Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
What exactly is the point of weapons refit? How exactly does that make the battle cruiser fulfill its role better, fulfill a different, highly needed role, or causes the meta-game to shift towards a positive direction?
The answer is it doesn't.
BC: Big, absurdly expensive unit that kills things very fast
BC Big, absurdly expensive unit that kills things very fast. Or has a shield and kills things slightly slower.
uh...ok.
It's a different way of balancing the unit. Protoss have always been more straight-forward at micro than Terrans... Zealots attack-move whereas Marines focus-fire, and so on. How does one keep Carriers alive? You do so by kiting from full range. How does one keep Battlecruisers alive? You (hypothetically, as proposed by this thread) save up the energy for a Def. Matrix and use it the moment Vikings or Corruptors begin to focus-fire that particular BC. Activated abilities are very Terran, so the distinction would be true to both races.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ArcherofAiur
They should give multiple spell choices to the Mothership. God that unit needs something.
I agree. If it's supposed to be a super-unit, why does it need to be limited to about 3 spells? There are a lot of slots left in the UI, and Energy limits what you can cast anyways. Why cannot it do everything that the Arbiter did and more?
For example: since it does cast a cloaking field, why not cast a power field at the same time? Doesn't really change much, but you can use it as a good target for Warp-in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
It's a different way of balancing the unit. Protoss have always been more straight-forward at micro than Terrans... Zealots attack-move whereas Marines focus-fire, and so on. How does one keep Carriers alive? You do so by kiting from full range. How does one keep Battlecruisers alive? You (hypothetically, as proposed by this thread) save up the energy for a Def. Matrix and use it the moment Vikings or Corruptors begin to focus-fire that particular BC. Activated abilities are very Terran, so the distinction would be true to both races.
In fact, the BC is sort of an air damage soaker. Vikings don't last long, but if it's an Viking+BC army, you can attack with your Vikings from completely out of range, while the BCs take the hits. That's in theory, anyways :)
.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
It's a different way of balancing the unit. Protoss have always been more straight-forward at micro than Terrans... Zealots attack-move whereas Marines focus-fire, and so on. How does one keep Carriers alive? You do so by kiting from full range. How does one keep Battlecruisers alive? You (hypothetically, as proposed by this thread) save up the energy for a Def. Matrix and use it the moment Vikings or Corruptors begin to focus-fire that particular BC. Activated abilities are very Terran, so the distinction would be true to both races.
So true, man thanks for pointing this, so my example could go further.
Let's imagine this situation:
You have some BC's and you're outnumbered by vikings, which one you choose, Yamato or defensive matrix? If you wisely saved up the energy for the Defensive Matrix your BC's could survive the onslaught with at least enough units to be worthy. Otherwise you'll loose the entire BC army, but you already had used the yamato cannon to destroy several buildings before the vikings appeared.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Norfindel
I agree. If it's supposed to be a super-unit, why does it need to be limited to 3 spells? There are a lot of slots left in the UI, and Energy limits what you can cast anyways. Why cannot it do everything that the Arbiter did and more?
For example: since it does cast a cloaking field, why not cast a power field at the same time? Doesn't really change much, but you can use it as a good target for Warp-in.
Well, currently I'm just adding the Defensive Matrix. You know it's not like a caster unit, with lots of spells to spam while having enough energy.
You could solely use one of this two spells since only one would leave it without energy. I think Missile Barrage should go for the Thor instead of the strange skill it has.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Josue
So you mean everything's pointless?
A decision is a decision, you choose to either calldown MULE or use the extra supply depots. BC's wont get missiles anymore, I think those could go for Thor instead. Imagine you have some BC's and you're outnumbered by vikings, which one you choose, Yamato or defensive matrix? What if you are preparing an ambush?
If you're talking about the Yamato cannon then that's true since it's supposed to be a concentrated nuclear blast. That's why I think it could take an advantage and have a special splash damage too.
And we could add choices on every single unit when making them if choices are inherently good. I'm saying pointless gimmicks are pointless. What change does over complicating BC accomplish other then I have to think for like half a second when making them? You need a better reason then MORE CHOICES. We could add any amount of choices in any point of the game without any effort. The choice in question has to be conducive towards a overall point, which this lacks entirely.
Macro mechanics are a choices thats good because the way the choice is implemented requires you to return to base and macro, hence, macro mechanics. They serve a point, they have a role.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
And we could add choices on every single unit when making them if choices are inherently good. I'm saying pointless gimmicks are pointless. What change does over complicating BC accomplish other then I have to think for like half a second when making them? You need a better reason then MORE CHOICES. We could add any amount of choices in any point of the game without any effort. The choice in question has to be conducive towards a overall point, which this lacks entirely.
Macro mechanics are a choices thats good because the way the choice is implemented requires you to return to base and macro, hence, macro mechanics. They serve a point, they have a role.
No reason is good enough for you huh? You don't seem to have read pure.Wasted's point about it nor my other posts and you're still looking for reasons? go read the entire thread and tell me what is a good reason for anything to exist! If Blizzard was to implement this in their strange "specialization weapon refit" way, they must have had a reason wouldn't they? Now I'm improving it to be more flexible, to make a BC less boring, to make it be capable of handling more situations just depending on what the player wants to do... and there's lots of situations you could use it, lots of reasons for it! it makes gameplay rich, more fun, better, what more could you possibly ask for?
