Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.

[phazonjunkie]

Carriers are not unmassable. In fact, the only time they didn't suck was when they were massed.

Um...The exact same thing could be said of Battlecruisers.

[Nicol Bolas]

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

It's not a number of shots. It's simply an attack that does 6/10 damage that has a very low cooldown.

[newcomplex]

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?



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.



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



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.



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.

Sorry Bolas I meant Wasted, I made a typo :/ I need to proofread my posts when replying to Wasted more I guess, for some reason getting in a argument with him increases the amount of typoes I make by 500%, kind of counterproductive. Must be something in the water. Or maybe It kind of pisses me off that he likes to justify his his special brand of fallacious logic with cries of "you don't get it", when I quite obviously do, without actually giving any substantial evidence, or display any knowledge of wtf hes talking about.

Less rage may be needed.

No ill intents towards you meant :/.

In regards to the role of BC, BC are used at a platinum level very rarely. That doesn't mean its role is broken. Actually just the opposite.

Sometimes the best weapon is one that never needs to be used.

BC are perfectly viable units. The only unit in the entire game which can counter BC's cost for cost are Corruptors. Not even vikings can do it (when BC use their ability). They are extremely economic. Logistically, 4 can be built from 2 saturated bases after saving for a bit over 2 minutes. Since you succeeded in saving up that much gas, the opponent has played a very passive role. And before you say that marks them as a terrible player, I can show you so many high level replays which include little significant economy damage after 2 minutes

BC are actually so powerful, that like the firebat, the metagame evolves around the unit. BC discourage stagnant lategame play, if one does not make major plays against a terran player for even five minutes, its conceivable that he shows up with 7 BC and his ground army, something that they would simply not be in the position to counter regardless of economic strength.

That is their purpose in this game is to create a game dynamic. Its purpose is to reward creative play, or punish stagnant play with "GIANT MUTHAFUKIN CANONS OF DEATH SHOOTING GIANT NUCLEAR LASERS"(pardon my french).

This is integral to SC. While the existence of the BC may not mean much, its removal would actually amount to a large nerf. It means that the zerg no longer need to play aggressively after securing a significant economic advantage, and the protoss do not need to preform similarly as well (though less so).

The BC's lack of usage is not a inadequacies in its role, or in fulfilling its role. A (Sc1) queen is a unit that was inadequate in fulfilling its role, so is a SC1 ghost. So are units like Valkyries and Devourers. These are units that aren't used because they do not impact the game dynamic in a meaningful way. The BC excels at impacting the game, even through its disuse.

Looking at its actual role at face value reveals it to be extremely powerful, though minor buffs may be needed. However, their is no way to ensure regular use without it losing its identity. The point of the BC is to more or less "counter everything" assuming you can secure the economy needed to produce significant amounts of them. (55-70 dps versus ground, holy crap!)

If it were to enter regular usage, that would mean that the Terran would be overpowered. Since the BC intrinsic role is to "counter everything", being able to successfully and regularly manufacture them would be bad. They are not suppose to enter regular usage, they are meant to shape lategame into a dynamic and more active fashion which specifically prevents their usage. A OP BC would be pretty bad. CC3 style gameplay is the result of OP lategame units. It would not be a positive effect on the metagame.

Altering its role would mean altering late game. Once again, this would be bad. The function of BC means that a side with a significant, but not overwhelming economic advantage (think 5base zerg versus 3 base terran lategames) must immediately press that advantage, or they will lose.

(and currently, the only time BC ever see remotely frequent use is in that scenario, when terran turtle off limited, but pooled, resources with ravens with hunter seeker missles and tank fortifications, something very hard for zerg to break)

The other is to simply make it not a counter everything unit, and significantly cheaper. Besides that making absolutely no sense, that would result in less active play. It results in TvP and TvZ in which once a side secures an economic advantage, it cannot lose unless through stupidity. That is obviously bad.

Elaborating on that, I don't mean to say that all TvZ and TvP in which T comes back from a disadvantage is done through BCs, it rarely is. However, its a result of careful play of winning battles which would not have occured had the Zerg and Protoss not been forced to press their advantage less T suddenly show up with 6 BC's and his standing forces. Getting units like corruptors to counter BC results in a further weakening of this intrinsic economic advantage, though getting them may prevent BC from coming out, it results in a game in which the zerg has less of a economic advantage.

Since the purpose of the BC is to instigate a specific metagame, relationship to other units are more important then just lore and difference.

Its role when actually produce in relations to your own army, not the metgame, is an offensive/supportive capital ship meant to compliment your primary force (marine/maraunder, often versus lings/blings/muta), or supplementing them, such as mass BC supported by air (vikings).

This as opposed to the Carrier, a offensive capital ship that is meant to BE your primary force for an instant GG (Unless the opponent counters with BC or greater numbers), or the mothership, a supportive capital ship meant support your primary force.

