Starcraft 2 Terran Concerns

Note that wc3 doesn't allow simultaneous shots... Does the Viking's double shot always target the same unit or can they be two different units?

If its the same unit, the shot graphics can just be a single animation incorporating the two shots. Compare with the crypt fiend's 3 grubs that it shoots out.

But if it can target two different units, then that's an entirely new variable: shots fired per volly. Both are triggered with the weapon's cooldown time, while two viking unit animations are played contiguously to give the double flash to represent the two shots.

It would be a relatively minor adaptation of the WC3 system, queuing animations and triggering multiple shots on weapon cooldown.

By all means, increase the cooldown time by (attack range / missile speed) if you want to, but I think it's bad design to allow predefined animation times to affect the game dynamics; they should always be shoehorned to the attack timers.

 

Please do not quote excessively or quote the post above your own.

you know i agree with what your saying the thing is the viking from what we hard doesnt attack or have any reason to have THAT slow of an animation. for peat sake it fires to missiles and its suppost to be said and done. the most i think that slows it down is it having to stop to attack.

 

My original comments were with the mutas, not the viking, and I think my comments still have merit.

What I am saying is, that just because many units in sc2 are based upon units in sc1, doesn't mean those units will feel or play the same.

This new game isn't simply sc1 with 3D graphics; it's something entirely new, that will feel and play quite differently. So your favorite sc1 strategies are very unlikely to transfer effectively into sc2.



@Forsaken.. I'm not competitive at all. I don't play these games very often. I usually listen to pro players comments and try to understand what they want from RTS games. My interest is in game design, and trying to understand things like balance, and how the game mechanics affects gameplay. I'm not that interested in playing. I just watch with interest

 

Comparison of units based on number of hits needed to kill counterpart, with the number of hits the Viking needs to inflict to kill the other unit first, then the % of the cost in Vikings the other units costs. No upgrades are applied. Splash is included for Mutalisk (is extra 3 damage in total)

Viking vs. Mutalisk: 6 hits vs. 12 hits, 100%: Viking wins easily
Viking vs. Corruptor: 10 hits vs. 7 hits, 88%: Viking loses
Viking vs. Carrier: 14 hits vs. 2 hits, 325%: Viking loses
Viking vs. Battlecruiser: 20 hits vs. 3 hits, 350%: Viking loses

Interesting. Rather odd that Vikings lose against capital ships despite being explicitly designed to take them on. Perhaps capital ships are overpowered.

 

Dude, you're talking about a single Viking there. Of course, one, single Viking is going to lose to a fully stocked Carrier or Battlecruiser. That's like saying that, because Marauders are designed to counter Armoured units, it's surprising it doesn't win in against an Ultralisk.

 

My concern about Viking vs Mutas is that Mutas shots faster (and the attack is like in SC1 + stacking).

Maruaders slows down Zerglings but they shot slower than Marines and has no stimpacks,They also does less damage than agianst armored units . I saw a discution where IdrA and Artosis thought that Maruaders (combined with Marins) might be usefull agianst Zealots but not agianst Zerglings do to numbers, althrought that disusson had some things that where out of date..

About Reapers vs Zerglings, are they realy cost effective? What are the requerements to get them?

 

Do mutalisks actually shoot faster than vikings? They shot pretty slowly in SC1.

 

What did you think the %s were for? I was including that consideration.

Carrier vs. 3 Vikings: Vikings will get 3+3+2+2+1+1=12 hits before being wiped out, assuming the same ROF.

However, I forgot that Carriers and Battlecruisers fire significantly slower than Vikings, perhaps 1/2 the rate. Carriers also get a free shot before Vikings close in to attack.

Assuming halved ROF, Vikings will beat capital ships. Corruptors will still crush them though.

 

Battlecruisers are the fastest firing units in the entire game Wodan, try to keep up with the updates if you want to discuss these things. Also, please stop discussing damage rates and stuff. It is pointless, since Blizzard balances damage just fine. Discuss game mechanics if you want Blizzard to listen to these forums. And I am sure others are with me on this.

 

He's counting one volley as one attack, which is more accurate than counting each and every attack since, well, it shoots in volleys and not constantly with the same cooldown between every laser fired.

 

Unless I am missreading stats, Vikings fires at normal attack speed in air mode and Mutas fire at fast attack speed (as do Marins and Vikings in ground mode!). But vikings has longer range so they miggt get a few free attacks but Mutas are atacking in return.I think mutas fires faster to compensate for the fact that Marines might be better (if we will surive until Medivacs come) as well as missile turrets and Vikings being better than Wraith.

 

You left out that Vikings deal roughly twice as much damage to Mutas as Mutas do to Vikings.

 

No they aren't. The time it takes them to complete a volley of fire, complete a cooldown and be ready to fire again is roughly twice as long as it does for a normal speed unit to attack, maybe even longer. Unless you measure by how frequently it fires an 8 damage bolt, which is a bizarre choice given that its damage is listed on a per volley basis, and its cooldown occurs after the volley, not during.

 

Well but mutas can stack and they can hit multiple targets at the same time (like in SC1).