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
And we could add choices on every single unit when making them if choices are inherently good. I'm saying pointless gimmicks are pointless. What change does over complicating BC accomplish other then I have to think for like half a second when making them? You need a better reason then MORE CHOICES. We could add any amount of choices in any point of the game without any effort. The choice in question has to be conducive towards a overall point, which this lacks entirely.
Macro mechanics are a choices thats good because the way the choice is implemented requires you to return to base and macro, hence, macro mechanics. They serve a point, they have a role.
and again talking complete nonsense ! Can you tell me again what is the BC's current role???? The whole point is they are too costly,move slow,and have dozens of counters that beat the BC not just cost for cost but maybe 3:1 for cost ! is this balance? And we are not even talking here about the complete underusedness of them...And 'air damage soaker' i mean who came up i that??? do you realise that 3 vikings or rays take a bc faster then you can count to 5?...what they need is support abilites!!! So even if you get 1 out they can help your other units win the battle,not be taken out the first 5 seconds and loose all that time and res...and in the end you get steamrolled
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
It's a different way of balancing the unit. Protoss have always been more straight-forward at micro than Terrans... Zealots attack-move whereas Marines focus-fire, and so on. How does one keep Carriers alive? You do so by kiting from full range. How does one keep Battlecruisers alive? You (hypothetically, as proposed by this thread) save up the energy for a Def. Matrix and use it the moment Vikings or Corruptors begin to focus-fire that particular BC. Activated abilities are very Terran, so the distinction would be true to both races.
Well, in terms of balancing units in accordance with racial identity, giving a battlecruiser more then one, singular purpose unilateral spell would weaken the identity of the capital ship. Yamato canons are so late game and situational that theirs a great deal of confliction anyway just in the single decision to research the spell. The fact that you need upgrades on such a late game unit in SC2 already gives a fair deal of confliction.
By adding two spells, you create the problem of worsening this deliemna to a point where one is simply researched and the other is simply ignored. Also, the BC acts as a middle ground between Carriers (unilateral function, no spell) and motherships (multi-lateral function, 3 abilities), possessing a mostly unilateral function with a spell to support it, so its already very distinctive.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
By adding two spells, you create the problem of worsening this deliemna to a point where one is simply researched and the other is simply ignored.
Then allow the same upgrade to unlock both. Or allow one of the two abilities to come standard.
There's a reason Carriers come with 4 Interceptors equipped: so they don't suck completely right out of the gate. The same logic could -- SHOULD -- be applied to Battlecruisers.
Quote:
Also, the BC acts as a middle ground between Carriers (unilateral function, no spell) and motherships (multi-lateral function, 3 abilities), possessing a mostly unilateral function with a spell to support it, so its already very distinctive.
A unit isn't "very distinctive" for falling in the middle of two extremes. Terrans are the race defined by choices (Siege Tank modes, Viking modes) and activated abilities in general (Vultures had Spider Mines -- Hydras and Dragoons had nothing; etc). The Battlecruiser having one isn't very distinctive at all for such a late-game unit. Especially when that one requires an upgrade and is only occasionally available, to boot.
Consider also: the Carrier's ability to deal damage is most often taken advantage of by kiting -- the Carrier ends up taking no damage itself. The BC, which has only 100 more HP than the Carrier (none of which comes back by itself), has no way to kite due to the way its attack and range work. A defensive ability such as Def. Matrix is not random or arbitrary. It's reasonable, and sound unit design.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arthas
and again talking complete nonsense !
......the irony is tangible.
Quote:
Can you tell me again what is the BC's current role???? The whole point is they are too costly,move slow,and have dozens of counters that beat the BC not just cost for cost but maybe 3:1 for cost ! is this balance? And we are not even talking here about the complete underusedness of them...And 'air damage soaker' i mean who came up i that??? do you realise that 3 vikings or rays take a bc faster then you can count to 5?...what they need is support abilites!!!
The BC has several roles, primarily against PvT lategame, as the protoss have very counters to it (It actually beats both the stalker and the void ray cost for cost, by a large margin with yamato cannons). Its other niche role is in preventing lategame zerg from transitioning into heavier units against Hunter Seeker missles, as the only cost counter to BC is hydralisks (Vikings+BC mow down corruptors)
I admit its a niche role, but SC capital ships are suppose to maintain a niche role. In terms of cost effectiveness, their are very few units that can match it, but it has enormous infrastructure costs to produce at a reasonable speed.
Moreso, how the hell does giving a BC 100 sheilds instead of their Yamato canon make its role anymore distinct? It can only make it less distinct. Sounds like you just want to see a buff.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
I admit its a niche role, but SC capital ships are suppose to maintain a niche role.
Niche roles are what leads to things like Firebats. The unit we cut from the game at first opportunity because of how much it sucked.
Quote:
Moreso, how the fuck does giving a BC 100 sheilds instead of their Yamato canon make its role anymore distinct? It can only make it less distinct. Sounds like you just want to see a buff.
It allows them to stay relevant in large armies with plenty of AtA using a distinctly Terran method -- micro with an activated ability. The moment a group of Vikings/Corruptors/Void Rays begins to focus fire, you pop Defensive Matrix and nullify all incoming damage. If he doesn't re-focus, his units are doing diddly-squat.
