit until the target unit was destroyed. While the turret is on the target unit (let's say, a battlecruiser) the bc would still be in control of the terran player - it would just have a turret growing out of its side that would attack any of the terrans' own units. The player would then have to decide whether to destroy his own unit, fly his unit away from the battle, or just take the damage and punch through.
Two birds, one stone: switch the Roach and Corruptor's powers.
A flying AtA unit can make significant use of fast regen. Flying units can more effectively retreat than ground units. And even if they give chase to that one guy who's running, the other fliers will still be shooting at them.
And a GtG unit to kill targets and turn them into weapons against that enemy would make the Zerg that much stronger. It could help deal with those pesky Hellions. Indeed, depending on the turret's range, you might even start shooting your own units (Zerglings, of course) to create temporary Corrupted Masses.
I'd support this. If I recall correctly, I once suggested giving the Phoenix the Thor's old "Mechanical Rebirth" to promote the same kind of thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Er wat? Of course flying units would have significant use of regen, that doesn’t make it good. Why don’t you just give roach cloaking? Since ground units would have significant use of cloaking?
It would be OP if any flying units could regen quickly, simply because flying units can dash into battle and out so quickly wihtout having to navigate any sort of terrain issues.
So not OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wankey
Low HP, high regen, medium flying speed would pose no balance problems. It's still be better vs large units just like the Corruptor.
Incredibly boring unit then. What gameplay advantages does it have? Would it be fun to have a low hp, high regen, medium speed unit? What role would that fit in?Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Running away would be great for such a unit, harassing.. maybe? But the regen really doesn’t give it much interesting tactics (ie, it can’t burrow)
Dare I quote myself? I dare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wankey
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid
Why burrow when you can fly away?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wankey
Why the hell do Mutalisks get to be the only micro-able air unit, eh?
Because it isn’t fun? Imagine it for both sides. You come in with your regen air units. bang bang, you drop my units down to 50% health... run away, heal on the edge of the map, come back, bang bang finishes me off. The only counter to this is I get air units of my own (and I have to have quite alot since you regen and I don’t) which may or may not be possible if I didn’t go air.
At least with roaches, when you burrow, I have options to hunt you down that aren’t direct counters. You can’t move or fight back when burrowed, and it’s a trade off (I can comsat scan you or use observers)
That creates a much more dynamic gameplay mechanic. You have to think about both sides of the gameplay before making up these ideas.
You sound like you're worried about massing these things. The idea is AtA only, and they'd be more expensive and less suicidal than scourge. Massing them would be stupid. Low HP, high regen, a medium speed, and a high damage but slow attack (or a bonus vs massive) would guarantee that they're effective vs large air targets but weak to cheap fighters, and only those who microed them well would be able to use them effective against that counter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wankey
Um, that's not really the point of this change. The Corruptor is the only pure AtA unit in the game. If it is to remain so, it should be able to, cost for cost, go up against any other race's AtA units.Quote:
Low HP, high regen, a medium speed, and a high damage but slow attack (or a bonus vs massive) would guarantee that they're effective vs large air targets but weak to cheap fighters, and only those who microed them well would be able to use them effective against that counter.
Cheap fighters should not be able to counter Corruptors. Giving them regen simply allows you to spend micro to deal with cheap fighters more efficiently (spending even less to kill them). Corruptors, cost for cost, should be able to beat Phoenixes and Vikings in a fight, if they both just A-Move.
Ah, I see what you're getting at.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
The thing that irritates me a bit (and this may just be an opinion) is that the SC2 fleets seem so... disordered... compared to their SC counterparts.
For example, we know the relationships between a muta a wraith and a scout (theoretically): it goes weak and inexpensive, middle of the road (with an ability to compensate) and strong but expensive.
Then the next step up is capitol ships: Guardian, BC (with yamato), and Carrier (designed to punch holes in the enemys defense).
Then there are the casters: queen, vessel and arbiter
Lastly, Broodwar filled up the remaining spots in their arsenals:
Protoss got a light flyer good against massed light air (corsair), zerg got a heavy flyer good against massed light air, but especially in combo with the mutalisk (devourer) and Terran also got a heavy
flyer good against mass light air (valkyrie).