Since neihter of us has played SC2 we will have to wait and see if Vikings realy can fight mass stacked mutas well.

 

Mutas deal 9+3+1 damage, or 8+2+1 damage to Vikings. As such, they deal 11 damage a hit. Vikings deal 20 damage a shot back.

I fail to see how stacking helps Mutas in a large scale battle with Vikings, besides giving them the first shot (which is not nearly enough). Unless Mutas are much faster than Vikings as well...

 

I think stacking is only an advantage against ground targets (which can't stack).

For instance, in StarCraft I, on paper goliaths > guardians. Goliaths do the same damage (ever so slightly less because their two attacks must penetrate the guardian's base armor of 1) but have greater range and fire 33% faster.

However, it's really easy to put 12 guardians into one tight spot and instantly destroy one goliath, then move on to the next. Because goliaths can't stack, only a small number can fire at the guardians at any one time (unless we're talking about a wide open field) whereas all the guardians can fire at any one goliath.

(Of course, this leaves swarm guardians vulnerable to psi storm. 'Tis why I make sure to hunt and kill every high templar with queens using Spawn Broodling before I attack their base.)

Unless a battle is taking place at the very edge of a map, stacking is irrelevant when it comes to air-to-air battles.

 

It's not as bad as you think.

Okay so there are some obvious short comings that you've already spotted in the gameplay mechanics in Starcraft 2.

Terrans are treated with an option to upgrade their missle turrets. I believe Turrets will be able to do 30 damage once the upgrades are researched. Furthermore, Vikings are excellent deterrants against mutalisks. They do an exceptional amount of damage against air units. 24 per 2 Hits. Furthremore, upgrades make Vikings even more devastating against mutalisks.

Against Zerglings, Terrans have alot of counters. Terrans are able to use marines to 'Kite' zeglings. With ranged advantage and appropriate numbers, Marines can easily dominate zerglings. It's only when the zerg player researches 'Anabolic glands' that they become faster than the marines, though Stim packs will help marines offset this. Secondly, Marauders and Reapers can also be used to deter waves of zerglings. Marauders can slow the zerglings down while Marines kill them slowly. Reapers are valuable assets early game because they're ranged, they do more damage to a zergling. With terrain advantage, eg, Cliff side, you can kite zerglings and start picking them off a cliff ledge. This will allow you to gain a few extra, yet damage blow to the zerg forces. Let's not forget about Terran bunkers. They're very sturdy buildings that allow you to kill all of your harassers if they were to enter your base. Of course 4 marines and 1 bunker can take down quite a number of rushing zerglings, that is if you've placed your bunker in a tactically adequate location.

Siege Tanks are now even more durable than the previous model. They have more HP and slightly better mobility. This is offsetted by the longer deployment time of 5 seconds. However, once deployed, These tanks are able to do unforgiving damage against any ground unit. It's capable of tearing stalkers in 2 shots. (+50 bouns damage against armored) If you think stalkers can easily blink in and out you're wrong. Stalkers have very limited blink range and have reasonably long cooldown time per blink. Furthremore, if you're a decent player, you'll know that you cannot have you tanks unescorted. Like any other game, a single combination of units will be to your disadvatange and the siege tank is no exception. For you further information, tanks are just there to provide fire support. It's not an omnipotent unit that is capable of dominating every other unit. In a Tank vs Tank situation, the player with the best tactics and variety of support units including siege tanks will be the clear victor.

Very True. Although you need to consider that Hellio fits into this role. Though it's role has been delegated to more of a scouting/firebat (anti infantry role). The part about the mines.. well it's difficult to answer since i'm a fan of using spider mines. My greatest victories relied on proxy mines and adequate tactics. But i do believe the hunter seeker does a good job in replicating the spider mines, though i understand that there is a lack of projectile speed and a change to miss. Let us rejoice that the Hunter Seeker Missle cannot be destroyed like the mine can. Under capable hands, spider mines are rendered useless, whereas the Hunter Seeker can still hit the target. Let's not forget about Terran Ghosts. Their snipe ability is also quite useful and plus, spider mines can't target stealthed dark templars, so really, it's not an appropriate counter.

Okay, the exclusion of the Wraith is a balancing issue. The wraith is a useless Air-Ground Unit. The laser has a long shot interval and it does 5 damage after armor upgrades. If you wanted an excellent cloaking unit, the Banshee would be the best choice to perform hit and run tactics, especially against ground targets. That is where cloak is best used in starcraft 2, against ground units. Not Air. Against Air units, Ghosts and marines are designed to fill those roles (Vikings without exception). So Starcraft 2 is not completely imbalanced in Terran's perspective at least.

I think it's impossible for Blizzard to include those scrapped units. There would clearly be an overlap of unit roles if that were to occur. As a veteran of RTS and MMO's they're not stupid. Although predator in my opinion would be an interesting choice, since it did have the ability to target incoming projectiles, making it a good anti battle cruiser or projectile savvy Anti-Air units like the Thor or the BattleCruiser's missole barrage ability.

 

As long as there are marines and Tanks the game will be balanced for the Terrans, good combination that can smoke anything in good numbers.

 

Guardians, Lurkers, Banelings.

GG.