While the Toss have the most effective capital ship, BC counter carriers through yamato canon. This means that PvT does not become "Lets mass capital ships" (Aka CC). (void rays are not effective against BC actually, cost for cost) The mothership fulfills a different function altogether, one which would see a lot more use if it wasn't so under-powered.

The zerg are in a similar predicament, yet even worse. It cannot stand toe to toe with carriers or BC unless it sinks thousands of gas matching their production. It must prevent their production. In fact, even with corrupotrs it can't stand toe to toe with carriers due to the carriers vastly superior range.

Yeah, it sucks we don't see the zomg BC more often. But its devastating because we see it so often, both psychologically and by actual gameplay mechanics. Theirs something to be said for a unit that we see in 1% of high level games, require large amounts if ingenuity to successfully create, and completely changing the game when its made, and completely changing the game through its simple existence. We don't need every single unit to be seen in every other game, the only way to accomplish that would be to use exclusively hard counters to balance units.

Moreover, with a shield, it would be a offensive/supportive capital ship with a bit more HP. If you argue that the BC's role is broken, regardless of whether I personally disagree with that position or not, the fact remains that giving it a shield would not change its role.

And it might kind of need a buff, though giving it a shield is utterly fruitless.

Um...The exact same thing could be said of Battlecruisers.

Not really. BC are kind of good in 3-4 numbers in ZvT transitioning from ravens once you get an advantage. Carriers are completely useless, or just redundant unless you have more then 6 of them. For instance, going into lategame, many resource intensive stalements would be broken wtih 12 stargates pumping 12 carriers.

[Nicol Bolas]

BC are perfectly viable units. The only unit in the entire game which can counter BC's cost for cost are Corruptors. Not even vikings can do it (when BC use their ability).

Are you high? No, seriously, have you been smoking something?

A unit that does 14x2 damage to BCs per shot, that cost one third of what BCs do, and that outrange BCs can't stop them? Bullshit. I want proof; show me someone going mass BCs vs. equal econ of mass Vikings, or stop making up nonsense.

They are extremely economic. Logistically, 4 can be built from 2 saturated bases after saving for a bit over 2 minutes. Since you succeeded in saving up that much gas, the opponent has played a very passive role.

OK, let's assume this is true. BCs have a 110 second build time. So, it takes 2 minutes to get the money to build them and an additional 2 minutes to even get them on the field. Not counting the time it takes to get 4 StarPorts + TechLabs.

Now, if I'm Zerg, how long does it take me (again, equal econ) to see this and respond? A Spire takes 100 seconds. Corruptors are produced in parallel and require only 42 seconds to make. Alternatively, a Hydralisk Den takes only 40 seconds, and Hydralisks only take 33 seconds.

For Terrans, a StarPort takes 50 seconds to produce, and they can be produced in series. Worst case (nobody pre-build Reactors for them), add 25 seconds for a Reactor for each. 4 StarPorts + Reactors can pump 8 Vikings every 42 seconds. In total, still only 7 seconds longer than it takes your BCs to hit the field. By the time they've reached my base, 8 more Vikings have arrived, and your BCs will disappear.

The absolute best-case for you is vs. Protoss, where the 60 second production time for StarGates and Void Rays mean that you get a full 10 seconds before Void Rays are out. Your BCs might have left your base by then. However, mass Stalkers with Sentries are likely a stronger counter in the short-term. Sentries make the BCs attack much weaker (-20%) and Stalkers can quickly bring the BCs down.

So, even if I don't detect what you're doing until your BCs start being produced, I still have enough time to get an appropriate counter.

BCs don't mean anything.

And before you say that marks them as a terrible player, I can show you so many high level replays which include little significant economy damage after 2 minutes

BC discourage stagnant lategame play, if one does not make major plays against a terran player for even five minutes, its conceivable that he shows up with 7 BC and his ground army, something that they would simply not be in the position to counter regardless of economic strength.

These two statements cannot go together. Either people leave each other alone for long quantities of time, or they do not. Which is it?

It means that the zerg no longer need to play aggressively after securing a significant economic advantage, and the protoss do not need to preform similarly as well (though less so).

Do you honestly believe that, as a Zerg player, I'm afraid of BCs? Trust me; I wish more Terrans went for BCs if I left them alone.

I can eat BCs easily. What scares me as a Zerg are Ravens with HSM. Upgraded MMM. Mass Hellions with Pre-Ignighter. Siege Tanks on cliffs vs. a melee army. Mass Banshees with Viking support.

BCs are nothing to me.

Getting units like corruptors to counter BC results in a further weakening of this intrinsic economic advantage, though getting them may prevent BC from coming out, it results in a game in which the zerg has less of a economic advantage.

Making a Zerg player go for Corruptors is, pretty much, the last thing that Terran player will do in the match. Spare Corruptors become Brood Lords, which when combined with Hydralisks will utterly annihilate anything the Terrans have.

No. Terran strategies these days are based around encouraging Hydralisk-based builds, rather than giving a Zerg a cheap excuse to build the best unit they have.