Scourge fill the zerg anti-capitol role and are the exception to the rule.
The way i see it it goes:
General fighters (hit air and ground, but better vs (heavier) air): muta, wraith, scout
Dedicated AtA fighters (good against the general fighters): Devourer (acid spore slows attack rate, lessens armor), valkyrie, corsair
Capitol Ships (heavy "siege" ships): Guardian (/Devourer), Battlecruiser, Carrier
The scourge is its own category: very weak and light but good against heavy. The devourer also makes zerg air more complicated since its design makes it strong against capitol ships too. It is truly effective against lighter fighters though when paired with mutalisks.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Now, when I look at SC2, there seems to be little order in the air forces.
>There are no "general" fighters (except muta): they have been replaced with AtA units and "situational" AtG abilities like AG, turret and transform.
>Im not too worried about the Capitol ships (Carrier, Broodlord and BC)
>The air casters are much more diverse with the mothership being a unique but expensive unit (for better or worse), the terran air caster being similar to its SCBW counterpart and the overseer being "necessary" AND evolved
from a common unit. I dont really have many complaints with the casters except the MS, but thats a different story.
Back to the general/AtA fighters:
This long post is reaching a conclusion: the air units of SC2 have a very weird interaction:
For some reason, the corruptor is supposed to be the strongest of all 3 AtA fighters (whether or not it has its corrupt ability). The muta has no apparent role in the airforce that I can tell. It is a great raider, but shouldnt be that good against the dedicated AtA fighters (am i right?) unless the stacking bug is preserved well. Theoretically, the muta, as a generalist, should be weaker than the AtA units. The corruptor is apparently supposed to handle the light fighters (phoenix and viking) as far as I can tell, in addition to the capitol ships (because the zerg have no anti-heavy AtA unit). The broodlord will handle the ground.
For the Terrans, the viking is in a similar role (but is much more obvious doing "massive" bonus damage with an upgraded 8 range). It has to take on capitol ships AND light flyers all by itself. It is also supposed to be good on the ground. The banshee takes the light AtG/harass role. Seems weird that the vikings ability should make it good on the ground when that role is basically covered perfectly by the banshee.
The protoss it have the most straightforward I think: Phoenix take out light air (supposedly corruptors, mutas, banshees and vikings) while the VR takes anything bigger. The phoenix can harass AtG but only with its ability and support units.
So my question is: what happens to the three flyers that are supposed to counter each other? What happens if a muta stack can beat phoenix (its counter?) Or if vikings can get a critical mass against corruptors (who counters who)? What do toss or terran do if the zerg achieve a critical mass of corruptors? If a muta is anti-capitol, why do capitol ships do max damage vs them due to 0 armor? or if it is for anti light, why are the light units like phoenix supposed to counter it? It would seem weird if a DEDICATED AtA unit were to have a soft counter right?
I believe it is rather like the relationship between the scout, wraith and muta of SC original, only much more chaotic because imagine the muta having to take on the scourges role, the scout being much weaker but less expensive and the wraith lacking its ace-in-the-hole. The relationship is much clearer in SCBW: zerg could win air with mutas by out producing the toss and terran. Terran could use their cloaking advantage and strong attack to beat the toss or zerg, and toss could use their raw power and health to storm through their opposition. I feel that this comparison has been obfuscated by the lack of AtG and AtA generalists as well as strange roles and relationships...
There is also the issue of not having splash (an IMPROVEMENT that was added in SCBW to fill up the holes in these races' airforces). Blizz has said that they arent leaving any holes in the airforces intentionally, but someone on TL reported phoenix being useless against mutas: thats a pretty big hole. I just dont see any logic behind their current system of air units or their abilities. Their starting method in SC was to begin with generalists and get more specific. They may be making the races more diverse, but it is also very confusing to predict how they will interact.
You have to include production mechanics as well, and this cannot be overlooked:
Zerg gets an inherent advantage over the protoss and terran in that they can tech switch rather easily: afterall, they get those handy dandy little larvae (and spawn larvae!) which means a quick emergency build of corrupters isnt out of the question. For protoss though, to respond to an air threat means a complete tech switch to stargates. Terran are slightly alleviated by the reactor producing two vikings (right?) but still, zerg can out produce both toss and terran.
