Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
......the irony is tangible.
Sounds like you just want to see a buff.
Yep,irony...
And what i want to see is more BC gameplay and more usefullness,And i don't recommend a 100hp shield...I belive if they get splash yamato-replacing the seeker missiles they can be used more in support,so they would be in smaller numbers hence more used ! And about the whole cost for cost...I have made all kinds of tests,and believe me cost vs cost they get screwed by both corruptors,rays,vikings...So if a unit needs changes to make it see the 'light of day' in games,then so be it,let it be a buff...
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pure.Wasted
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.
Well, making them the same upgrade is fair, but I didn't get how you drew the connection to carriers....Even if yo got both upgrades in 1 research, wouldn't the first BC still suck right out of the gate? /confuse.
[quote]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. [quote]
but the units you just cited as examples all had 1 ability....
Quote:
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.
The BC already has the functionality of exploding units with Yamato canon. The main functionality of the shield would be against low damage units, especially Hydralisks and Stalkers. That weakens the units niche role by diluting the potency of its counters, a units role is defined by its counters after all.
Quote:
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.
Theirs quite a difference between a T1 niche unit and a T3 niche unit. And we should whine for the reaper changes in that case, a unit almost as unused as a firebat. That's a far more pressing problem.
Note I said "unused", not useless. A firebat is actually so useful that it no longer has a use. By that I mean its a T1.5 unit specifically designed to counter zerglings...and it succeeded beyond anyones wildest imaginations.
Quote:
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.
First of all, hitting the defensive matix hotkey is not meaningful micro. Second, voidrays should be yamato'd. Finally, this statement makes you too look like you fall under "just needs a buff" category. BC are not designed to be the only unit you produce. They are meant to be supported by a company of vikings (or ground troops). which absolutely destroy corruptors/voidrays, and a mixed army of vikings and BC kill pure vikings with a significant resource advantage.
-----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arthas
Yep,irony...
And what i want to see is more BC gameplay and more usefullness,And i don't recommend a 100hp shield...I belive if they get splash yamato-replacing the seeker missiles they can be used more in support,so they would be in smaller numbers hence more used ! And about the whole cost for cost...I have made all kinds of tests,and believe me cost vs cost they get screwed by both corruptors,rays,vikings...So if a unit needs changes to make it see the 'light of day' in games,then so be it,let it be a buff...
Thats absolutely fantastic.
Now why did you respond to my post specifically denouncing the suggestion as the OP presented if your talking about something completely irrelevant?
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
The BC already has the functionality of exploding units with Yamato canon. The main functionality of the shield would be against low damage units, especially Hydralisks and Stalkers. That weakens the units niche role by diluting the potency of its counters, a units role is defined by its counters after all.
yes,125 energy for 300 damage single target-'great', i can make you bet that even after that they would once again be discarded in favor of more usefull units....
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
Well, making them the same upgrade is fair, but I didn't get how you drew the connection to carriers....Even if yo got both upgrades in 1 research, wouldn't the first BC still suck right out of the gate? /confuse.
That's why my alternate suggestion was "make one upgrade come standard." Come on, NC, we covered this. Ya gotta read my posts to get what I'm sayin'. :)
Quote:
but the units you just cited as examples all had 1 ability....
Because you have masses of them. BCs are too expensive to mass -- even if they're useful, you're only likely to have 2-3 at a time. If there's less of them, they're easier to micro, hence they can have more abilities.
It's the WC3 Hero principle. A single distinct unit (especially a tough one, like the BC) is easier to micro than one that dies in 2 hits. If it has 1000 HP, you have time to choose between all the abilities it has. If it dies in one hit, chances are you won't get to micro it at all. (case in point: what's happening right now with the Infestor)
Quote:
The main functionality of the shield would be against low damage units, especially Hydralisks and Stalkers.
Depends how the Shield works. If I've been talking about it as a counter to Vikings this entire time, and its traditional use wasn't, then it's common sense that the ability ought to be modified so that it can be used that way. Have it act as a temporary Hardened Shield, reducing incoming damage to no more than 6 per hit. Have it act as a 3 second invulnerability. Have it cut incoming damage directly in half. Any of these would have a stronger effect on Vikings than other units.
