Theorycraft about BattleCruisers weapon refit.

[KadajSouba]

Thats a problem?

Are you their bodyguard or something????

[newcomplex]

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

I don't think you get what I am saying. I AM NOT SAYING THEY HAPPEN AT THE SAME TIME.

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

-Even in high level games, players will often choose to focus on macro instead of microing an attack.

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.

Capital ships discourage the above practice.

Why are you under the impression that "discourage" means "Will never happen" and "conceivable" as "will always happen every game"? I'm pretty sure thats not what they mean.

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

So the problem is that BC is too weak? Ok, then we can buff them, I no longer see this current path of discussions relationship to giving them another ability :/.

Also, if you actually had a economic advantage, and you have a 200 food cap army, you could afford to trade armies and would ultimately win. The only way Terran can win is if they come out of the battle with a large unit advantage, which is unlikely unless you fail to micro your units away from HSM's, and the only way they could do that is through BCs.

[Nicol Bolas]

-Even in high level games, players will often choose to focus on macro instead of microing an attack.

Capital ships discourage the above practice.

If both of these were true, then what would necessarily fall out of this is a lot of Capital ship play to discourage this.

So where is it? It certainly isn't in evidence on Battle.Net 2.0. I want to see the capital ship play that is necessitated by your statement. Show me lots of videos where people vs. Terran macro and gets run over by BCs.

Otherwise, your statements are BS.

So the problem is that BC is too weak?

YES! THAT'S WHAT THE ENTIRE F#@!ING THREAD HAS BEEN ABOUT! Cost for cost, BCs are simply not worth what you pay for them.

Ok, then we can buff them, I no longer see this current path of discussions relationship to giving them another ability

So, you don't see how giving them another ability would in any way buff the unit.

[Asfastasican]

11 years later and the only thing that's changed about the BC is that it has gained a few pounds.

D Matrix would have been interesting if they had it as an ability that would either heavily mitigate incoming damage or give a BC near immunity for 1-3 seconds.

[phazonjunkie]

I'd say an extra point or two of base armor might make a big difference on the survivability aspect.

On the offensive end, what if the yamato cannon was available right out the gate and you had the option to research a later upgrade that reduced it's energy requirement from 125 to 100, allowing a fully powered up BC to fire twice in succession (with appropriate cooldown to prevent spamming of course)

[imdrunkontea]

The thing with BC armor is, I feel that most units designed to attack it already do high damage in bursts. For example, vikings, missile turrets, corrupters, stalkers - all of them do something i the realm of 12-16 damage per salvo. An extra point of armor won't make too much of a difference.

[UnFoly]

BCs are good enough as it is already. An overpowered one can only mean a higher mineral count and higher gas and higher build time which wont make it as good.

[pure.Wasted]

So, you don't see how giving them another ability would in any way buff the unit.

And to answer the pre-emptive "but why not just give them more damage?" -- because we like high skill ceilings, and enacting them wherever possible will lead to more engaging and dynamic gameplay. Giving a unit higher stats doesn't necessarily raise the skill ceiling for its use and what can be done with it (unless the stats are so different that new tricks can be performed...), whereas a new ability can accomplish just that WHILE buffing the unit.

Consider, again, the Def. Matrix that makes the Battlecruiser completely invulnerable for 5 seconds (2 Viking volleys). Does it buff the BC? Yes. But only if the player is paying attention and using the ability properly -- essentially, the BC's version of Burrow micro. Likewise, it is possible to COUNTER the ability by ordering your Vikings to attack a different BC as soon as Def. Matrix pops. Suddenly the game of Viking vs. BC becomes micro-intensive, and the outcome does not rely solely on stats (which ensure the Viking's victory with or without Def. Matrix).

[newcomplex]

If both of these were true, then what would necessarily fall out of this is a lot of Capital ship play to discourage this.

So where is it? It certainly isn't in evidence on Battle.Net 2.0. I want to see the capital ship play that is necessitated by your statement. Show me lots of videos where people vs. Terran macro and gets run over by BCs.

Otherwise, your statements are BS.

Show me a high level zerg leaves terran alone for a long enough time to construct noticeable amounts of BC (~5 minutes).