Clearly, Blizzard is aware of this since they made the phoenix more like a corsair in cost... but protoss historically has the most expensive but most powerful units...
Bah! If no one else is as confused by the racial interactions of these fleets as I am, Ill just retire having typed my brains out. Sorry for the rant: hope it wasnt for nothing... :(
What does a Zerg do if a Protoss player builds enough Corsairs to eat any Scourge and Mutalisks before they can even be touched? They strike at the Corsair's weakness: ground stuff.Quote:
What happens if a muta stack can beat phoenix (its counter?) Or if vikings can get a critical mass against corruptors? What do toss or terran do if the zerg achieve a critical mass of corruptors?
The absolute most a Corruptor can do to ground targets is attack some air units that just happen to be near ground targets. So any GtA get free hits in on them. At least Phoenixes and Vikings have some way to affect ground targets and potentially fight back.
You're too focused on some specific triangular balance between 3 air units, when what matters is the overall balance between all units.
Maybe.
The corsair analogy is slightly flawed because corsairs, after performing their muta/scourge raping role, are still useful for ovie hunting. This doesnt happen in every matchup. Anyways........
The reason (i would imagine) that they started with "general" fighters in SC was to answer the basic question: what do i do with this shit once i have it?
If mutas couldnt attack ground in SC would a person want to build them to take over air? No because if youre against terran, they are useless after that fight. Thats a pretty boring role.
So they have softened it a bit in SC2 by giving us useful abilities that can be employed to make these units have a role after their AtA fighting is done. But the viking has 3 roles (too many): GtG, AtA (light) and AtA (heavy) while the corruptor has 2 roles AtA (light) and AtA (heavy), but its ability is unable to be controlled effectively and is essentially AtA.
Maybe i like the ordered (god forbid) rock-paper-scissors of SC air with enough twists and turns to it that it isnt "rock-beats-paper" engagements and so on, but I think that this new method of doing things is setting up some weird relationships. I understand that it isnt just rock-paper-scissors because ground units are involved as well, but my focus is purely on the airforces.
In BW, theoretically, if a protoss is whoring corsairs to the horror of your scourge/muta, you should build devourers. Thats the inner order i am talking about. It doesnt work like that in real life unfortunately, because devourers are rather useless outside that specific role (almost like... corruptors).
If you played the game with just airforces, it should theoretically be balanced, with each unit having an intended counter. I dont see this chemistry in SC2.
My recommendation: start with 3 general fighters (mutas, phoenix, viking) that each attack G (weakly) and A and perhaps each contain an ability.
Then consider adding in other air units as needed in the expansions.
Im sure itll end up ok, but it seems very strange to me, thats all.
Mutas aren't AA specialists like the Viking or Phoenix, they're very much air generalists that don't fill a specific role. They're pretty much like support or strike units, used to hit soft targets and provide air support where needed. Their generalist role is similar to the carrier or BC in that they're generally good against any unit but very prone to AA counters. The difference is they're speedy and relatively low HP, making them easily countered with spells and splash.
Why are light anti-air and heavy anti-air considered two separate roles? Corruptors do one thing: kill air units. They're very good and efficient at it. Vikings aren't as good as Corruptors against more massable air units, but they can do the job when required (assuming that something else isn't brought in). Vikings trade generality in attacking all air units for the ability to be useful at something else.Quote:
But the viking has 3 roles (too many): GtG, AtA (light) and AtA (heavy) while the corruptor has 2 roles AtA (light) and AtA (heavy), but its ability is unable to be controlled effectively and is essentially AtA.
And that's your problem. You're looking at the parts and failing to see the whole. It leads to nonsense statements like:Quote:
my focus is purely on the airforces.
The problem with that "inner order" is that it's wrong. Devourers should only be used if you have no other choice; they're way too high tech to act as a solution to 8-9 Corsairs. The proper solution is to fight from the ground with Hydralisks.Quote:
In BW, theoretically, if a protoss is whoring corsairs to the horror of your scourge/muta, you should build devourers. Thats the inner order i am talking about.
That's totally ridiculous. That's boxing yourself into some notion that every race has to have something that looks like X. Developing a good balance doesn't require this, so there's no reason to do it this way.Quote:
My recommendation: start with 3 general fighters (mutas, phoenix, viking) that each attack G (weakly) and A and perhaps each contain an ability.
