Overlapping unit roles?

Thor and siege tank have siege
Predator and Viking (air) have anti air
BC Plasma Torpedoes and Banshee attack have ground splash

Having a diverse selection of units is nice but the role overlapping is getting a little extreme in my opinion.

Remember, unlike the graphics poll, this is an opinion poll, there is no right answer here.

 

I have to agree with you that there's too much overlapping in terran. I'm sure Blizzard's addressing this issue right now.

 

Another prime example of why I think you're such a great poster. Few people would want to analyze units in such a stark fashion.

Unfortunately, as per usual, I have to disagree with you. I think the reasoning here is that we both have different views on roles. While I appreciate your broad perspective, I think you could do with a little more details. I mean, I could say that Zealots and Colossi are both Anti-Ground Ground Units, so their roles are overlapping. Obviously, this claim is ridiculous. Now, I put the same idea to your comparison of Predators and Vikings. Yes, they have overlapping ABILITIES. But abilities, as I'm sure you know already, don't necessarily denote role.

So yes, Thors and Siege Tanks both have Siege. However, I think we can all agree that Siege Tanks are primarily Anti-Unit. They are much more mobile, you can produce more, smaller units than you can with the Thor to properly allocate placement, and their turning radius is MUCH faster.
Thors, on the other hand, seem decidedly anti-building. Very few units are slow enough to be caught in the Artillery Strike ability of a Thor, given the amount of time it takes to prepare those bulky shoulder cannons. It's turning radius is very slow, but that doesn't mean anything against static defenses like Sunken Colonies. So yes, they are both siege, but if you go more in-depth, you'll see that their roles are startlingly different.
Likewise with the Predator/Viking. Judging by the apparent (very weak) stats for the Predator, it's main use will likely be it's enemy attack interception. On the other hand, Vikings seem to be all about raiding, flying over rough terrain and landing in the midst of workers. They're flexible, yes, but all they can do is attack. Granted, transforming and rolling out rocks my socks, but all they can REALLY do is attack. So yes, they are both anti-air, but their ROLES are significantly different.
Battlecruisers and Banshees are the closest of the lot, but again, keep in mind that the Battlecruisers main role will be AoE Ground Damage ONLY if you want it to be. It can also fire a massive, energy-based battering ram if you want it to, just for good measure. Remember, the focus of the Terrans is FLEXIBILITY. Some units NEED to overlap abilities to achieve this role.

I think a perfect example of my ultimate point would be Zealots and Dark Templars. Honestly, how different were they? They were both ground, both infantry, produced from the same building, both melee, etc, etc. In fact, the ONLY difference was that one was cloaked, the other wasn't. That's IT. ONE thing. However, while most of the unit's abilities overlapped, this one change made it so that their role did not. Their roles were completely different. And that is my ultimate point. Abilities, yes, overlap quite a bit. Roles, however, I believe do not.

 

Actually, there was more than just cloaking that made it different from zealots, the Darktemplars attack did alot more damage and he wasn't as tough hp and shield wise as a zealot so I think it was little more than just a zealot being cloaked.

The only units so far that I see as possibly overlapping each other are the seige tank and thor. The Banshee may be anti-groun unit with AoE attack as well BUT it is a air unit with a stealth abllity which makes it much different from either the seige tank or the Thor.

 

I think paragon's gone crazy... he even has 2 alter egos now... lol I like it, sorta. :thumbup:

 

Lol. Who's the first?

 

@PancakeChef-
Okay, so I wasn't exactly clear, but that's essentially my point. While most of their abilities overlapped (No spells, ground-to-ground melee attack,) small things like giving one more or less HP and a stronger attack, etc. gave them COMPLETELY different roles. Hence, giving the Thor a much stronger attack, a slow turning radius, and the ability to be built by a tiny, mobile SCV rather than the huge hulking factory gives it a completely different role than the Siege Tank.

I think so, anyway.

@Starcraft144000-
I'm talking about in Starcraft 1, when the Charge wasn't present. I love the Charge, and believe it will only solidify the Zealot in it's role as sweet-ass meat shield.

 

nah, its ok with me. its NOT a lot actually, there are two at most. so having options to choose which unit you want is nice, or you can get both of them.

like for example, a handful of siege tanks plus a thor will destroy enemy base quickly. banshee alone is vulnerable against hydralisk swram assuming they have no cloaks,.so plasma torpede plus banshee will be better.

and battlecruisers can tank, viking are versatile, thors can be build anytime anywhere. predators can intercept, siege tanks can be spam, banshee can cloak etc. yah, they have some similar roles but they are played DIFFERENTLY and it depends on the sitaution.

 

That is the point I think most of us are trying to point out. That just because they attack the same type of unit "ground" or "air" doesn't make them useless because they have different ablities/stats and are used in different situations which affects gameplay.

 

IMHO they are just fine considering they have different roles being a support or a heavy tanker.. so maybe we just oughta let things be what they are for now..

if there is an overlapping role id say it would be a much bigger problem for the toss's Mothership vs. Carrier and Mothership vs. Stasis orb... i mean come on,, where does the mothership place itself now that carriers are back and mommaships are converted to a mere arbiter wannabe lol
owerup:

 

I think it's fine, especially for the terrans. In SC the terrans are the middle of the road, versatile race. If you want specific roles then you should look to the protoss.