Quote:
That weakens the units niche role by diluting the potency of its counters, a units role is defined by its counters after all.
And a unit that has too many counters isn't potent at all. If the Battlecruiser is made obsolete by the mass-produce-able Viking that comes out ages before it first can, why bother?
Quote:
First of all, hitting the defensive matix hotkey is not meaningful micro.
It is if you have to manually select the Battlecruiser being focus-fired DURING THE BATTLE, click the hotkey, and then do all the other stuff that needs doing.
Quote:
BC are not designed to be the only unit you produce. They are meant to be supported by a company of vikings (or ground troops). which absolutely destroy corruptors/voidrays, and a mixed army of vikings and BC kill pure vikings with a significant resource advantage.
Would you happen to have a replay demonstrating your mixed Viking/BC army in action against a pure Viking army of same econ? I'd LOVE to see it, because frankly, I think it's bullshit.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
That's why my alternate suggestion was "make one upgrade come standard." Come on, NC, we covered this. Ya gotta read my posts to get what I'm sayin'.
The abilities overlap enough that their is absolutely no reason one person would get the other one, especially considering the energy constraint. Not only does not add any choices, it actually removes choice (of researching).
Also, I wasn't specifically replying to you, but the OP, so I haven't read your posts in this thread.
Quote:
Because you have masses of them. BCs are too expensive to mass -- even if they're useful, you're only likely to have 2-3 at a time. If there's less of them, they're easier to micro, hence they can have more abilities.
It's the WC3 Hero principle. A single distinct unit (especially a tough one, like the BC) is easier to micro than one that dies in 2 hits. If it has 1000 HP, you have time to choose between all the abilities it has. If it dies in one hit, chances are you won't get to micro it at all. (case in point: what's happening right now with the Infestor)
Well you described the mothership so...(except you can make more then one of them)...yeah. Bad.
Quote:
Depends how the Shield works. If I've been talking about it as a counter to Vikings this entire time, and its traditional use wasn't, then it's common sense that the ability ought to be modified so that it can be used that way. Have it act as a temporary Hardened Shield, reducing incoming damage to no more than 6 per hit. Have it act as a 3 second invulnerability. Have it cut incoming damage directly in half. Any of these would have a stronger effect on Vikings than other units.
Depends how the Shield works. If I've been talking about it as a counter to Vikings this entire time, and its traditional use wasn't, then it's common sense that the ability ought to be modified so that it can be used that way. Have it act as a temporary Hardened Shield, reducing incoming damage to no more than 6 per hit. Have it act as a 3 second invulnerability. Have it cut incoming damage directly in half. Any of these would have a stronger effect on Vikings than other units.
If your opponent has enough vikings to instantaneously counter a fleet of BC supported by vikings, why are you making BC instead of just roiling their face over with MMM+Tanks?
Someone doesn't just magically materialize with 40 vikings. At best, with 2 starports the could get 12 vikings up while you got 4 BC from 4 startpors. Throw in some marines to counter vikings and your good.
Quote:
yes,125 energy for 300 damage single target-'great', i can make you bet that even after that they would once again be discarded in favor of more usefull units....
was is this I dun even...
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
The abilities overlap enough that their is absolutely no reason one person would get the other one, especially considering the energy constraint. Not only does not add any choices, it actually removes choice (of researching).
How in the world do Yamato and Def. Matrix overlap? If Def. Matrix came standard and Yamato was researched, why would that stop anyone who bothers to research Yamato now from doing so in the future?
Quote:
Also, I wasn't specifically replying to you, but the OP, so I haven't read your posts in this thread.
You quoted my post, NC... many times. And responded directly to those quotes. That's forum-language for "I read your post and this is what I think about what you said."
Quote:
Well you described the mothership so...(except you can make more then one of them)...yeah. Bad.
And? Yes, the Mothership is unique, which is why it should have multiple abilities. And it does! The Battlecruiser is also unmassable, which is why it could have multiple abilities (why it should is another point; I've discussed it before and will in response to another quote).