[KadajSouba]

With two posts, you guys took one meter of this page.

Um...The exact same thing could be said of Battlecruisers.

Well, thats how they worked in SC1

[phazonjunkie]

The point of the BC is to more or less "counter everything" assuming you can secure the economy needed to produce significant amounts of them.

Realistically, what are the chances of that happening at serious high-level play?

[Shadow Archon]

With two posts, you guys took one meter of this page.

Thats a problem?

[newcomplex]

Are you high? No, seriously, have you been smoking something?

A unit that does 14x2 damage to BCs per shot, that cost one third of what BCs do, and that outrange BCs can't stop them? Bullshit. I want proof; show me someone going mass BCs vs. equal econ of mass Vikings, or stop making up nonsense.

Going by pure DPS through TL,nets DPS calculator, BC will kill vikings by a noticeable margin cost for cost. If you want to include range micro, then BC would still win by a large margin because then we have to include yamato canon micro.

OK, let's assume this is true. BCs have a 110 second build time. So, it takes 2 minutes to get the money to build them and an additional 2 minutes to even get them on the field. Not counting the time it takes to get 4 StarPorts + TechLabs.

Now, if I'm Zerg, how long does it take me (again, equal econ) to see this and respond? A Spire takes 100 seconds. Corruptors are produced in parallel and require only 42 seconds to make. Alternatively, a Hydralisk Den takes only 40 seconds, and Hydralisks only take 33 seconds.

For Terrans, a StarPort takes 50 seconds to produce, and they can be produced in series. Worst case (nobody pre-build Reactors for them), add 25 seconds for a Reactor for each. 4 StarPorts + Reactors can pump 8 Vikings every 42 seconds. In total, still only 7 seconds longer than it takes your BCs to hit the field. By the time they've reached my base, 8 more Vikings have arrived, and your BCs will disappear.

The absolute best-case for you is vs. Protoss, where the 60 second production time for StarGates and Void Rays mean that you get a full 10 seconds before Void Rays are out. Your BCs might have left your base by then. However, mass Stalkers with Sentries are likely a stronger counter in the short-term. Sentries make the BCs attack much weaker (-20%) and Stalkers can quickly bring the BCs down.

Void rays don't even come close to kill BC cost for cost. Nothing the protoss makes can do that. 16 vikings equals 5 BC, which can take out them down to 11 vikings right off the bat. 5 BC will kill 11 Vikings with a single loss.

Corruptors, the only unit that counters BC cost for cost, is taken down by vikings very easily, they are armored, while vikings are not massive. Vikings will kill double their cost in corruptors.

These two statements cannot go together. Either people leave each other alone for long quantities of time, or they do not. Which is it?

What? I'm saying it typically does not happen, but in rare occasions it does.

Do you honestly believe that, as a Zerg player, I'm afraid of BCs? Trust me; I wish more Terrans went for BCs if I left them alone.

I can eat BCs easily. What scares me as a Zerg are Ravens with HSM. Upgraded MMM. Mass Hellions with Pre-Ignighter. Siege Tanks on cliffs vs. a melee army. Mass Banshees with Viking support.

BCs are nothing to me.

Have you ever had BC massed against you? For that matter, you can leave terran alone on 2 saturated basis for a while, see what happens.

Just because they Mass BC doesn't mean the rest of their standing army disappears you know.

[arthas]

Have you ever had BC massed against you? For that matter, you can leave terran alone on 2 saturated basis for a while, see what happens.

Just because they Mass BC doesn't mean the rest of their standing army disappears you know.

First of all Vikings have 9 range battlecruiser yamato has range of 8 to 10+3sec charge time+more time to micro them to fire at separate targets+you need 125 energy to actually do that,And on top of that have both slow move speed,slow acceleration and only 6 attack range !!!besides their AA attack is a joke only 6 damage > highly ineffective vs units with armor,I believe Crota had a replay like that 42 vikings beat 18 BC's + 14-15 Vikings with the BC's !(It's one of his first replays) ,So once again your 'Theory' has failed....It's simply not worthed to build them...Is it that hard to admit ?

[Nicol Bolas]

Going by pure DPS through TL,nets DPS calculator, BC will kill vikings by a noticeable margin cost for cost. If you want to include range micro, then BC would still win by a large margin because then we have to include yamato canon micro.

Void rays don't even come close to kill BC cost for cost. Nothing the protoss makes can do that. 16 vikings equals 5 BC, which can take out them down to 11 vikings right off the bat. 5 BC will kill 11 Vikings with a single loss.

Prove it or stop talking nonsense. Show me a replay, or your entire argument is BS.

What? I'm saying it typically does not happen, but in rare occasions it does.

No, it doesn't. You cannot both leave someone alone and simultaneously harass them. These are diametrically opposed things.

Have you ever had BC massed against you? For that matter, you can leave terran alone on 2 saturated basis for a while, see what happens.

Yes. And when that happens, I get run over with Siege Tanks, MMM, or Ravens. BCs are never used.