Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.

[newcomplex]

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.

Ravens do not regularly use all three of their abilities. Provide for me a single replay of a raven using point defense drone when HSM is researched. Yamato canon and Defense matrix are both direct combat abilities, while the only time ravens ever use turrets are to harass, creating less of a role overlap.

I'm not sure you get it. Both Yamato canon and defense matrix are combat abilities. Meaning, at any given scenario, one will be better then the other. Their is not a single situation you could possibly think of where their is indecision.

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.

Jesus christ WastedI wasn't the one reading selectively, you were the one being completely wrong, both about Bola's thesis and about...everything.

http://sclegacy.com/forums/showthrea...t=3001&page=32

You want to explain to me how the other games copied off of SC1 when SC1 as we know it literally did not exist yet? I read your goddam posts, every single stupid one of them, and they're all incredibly wrong. And your interpretation of Nicols points were ALSO wrong.

Yes. They should have this in common. Why are you repeating my own words to me as if that constituted an argument?

O-V-E-L-L-A-P. I said this in my original point and you proceeded to show me how it was wrong by giving my the definition of OVERLAP.

I don't care about the Carrier and the Mothership.

The entire point of Starcraft is that the races are suppose to be difference.

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.

....No, using using abilities is straight forward micro, positional play is not straightforward micro, but complex micro. How the hell is clicking on the "sheild" hotkey when under attack more complex micro the carrier kiting?

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.

No, they weren't. Nobody even microed yamato canon in the original when they made BC's. Carriers are not unmassable. In fact, the only time they didn't suck was when they were massed.

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.

Wow, thank you for all the justification and logic used to back up this statement on how I fail. SC1 firebats simply needed a higher cost, higher splash, less damage, as they were they could only counter zerglings...extremely well.

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.

You realize this entire thread is about theorycrafting fantastical abilities on "paper" right.

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.

So do you want Buff or Role change?

Do you want a buff or a change.

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.

When you make 6 BC, one does not give them the opportunity to counter with Vikings. You push and win. And TvT is not the only match up that exists in the game.



Once again your argument lacks any cohesive focus besides "its cool!" What exactly do you want to the new ability to do in relation to the game as a whole to do? How will giving battle cruisers a new ability which weakens its identity going to actually improve anything? Is its role not sufficient?


Their is only two reason to change an ability, one is because the role is detrimental/does not contribute to the game, the other is because the role is too similar to another unit

What exactly is wrong with the BC's role? You just want a buff. You state that you just want a defensive buff, you just want it to be presented in a terran way, then FLAT OUT ADMITTING that it makes it resemble the mothership, completely contrary to what you said a post ago of making races more distinctive, now achieving the opposite.

[KadajSouba]

I just love the text wall of death.

I'd be happy about the Yamato with splash damage if they dont bring back the original weapon refit.

However, I dont know why i feel that the Cruiser and the Thor overlap a little bit. I mean, both attack air and ground, both have massive HP, and both have a single powerful spell that hits one target for massive damage. The main difference is that one is aerial, and the other is grounded.

Maybe a second ability for the cruiser would be nice. I didnt like the defensive matrix. I saw it being used a couple of times, and this thing lasted 2 seconds before going down. It took full damage. Missile barrage was cool, I hope they bring it back.

Or maybe other ability, but right now im not in my creative mood...

[n00bonicPlague]

The whole purpose of Yamato is to severely damage or even eliminate a single target. Giving it splash would mean one of two things: either it would be such a small radius that it would be pointless or it would be such a large radius that the effect would have to be nerfed to the point of no longer fulfilling its originally intended purpose. Also, it would overlap heavily with the Raven's Seeker Missile, which is meant for severely damaging or eliminating large groups.

[Nicol Bolas]

Jesus christ Bolas. I wasn't the one reading selectively, you were the one being completely wrong, both about Bola's thesis and about...everything.

And here's a perfect example of a lack of reading comprehension: the comment you quoted was not from me. So why are you addressing this to me?