Quote:
If your opponent has enough vikings to instantaneously counter a fleet of BC supported by vikings, why are you making BC instead of just roiling their face over with MMM+Tanks?
I'm not! That's the point. Nobody is making BCs! Not because there's Vikings flying around en masse, but because the moment he sees a Fusion Core he can start pumping them out like no tomorrow, and have ~4 finished by the time the first Battlecruiser comes out. Who's gonna win, 4 Vikings vs. 1 Battlecruiser? And I just bought Fusion Core and Yamato, too...
Quote:
Someone doesn't just magically materialize with 40 vikings. At best, with 2 starports the could get 12 vikings up while you got 4 BC from 4 startpors.
It's not magic. It's a Reactor. 2 Starports are suddenly producing 4 Vikings at the same time. Viking is almost half of a BC's production time, which means for every 1 BC that's pumped, you get just a little less than 4 Vikings coming out.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
How in the world do Yamato and Def. Matrix overlap? If Def. Matrix came standard and Yamato was researched, why would that stop anyone who bothers to research Yamato now from doing so in the future?
I know this may sound dumb at face value, but take it seriously and look into it a bit.
Because they both cost energy. A lot of it. Name 1 unit in SC1 that was used for more then 1 researched ability in a match up other then the defiler. Yeah. Why did nobody get halluciinations? Because of psi-storm. Even though they both fulfill relatively distinct roles, and hallucination was still very strong. (5->10 archons)
The only way SC2 avoids this is with duration spells like Sentry shields, because they cost a set amount of energy that does not scale, and with actually useful default utility abilities like feedback.
Quote:
You quoted my post, NC... many times. And responded directly to those quotes. That's forum-language for "I read your post and this is what I think about what you said."
When you started replying to me. I was defending my statements. Your position mattered little at that time.
Quote:
And? Yes, the Mothership is unique, which is why it should have multiple abilities. And it does! The Battlecruiser is also unmassable, which is why it could have multiple abilities (why it should is another point; I've discussed it before and will in response to another quote).
2 capital ship units that are not particularly massable with multiple abilities.
"racial distinction". This isn't it. You were originally arguing how this would make it more distinctive then its current place between the Carrier and the Mothership. This clearly is not it.
Quote:
I'm not! That's the point. Nobody is making BCs! Not because there's Vikings flying around en masse, but because the moment he sees a Fusion Core he can start pumping them out like no tomorrow, and have ~4 finished by the time the first Battlecruiser comes out. Who's gonna win, 4 Vikings vs. 1 Battlecruiser? And I just bought Fusion Core and Yamato, too...
You don't make BC 1 by one. You realize right? And you just talked about not massing them. What are you supporting that BC with? 4 Viking is more expensive then a BC. Finally, units can be very effective without actually be used extensively. See firebat example. Capital ships encourage active play, scouting, and harassment into lategame so 12 capital ships don't come out of nowhere from 12 stargates/starport. Plus, BC are used noticeably in long high level TvZ games.
Quote:
It's not magic. It's a Reactor. 2 Starports are suddenly producing 4 Vikings at the same time. Viking is almost half of a BC's production time, which means for every 1 BC that's pumped, you get just a little less than 4 Vikings coming out.
One does not produce BC from a single starport. You realize that right? And one does not wait for them to come out with six starports without applying pressure and harrassment via your already large standing forces.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Why did nobody get halluciinations? Because of psi-storm.
Because Hallucination cost research. Lots of money and gas. If it had come standard on HTs, you'd probably see more use of it.
Quote:
One does not produce BC from a single starport. You realize that right? And one does not wait for them to come out with six starports without applying pressure and harrassment via your already large standing forces.
"already large standing forces?" Where are you getting the money for "large standing forces" and 6 StarPorts and the money for 6 BCs in simultaneous production and the Supply Depots for that many BCs? Either you already have an enormous econ advantage, or your opponent has no clue how to play the game.
Believe me, in the time and money it takes you to throw down 6 StarPorts with Tech Labs and to spend money for 6 simultaneous BCs, I will have killed your "large standing forces" and have Hydralisks in your base blowing it to hell and back.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
The reason I don't like this, is because it replaces an interesting an unique mechanic (old Weapons Refit) with one that it far more generic.