Then consider adding in other air units as needed in the expansions.
Mutalisks aren't even the way you describe them. They suck against air. The only thing they had going for them against any other air unit was the fact that they were Small, and that all other air units (except for the big guns) did explosive damage. They basically get to take half damage from everything.
Where Wraiths get to be pretty decent against capital ships (to a degree), Mutalisks are pretty useless against them without Devourers. Scourge existed to allow the Zerg to deal with large capital ships. So the Zerg never had a Wraith-equivalent.
The BW air model sucked badly. There were this types of air units:
- The original light air: Wraith, Muta, and Scout. They are capable of attacking ground, but most ground units can overpower them very easily. The Muta is special, as it's better against ground, and the worse against air.
- The new BW "light-air-rape" units: Devourer, Corsair, and Valkyrie. They can turn any light air force into shit in so little time it's ridiculous. Useless for anything else. The Devourer by itself is nearly useless, but coupled with any air-attackers are devastating even against capital ships.
- Capital ships: if there are few of them, they can be outnumbered pretty quickly. If there are a bunch, they can destroy most stuff before too much damage is done to them, making the intended counters not cost-effective. The Scout needs a special mention here, because it's always more cost-effective to build 1 Carrier than 2 Scouts.
- I think that the Guardian needs it's own category, as it's the only dedicated AtG unit in the game.
Everything there, except the Capital ships is too damn focused in their role. Even the standard air units with ground attacks were nearly useless against ground, and couldn't be used to harass at all after a few anti-air defenses/units are built, so it could be said that they were anti-air only most of the time, but every other air unit in the game would rape them.
.
Killing ALL air units is a huge role. It also leaves you with the disadvantage of having so specialized a unit that it is useless afterwards. Its like the difference between countering a zergling and an ultra (extreme examples, i know): you tend to use different units types when countering different "classes" of units. This is how it was in SC original when all air units had to counter each other and the capitol ships (except muta). That was not well balanced right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
The reason Im confused is because if the phoenix counters the viking and the viking counters the phoenix, they end up in a disingenuous relationship that forces one person or the other to cede air dominance to the other under certain conditions.
Ill come back to that thought.
That was a design flaw on blizzard's part. We have to be aware that there are differences in what blizzard intends and what actually happens. In theory, the devourer is a sick air unit like the corruptor (well, kind of) that can take on any air unit as long as it has support. Its major major downside is its high cost and its uselessness apart from this specific role. The corruptor solves this a bit by allowing you to morph a broodlord after youve cleared the skies, so they are obviously learning from their past mistakes a little. As it turns out, its more cost effective to produce hydras, but that still doesnt eliminate the "inner order" of the relationship. I am aware that there is more to the game than just airforces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Its actually quite an ingenious design to incorporate parts of the counters for each airforce into your ground force (ex: marines counter voidrays) because it ensures that both air and ground are needed. What you dont want is to end up giving up your air superiority.
In this video the toss player gets air superiority early. He OWNS the air... theoretically, because once the big bad corruptors come out, the air superiority phoenix gets displaced by a huge force of corruptors (check out part 2). Yes the hydras played a big role, but note the transition by the zerg from hydra/roach to corruptor/broodlord/hydra and of the protoss from phoenix/colossus to colossus/stalker and then to disruptor/zealot (part 3).
The phoenix werent doing their job, or didnt do it well. In any event, whether he ran out of minerals or he was a bad player or whatever, he lost his air dominance, mostly to other anti-air (the big battle in part 2).
It doesnt have to be done "X" way: it can be done any way. The broodwar model was more elegant, even if it had its flaws (see below). Mutas suck in general and without the stack, are horrendous. Youre supposed to get them en masse to clear out the skies (design vs actual function again). The zerg wraith equivalent was the muta (against light air and ground) and the scourge (against capitol).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Norfindel's post indicates why broodwar's airforces were flawed, but that doesnt mean they were broken. Blizzard can improve on them and will in SC2. The fact that they are reevaluating the voidray's role (anti capitol ship looks great on paper, but how useful in game is it?) and the corruptor's role indicate that they are sorting this airforce issue out.