YES! THAT'S WHAT THE ENTIRE F#@!ING THREAD HAS BEEN ABOUT! Cost for cost, BCs are simply not worth what you pay for them.



So, you don't see how giving them another ability would in any way buff the unit.

This has also been what my argument was about, when i was talking to Pure.wasted.

Abilities are given when their role is inadequate, buffs are given when they fail to adequately fulfill their role.

You clear have given no objection to the Role BC are suppose to fulfill, your complaint is that they are failing to fulfill them (the validity of that is irrelevant right now) and giving them another ability creates overlap with the MS, so why the hell are we giving them an ability? Besides the fact that abilities r cool.

[newcomplex]

And to answer the pre-emptive "but why not just give them more damage?" -- because we like high skill ceilings, and enacting them wherever possible will lead to more engaging and dynamic gameplay. Giving a unit higher stats doesn't necessarily raise the skill ceiling for its use and what can be done with it (unless the stats are so different that new tricks can be performed...), whereas a new ability can accomplish just that WHILE buffing the unit.

Consider, again, the Def. Matrix that makes the Battlecruiser completely invulnerable for 5 seconds (2 Viking volleys). Does it buff the BC? Yes. But only if the player is paying attention and using the ability properly -- essentially, the BC's version of Burrow micro. Likewise, it is possible to COUNTER the ability by ordering your Vikings to attack a different BC as soon as Def. Matrix pops. Suddenly the game of Viking vs. BC becomes micro-intensive, and the outcome does not rely solely on stats (which ensure the Viking's victory with or without Def. Matrix).

Abilities are not the only way to create high skill ceilings, it is the more artificial and redundant way. Proper Hellion micro, despite hellions having NO ABILITIES is 10x harder then mothership micro, motherships having two. Dragoon dancing was an iconic part and incredibly micro intensive part of SC1, while units with abilities can often require significanlty less micro.

Even on units with abilities, in all units except the sentries forcefield, micro is primarily used in positioning, not usage. Most -apm goes intro positioning of casters, not casting of spells. (with smartcasting)

Adding a sheild onto BC to protect against vikings decreases micro. "E" trigger sheild. Vikings coming. Hit E when BC is almost dieing". Repeat.
This is the most laughable, artificial form of micro in the game. You literally need 1 button click every five seconds, with no possible room for error unless you are color blind, or have carpal tunnel syndrome.

This isn't hard. What is hard is microing a ground or aerial defense force to focus on vikings as they try to outrange BC with their 9 range, and BC try to land yamatos as they approach, and maintain optimal positioning.

This is micro created through basic, intrinsic unit movement, and that is what SC micro should, and (mostly) is about. This is what WC3 micro is, and why SC micro shouldn't be.

WC3 is complexity in individual units, every unit in your build maintaining a game long presence and fulfilling a multitude of individual roles. SC and SC2 are about complexity through interaction, simple unit roles combining to create complex strategies.

I find this incredibly ironic wasted, because you despite macro abilities. These are macro abilities applied to micro, relatively thoughtless and artificial, insular -apm traps. Complexity and -APM in SC are optimally generated through the interaction of basic unit roles (Reaver+Dropship, Maraunder+marine against banelings then with abilities. . Even abilities are moreso about how and where you use them then using them. Casters are hard to use because its hard to keep them in a safe position to cast abilities, not the casting of the ability itself.)


SC units should gravitate towards their simplest form. This doesn't mean they should be bland, but rather their should be no strings attached. A ability can preform a complex function, but an individual function can only be so complex within real time strategy. The ability needs to epitomize that units function, without exaggerating itself for "micro". If a unit role is to cast instant AOE damage abilities, it needs to do instant AOE damage. If it does delayed AOE damage, or gradual AOE damage, etc etc. If needs to gravitate towards its simplest form. Their isn't a single spell in SC that fails to do this, except possibly for the Thorrs ability and snipe.

Logically, if the above is true, if a units role is fine, it would never need to be given new abilities. Its current form is the central trajectory of its role.

The only way you could argue that the BC needs a new ability is if you were to argue that its role itself (and not its attempt at fulfilling it) is flawed. Which none of you have sofar.

Are you their bodyguard or something????

I like this idea.