 

yes is ahead 6 - 2 in the poll.

but how come most of the comments disagree.hhmmm.

by the way i voted no.

 

I was wondering the same thing zeratul11.

And PancakeChef, nobody said anything about any units being usless. Each one has a use but that use seems to be shared by another unit. When you need a siege unit you could go siege tank OR thor. And as bizzaro said, the thor is decidedly anti-building. However, a siege tank can just as easily target buildings but a thor can less easily target units unless they are standing still for long enough.
And yes, the banshee can cloak and the battlecruiser has another role but the ability to deal AoE damage to ground targets gives the two units one similar role even though other roles those units have a different.
Now the predator has an AA attack mode and an attack interception mode. This gives it two roles, one for each mode. However, it has been said that the attack damage for the predator in AA mode compared to the attack damage for the viking in AA mode makes the viking a better AA unit. This is much like the debate between the valkyrie or the wraith being a better AA unit. Many said that the wraith was still a better AA unit even though that was the dedicated role of the valkyrie.

Terran versatility means units have more than one role. Some of these roles overlap. No two units have the exact same role but with the multiple roles, there is an overlap.

 

So then are you just pointing out that they overlap? Why should it matter if they still have their uses and even though they overlap they are still used for different sitautions and play differently.

I thought you were impling that overlapping roles would make some of the units useless and/or weaker or the topic wouldn't be called "do they have too many, that phrase and the fact it is a debatable topic implys that having too many is a bad thing.

You may not have come out and said it but there is implication of that or we wouldn't be here discussing this.

 

I was saying that the overlapping was starting to occur too much (see first post). A few units with a role that overlaps is fine but they shouldn't make a habit out of it.

 

I know that, but I am saying it implies that it is a bad thing for it to be occuring as much as it is, which I don't think is the case because they are still preserving each units uniqueness in how they are played and used in the game.

 

Not only does it imply that, but it flat out says that. It being my post.

 

Well then you just proved that you are saying units being useless since you did agree that you are saying this overlapping is a bad thing and thus making the units weak or not very useful. Other than that how would it be a bad thing if it does not get rid of the units uniquness and how it is used for different situations and on top of that doesn't make it weak or not very useful, seems to me there is no negative except for it being "too common"

 

I think the overlapping roles are useful.

For example, if I am concentrating on mech armies with Terran building Vikings would be a very good option to deal with air. While if I were concentrating more on fleets, Predators would be a better option since this way I don't have to worry about building multiple Factories and Starprots.

As for the Thors and Tanks well, siege tanks are tier 2 units and Thors are tier 3. Earlier on I'd likely make Tanks and later Thors.

BC's with Torpedos and Banshees are very very different units. BC's are slow capital ships and Torpedoes may make them effective ground splash they are still very different than the faster stealth bomber Banshees. BC's can take on armies and fleets head on while Banshees can't once they are detected. Banshees are more useful for sneaking into an enemy base or expansion and raiding the enemies worker forces or hit and run attacks on enemy armies. Banshees are raiders, skirmishers and flankers. BC's are more frontal assult, fleet vs fleet or fleet vs army.

 

oh christ i can't be saying it that unclear. Fine I'll draw a picture of it.
Please note figure 1.
Neither the banshee nor the battlecruiser with plasma torpedos is useless. Each has their own different abilities and stats. ONE ability they have overlaps. This is fine in and of itself. It is also fine for the Siege Tank and Thor to share siege in and of itself and for the predator and viking to share being air AA units in and of itself because they all have other abilities.

However, I think too much of this overlapping happening is a bad thing. One unit will excel over the other in the shared role (even if just slightly) causing the other unit to no longer be used for that role or at least not used in that role by good players who know better. This will cause that aspect of that unit to become useless (not the whole unit). If the remaining aspect of the unit no longer justifies getting that unit then the unit could go the way of the ultralisk and be considered useless by most people. Note that I am not saying that any unit is useless, I am saying that it is a greater possibility for a unit to become useless.

Here is an example for each set. These are only what if scenarios and not to be taken as fact:

Say the Banshee's ground AoE attack outperforms the plasma torpedoes because you can get more banshees than you can BCs and with all those banshees attacking it adds up more ground AoE damage than plasma torpedoes could. People would stop getting plasma torpedoes for Battlecruisers and instead just get Yamato for them and use Banshees for ground AoE. The plasma torpedoes ability becomes useless.

Say the viking outperforms the predator in the anti air role. The predator will no longer be used as a AA unit and instead just used in it's enemy fire interceptor role. However, what if that ability by itself does not justify the cost of the unit. Then good players will stop getting that unit.

Say the thor is not as good as the siege tank in it's siege ability. Being more mobile and since there are more siege tanks they are able to deal out more damage to both units and buildings. People would stop getting the thor for siege. Without their siege being that useful compared to siege tanks, the thor would become a slow walking target with a so-so normal attack and horribly slow turning. And without the need to get it for siege, the price may then seem to high to warrant even getting it.



Remember, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.