An improvement that they have made is a unit like the banshee which is strong against ground (very useful role IMO) and bringing the muta back as an AtG raider with AtA capabilities. I hope their changes make the airforces of SC2 more viable against ground, because that is what their biggest flaw was in SC, at least IMO. A 275/125 scout has an attack of 8? Thats pathetic.
Just because the basic air units had horrendous attacks in SC doesnt mean it has to be that way in SC2. Their current system is to keep air units relevant by giving them AtG abilities rather than attacks. There is always room to improve.
Sure they were. They sent the Mutalisks packing. The Phoenix is not an all-around "dominate air" unit; the Corruptor is. The Corruptor therefore beats the Phoenix. That's its purpose.Quote:
The phoenix werent doing their job
I'm used to theorycrafting SC1 strats based on what Blizzard intended, but I never really followed up with the pro SC scene until recently. I'd like some questions answered.
1 - Were the BW AtA units used as intended? Valkyries/Corsairs as muta counters, Devourer as potential muta counter.
2 - Were Wraiths and Scouts used much for their AtA purpose? I notice most players end up using Goons/Gols/Hydras as their main AA and disregard air units entirely
3 - Did Terran players make use of BC's much? I usually see Terrans winning with heavy metal strats, rarely seeing BC's.
4 - What units did Scourge counter, and what units were they countered by? In my own experience they were easily picked off by lots of BC's, but I never really seen pros use scourge much. I'm not sure if they were effective against the BW splash units.
If the opponent doesn't build air units, there's no point in you building air units which counter other air units. None of these units were used as intended, but at least the Corsair had another use (Overlord hunting).Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Devourers were just meant to support Mutas, btw, not really counter anything themselves. They were good against heavy air, like BC's and Carriers, but those are rarely used because of another unit - Scourge.
The GTA units were cheaper and more versatile but just as powerful, thus negating the need for Wraiths and Scouts. So the answer is no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
BC's, like Carriers, were luxury items. Luxury items which were easy pickings for cheap Goliaths, Goons, Hydras, and most importantly Scourge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Are you sure you were watching StarCraft?Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Scourge almost single-handedly kill the SC air scene. They're cheap, build fast, fly fast, and do a ton of damage. They counter everything flying. It basically comes down to, Scourge are rarely seen because other air units are rarely seen because Scourge exist.
Jaedong was the master of muta micro. Wouldn't have Corsairs and Valkryies been ideal counters?
Were they not being used because they didn't do their job, or because they were rendered useless by Scourge?
What Demo said. Really, I was going to come up with an eloquent statement, but the cephalopod was just too fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Scourges weren't the hardest counter vs battlecruisers (they were better at killing carriers) but they were very cost-effective at it. Also, lots of battlecruisers? Given their high cost, that was pretty rare.Quote:
4 - What units did Scourge counter, and what units were they countered by? In my own experience they were easily picked off by lots of BC's, but I never really seen pros use scourge much. I'm not sure if they were effective against the BW splash units.
Corsair no, HT + Archon yes. Valkyries yes but they are a risky tech for the Terran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Triceron
Fair enough, but if the corruptors come out, what does toss counter them with in the air? Voidrays? Dont see that happening... Carriers? Mothership? If this video is accurate, and if they dont address this, toss will have to surrender the air to zerg and instead hoof it on the ground. And that means no VR, no phoenix/AG and it means that stargate tech is useless because 1) its expensive and has a high chance to fail because 2) corruptors are (apparently) better at anti air than the phoenix and 3) because corruptors can be mass-produced with larvae while phoenix have to be made one by one at the stargate (see 1).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Nothing inherently bad that toss has to counter with ground, but does it seem fair that zerg corruptors get to dominate air like that? What does terran do if vikings are as ineffective as the phoenix were?
Why does one race get super duper air superiority while the other two dont? Its not even like the phoenix or viking can win through clever micro or exploiting an ability or something...
I suspect that herein lies the design changes they are looking at: the corruptor needs a more controllable ability (possibly to make it less dominant) and i wonder if the void ray will be getting a slight shift to a more balanced role instead of just anti-capitol ship (or anti-large-hitpoints, if you prefer)?
What do you guys think?