Ravens do not regularly use all three of their abilities. Provide for me a single replay of a raven using point defense drone when HSM is researched.

Why? If you actually went and built a Fusion Core for the sole purpose of being able to research HSM, then clearly HSM is important to you. So clearly, that's why you're building Ravens.

However, if you don't want to spend that money/time on Fusion Core + research, there are 2 other perfectly useful abilities you can use.

Nobody even microed yamato canon in the original when they made BC's.

Are you kidding? There are plenty videos of TvT pro players doing Yamato micro against one another in massive BC wars.

When you make 6 BC, one does not give them the opportunity to counter with Vikings. You push and win. And TvT is not the only match up that exists in the game.

Saying something does not make it true. 6 BCs costs a lot of money. Money that, in an even match, your opponent will be putting into units that build much faster. They will attack you with these units before your BCs are even finished.

Also, Vikings are double-pumpable. In an even game, if you have time and money to build a Fusion Core, 6 StarPorts+TechLab and 6 BCs, then they have the time and money to build 6 StarPorts+Reactor and no less than 12 Vikings. And trust me; if I even smell you going BCs, you'll see Hydralisks the likes of which even God has never seen.

BCs are simply not economically feasible.

What exactly is wrong with the BC's role?

It doesn't get used. It can't get used. If you try, you will lose. Not under the current metagame.

The problem with BCs is that one is simply not useful for its cost; it is too easily countered. And getting more than one puts you so far behind economically that your opponent can counter mass BCs with impunity.

[Wankey]

Yeah BCs need their 1 hit laser cannon shot back. They currently spend too much time killing small units that they don't feel powerful.

Although I doubt that'll happen, they pretty much *modelled* the BC after multicannon shot. Or maybe just instead of 8x8 do 16x4 dmg. Much more front loaded dmg that'll take down smaller armies quicker.

[KadajSouba]

Yeah BCs need their 1 hit laser cannon shot back. They currently spend too much time killing small units that they don't feel powerful.

Although I doubt that'll happen, they pretty much *modelled* the BC after multicannon shot.

True. Or improve the actual attack. The attack before this one was better. A short but powerful burst of lasers.

I think that the main disadvantage is that every single laser is affected by armor, while in sc1 the single 25 damage laser was affected. Does anybody know the SC1 and SC2 Battlecruiser DPS?????

[Nicol Bolas]

Or maybe just instead of 8x8 do 16x4 dmg.

That's not how they attack anymore. The AtA attack does 6 damage a shot, while the AtG does 10. Both have a damage mod of 1. They both have the cooldown of a Marine.

I think that the main disadvantage is that every single laser is affected by armor, while in sc1 the single 25 damage laser was affected. Does anybody know the SC1 and SC2 Battlecruiser DPS?????

It's hard to compare DPS since SC2's faster game speed is faster than SC1's fastest. But I suspect the SC2 BC does more damage over time than the SC1 BC.

Assuming 0 armor, of course.

[imdrunkontea]

actually, the BC fires significantly faster than a marine. maybe one on stims.

[Wankey]

How many shots? They should double the damage and half the amount of shots.

[arthas]

Wow, thank you for all the justification and logic used to back up this statement on how I fail. SC1 firebats simply needed a higher cost, higher splash, less damage, as they were they could only counter zerglings...extremely well.

[/B]

Well,firebats were good not just vs zerglings,but also zealots,i mean couple of stimed firebats take out a full control of 12 zealots if microwed...So they were kind of unique yet good counter to melee units...And about the Raven i think they should scrap the whole Seeker missile and add an other defensive spell(I mean 2 defensive spells and a devastating AoE ,it simply doesn't fit) Battlecruisers in SC2 have high damage output but they aren't usefull because of all the arguments from the previous posts...SO here it is,Make Yamato based on the Seeker missile,probably increase the cost of BC to 7 supply,and here you go,a usefull support unit...ABout the attack the current is VERY very strong vs immortals but that's about it...And i don't think a single laser will be better,altough 2x30 attacks from each side of the hammerhead will do the job,kinda like the Thors GtG...