Re: Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
newcomplex
Name 1 unit in SC1 that was used for more then 1 researched ability in a match up other then the defiler.
1. You forget: only one of the Battlecruiser's abilities would require a research.
2. This isn't SC1, this is SC2. Ravens regularly use all three of their abilities. Sentries regularly use both of theirs.
3. Science Vessels used Defensive Matrix vs. Lurkers and Tanks all the time. Look into it. :)
Quote:
Yeah. Why did nobody get halluciinations? Because of psi-storm. Even though they both fulfill relatively distinct roles, and hallucination was still very strong. (5->10 archons)
There's so many factors that go into Hallucination being underused (and why it's not comparable to BC with Def. Matrix) it's not even funny.
1.) Hallucination and Storm both require research. Both might be good, but which is better? You don't have to pick with this version of Battlecruiser.
2.) High Templar are too fragile and rarely last long enough to re-use their abilities over and over. BCs can take a lot more hits/are more receptive to keeping alive through micro, and so will survive a lot longer on average, consequently have more energy stored up to use on different abilities.
3.) Using Hallucination meant you couldn't also use Psionic Storm. If this is the case with Def. Matrix/Yamato, then Def. Matrix needs to be a lot more spammable (ie, 25 energy). It can be weaker OR have a longer cooldown to compensate.
Quote:
When you started replying to me. I was defending my statements. Your position mattered little at that time.
My position matters if the defense of your arguments is based on proving mine wrong. Which you did when you incorrectly assumed that Def. Matrix would require a separate upgrade.
If this was an isolated case, I might be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But you have something of a history of reading posts very selectively, so... anyway. Feel free to get the last word on the matter of misreading posts if you wish. I have nothing more to say on this one.
Quote:
2 capital ship units that are not particularly massable with multiple abilities.
Yes. They should have this in common. Why are you repeating my own words to me as if that constituted an argument?
Quote:
"racial distinction". This isn't it. You were originally arguing how this would make it more distinctive then its current place between the Carrier and the Mothership. This clearly is not it.
I don't care about the Carrier and the Mothership. I only care that the mechanics introduced to a specific unit make sense given that unit's position in that race, compared with similar units on other races. The Carrier is the longstanding Protoss capital ship, which relies on macro and straight-forward micro to use effectively. The BC has always required more micro, hence adding an activated ability fits 1) with the unit compared to its parallel, the Carrier; 2) with the unit being Terran; and 3) with the unit being unmassable.
Quote:
Finally, units can be very effective without actually be used extensively. See firebat example.
You fail StarCraft forever. Firebats are a failed experiment that should never be replicated for anything ever anywhere never ever no matter how. Ever. There is a reason they have been replaced. I don't want the Battlecruiser going the way of the Firebat -- or the dodo.
Quote:
One does not produce BC from a single starport. You realize that right? And one does not wait for them to come out with six starports without applying pressure and harrassment via your already large standing forces.
You realize that this level of over-complication is nothing but theorycraft wank, right? On paper I can disprove the effectiveness of the 3 Warpgate Rush strategy. On paper I can prove that Thors counter Siege Tanks perfectly. You can do anything on paper.
The fact of the matter is, platinum players do not use Battlecruisers (alone, or with support) because of the POTENTIAL for their enemy to easily convert to mass Vikings, mop the floor with Battlecruisers, land on the ground and continue attacking (and owning) the opponent. None of your theorycrafting solves any of the in-game problems players are facing, which render BCs obsolete before a single BC (or Viking) comes out.
You're planning on going BCs with stuff, right? So you're going to buy yourself a Fusion Core (200/200/100) and then research Yamato (150/150/60), right? And what happens when he does manage to counter this with Vikings? Where does that 350/350 + BC cost go? He didn't spent a single dime more than he had to, because those Vikings don't lose effectiveness once the BCs are slaughtered. They can go on to harass the turtling Terran's expos, or just be added to your main force. But you're out of a lot of cash. Why bother? People don't.