Frankly, the viking as anti light and anti heavy is fine, as long as it doesnt get outclassed. It has to be able to protect terran air because otherwise banshees are useless and BCs will have no support.
Same with the corruptor: it has to be strong to protect the muta and the broodlord, but it cant get too strong so that massing them dominates air like bob's your uncle.
The Protoss still have choices.
Corruptors are the cheapest and arguably the most effective AtA unit, but that doesn't mean that Vikings and Phoenix fall flat on their back. Unit numbers are still a factor, and keep in mind that both Terrans and Protoss have multiple AA units while Zerg only has the Hydralisk, Mutalisk and Corruptor (Queen don't count!). The Corruptor has to be superior at its job to make up for that fact.
Yeah, I know. It's almost like the Zerg as a race have some vested interest in air power. Something irreplaceable in the air. Something flying that absolutely must be defended or else they lose. I wonder what that could be...Quote:
Why does one race get super duper air superiority while the other two dont? Its not even like the phoenix or viking can win through clever micro or exploiting an ability or something...
Simply put, air is more important for the Zerg.
a critical mass of bcs actually does very well vs scourge. just sayin'.
course you need such a large amount (12+) that you'd probably never see it in a legitimate game.
Thors are going to even the field for Terran, 10*4 damage, and Corruptors have no armour.
Corruptors are defenseless against ground anyways, unless they kill each other to convert themselves intto "turrets" :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by KneeofJustice
I'm on record as saying I don't like AtA-only units. As you're pointing out here, they seem too specialized. Maybe this is why they're undergoing a design change.Quote:
Why does one race get super duper air superiority while the other two dont? Its not even like the phoenix or viking can win through clever micro or exploiting an ability or something...
Sure. But they shouldnt be able to just dominate air like that. Maybe they need to spend more time and energy defending their airspace but they shouldnt get inherently better air. And if the problem is that their anti air is somehow restricting them, thats a separate problem that needs to be addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas
Being able to out-produce your enemy is big in SC. A muta harass wouldnt be nearly as dangerous if you had to make a separate building first and then had to pump them one by one from that building as you do wraiths and scouts, but more importantly to our discussion phoenix and vikings (although i think vikings can be made two at a time thanks to the reactor).
Beyond that, the corruptor is very very powerful. When critical mass is achieved (whatever it is) the corruptors get stronger while their opponents get weaker thanks to the turrets. I dont see how you can get air dominance over an opponent that can both out-produce you and out-power you. The only solution is to stay on the ground, and that is very limiting.
@norfindel: they can morph into broodlords in a pinch (also when they morph, they come out with full health: not bad eh?)
@Kimera757:
I have a theory: let me explain it and you guys can pick it apart:
Starcraft is inherently a ground-based game: this is evidenced by the ground-based buildings/base (except for terran sometimes), ground-based resources, and most of the initial units are ground units.
Air power is therefore especially important in its relationship with ground. For example: say each race had only one air unit: a pure AtA unit. These pure AtA units would be near useless in your average game right? Their sole purpose would be to fight amongst each other, but this battle would be worthless because when won, they still wouldnt have any effect on the rest of the battle (going on on the ground).
The only way to add relevance to these units is to:
1) give them an anti-ground attack
2) give them an ability or spell that makes them somehow useful outside their AtA role
3) give them an AtG unit to counter so they have a real role: hunting down the AtG fighters, not just themselves.
4) (Can you think of any others?)
So throwing aside racial flavor and diversity and whatnot (just for the moment: it can be added back in later), wouldnt the logical place to start with be an AtG fighter?
What if each fleet got, instead of an AtA unit as its initial unit (muta(or corruptor)/phoenix/viking), an AtG unit?
That keeps the airforce relevant by providing each race with an obvious choice: a unit that can attack ground from the air, avoiding terrain and enemy armies with its speed and maneuverability. Careful balancing is needed so these wouldnt be OP. Think each race with a banshee as their first unit from starport/stargate/spire.
Then, to balance this even further, the next set of units is to counter the first: standard AtA fighers. They are made useful through the fact that AtG fighters are actually effective (unlike BW). Then you could give them each an ability (AG or corruption or whatever) to keep them even more relevant.
Then the next level up is AtG (siege) think carrier or BC or swarm guardian, which arent as mobile or as good against lots of lighter units, but can pack a punch from the air.
Where they take it from there is honestly not my concern. But it makes sense right? The airforce is critical and useful because of how it interacts with the ground. Whether certain air units get countered by ground units is part of balance and flavor (ex: thors raping mutalisk flocks, or corruptors or phoenix or whatever).
But if you start with what is critical and interesting (AtG) and proceed from there, you can actually make fleets something to really work towards.
Now for more exciting racial dynamics. For example, the first zerg flyer (muta) could be AtG and AtA but not especially good at either: its speed and versatility would make it a raiding threat. The first terran flyer (banshee) would be small, fast and have a cloaking device, to encourage stealthy plays. The protoss first flyer (whatever, at this point), could be like the voidray, or it could be something like an AtG splash machine (think colossus without legs) but slow and expensive (more like swarm guardian, but splash).
Those are just examples.
The next tier up might be something like phoenix (AG), devourer (with some ability) and viking (transform to ground for added versatility)
And last tier: BC (3 separate abilities), carrier (siegerange, slow but powerful), swarm guardian (slow, siege range, makes small units)
The big difference in my system is that the cheap, first tier fighters are good against GROUND instead of good against AIR. This means that players will have a lot of incentive to include them in their army, and since they are cheap and effective (hopefully) will be able to use them throughout the game. The next tier up (AtA) would be made useful by hunting down these units and keeping your base safe. They would be more expensive and slow to make, but would do their job well: against both light and heavy air (perhaps).
Ground units would be used to protect your AtG units from the AtA units. That keeps ground units relevant. And then the big daddies are used to break down bases and stiff defenses.
The current system has everything i want, but in a different order: the void ray, for example, is a sexy harass unit. Imagine if it were cheaper and more massable, but had no AtA attack? The phoenix then would be more expensive and harder to mass but would be excellent against voidray units.
So dont get too caught up in specifics: think about my main thesis: that AtG (attack or ability) should be the focus of the airforce, with everything else falling into place around it.
I think this is a pretty good idea, because, while overlord hunting with corsairs was fun in BW, the purpose of the game should be more so driven towards two armies attacking as opposed to supply harrass. This would cause the initial air units to play more of an "on the battlefield" role as opposed to exploited mineral/supply/macro harrassments, such as anti graving a Queen in order to slow down enemy economy. I'm sure some people enjoy the versatility these different styles of winning bring to the game, but I wouldn't mind seeing more armies killing armies games.Quote:
The big difference in my system is that the cheap, first tier fighters are good against GROUND instead of good against AIR. This means that players will have a lot of incentive to include them in their army, and since they are cheap and effective (hopefully) will be able to use them throughout the game. The next tier up (AtA) would be made useful by hunting down these units and keeping your base safe. They would be more expensive and slow to make, but would do their job well: against both light and heavy air (perhaps).
Unless they make air buildings also like what they tried to do with the starport.. I always liked that idea, I wonder why they took it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimera757
Yeah, I loved the idea of the Starbase. It felt very Terran and very unique to them, having a building turn into a mobile fortress.
I guess it kinda made the Mothership feel less unique though.
That takes time and resources, and the unit has no defense while it's morphing, and after that, they have no defense against air.Quote:
Originally Posted by KneeofJustice
They are at full health after morphing? That should be modified. Why would an almost-dead unit be renewed when morphed?
But i aggree in that no unit should be the answer to everything that fly.
Your idea is interesting, but i think that the current model allows to build any of the air units (except the big ones) nearly at the same time, anyways. So, there isn't actually a 1st and 2nd air unit, they both can be produced at the same time: Phoenix and Void Ray require Stargate, the Banshee only requires a Tech Lab on the Starport, and the Corruptor requires just the Spire. Maybe that's deliberately put that way, to see what happends during beta.Quote:
Originally Posted by KneeofJustice
Ah, I love the smell of Theorycrafting in the morning.
Thats how its always been no? If you need a lore explaination the reconstruction of the body includes regeneration of organ and tissue yada yadaQuote:
Originally Posted by Norfindel
On another note, Im guessing unlike zerg evolution the battlecruiser does not regain hitpoints when being refitted.