Units that sucked!

Quite a valid point Quanta, good post.  I've read some of your posts here and there, and I've always wondered why you had a negative power level.  Maybe you did something crazy somewhere and I just didn't see it, but here's a power up anyway.

This is a thread I started on the topic of units that sucked, so I didn't really go into too much about how units were good unless I felt that the merit of a unit(umm... ok, ZERG unit...) was challenged unjustly.  However, I don't see why the greatness of units that didn't suck can't be discussed here as well.

With all that said, while what you've said is true Quanta, the way you've put it kind of limits it to chokes/ramps.  And I think you actually did mean that by mentioning the rear ranks.  In general situations, the advantage of the ranged units isn't that you can have the rear ranks also attack, because even the out of ranged ones or melee units will eventually route around to get in range.  But rather, the advantage is that ranged units can get into the attacking position without having to surround the targets, making focus fire both easier and more efficient.

Basically the difference I'm pointing out is that although it's true that ranged units have the advantage of being able to have more of them attack at once, in general application, this happens sideways(horizontally) instead of front rank and rear rank.  Think "spread out" instead of "formation."

Whenever I get hydras and have some guarding the choke, I don't have them right up to the choke to "block" and make use of the ranged unit advantage like the way you mentioned.  I actually have all my hydras two steps back from the actual choke(away from the narrow part and into the wide part) and stand in something like a fan formation.  That way, with the same number of hydras, instead of your rear rank attacking only when enemy melee units are closer(less than max range of first rank), they can attack all at once if you have the "ranks" all fanned out sideways standing next to each other and not front to back.

The times that I do use the front/rear rank advantage is actually in the exact opposite situation as you described.  Instead of using that for defense, I only really use it when I'm the one assaulting a choke.  Instead of commanding your hydras with the usual "attack ground"(choose attack command then click empty ground), you should use the "move"(the non-attacking move) command.  Move your hydras right up into the faces of the units guarding the choke(melee range or close), so you have many ranks of hydras attacking instead of your first rank attacking at max range holding the rest of your army back.  If you use the attack command, you are helping your enemy kill off your army in an efficient way.

Whenever you go for a combined assault on one person's base in team games, you can often see a big crowd of units outside of the choke trying to get in.  Unless the choke to that base is completely sealed off and doesn't even have room for a single unit to slip through, you should be moving your units and not attacking with them.  This is one way that you can gauge the skill of your team mates.  If their units are having a gay old time up front duking it out with enemy units that are guarding the choke, you know they're not that skilled.  Even if you take hits and lose units in the process, you should force move all of your units into the enemy base past the choke as long as there is even a single crack.

I kind of drifted off of that topic a little bit, but it's kinda related.  But anyway, not discounting what you've stated Quanta, because it's quite valid.  I was just building on that.

EDIT: I would like to point out that, even though it might have sounded like I was arguing against what Quanta said(which isn't the case), in the example he's given that's exactly what you should to. On ramps(as opposed to plain chokes), especially early on, it is better to go with the stack formation and block off the choke. It is more important to do so to both deny access to your base and to ensure high ground advantage for your own units.

 

in tvz the vulture is useful for the whole game, they totally own zeals and act as excellent meat shields for tanks against goons, because of the vulture's medium size it actually takes a goon 6 shots to take out a vulture (8 shots to kill a tank). they also had 3 mines which with, good micro, totally owns goons in small skirmishes. they are so fast they act as excellent scouts and base raiders. finally they are arguably the most expendable unit apart from zerglings... at only cost 75minerals and NO gas, which is cheaper than a firebat... they also build very fast and require no machine shop. if you have ever seen any high level games you'll know that the vulture is one of the most useful units in starcraft.

 

For me the units that suck in SC are in no particular order:

Terran:
Wraith - sucky ground, fragile body, and only decent air to air
Valkeries - (or however you spell it) even worse than Wraith. NO ground and sometimes it stops firing since last I play. There were some bugging issues. Mostly waste of space.
Honorable mention: Firebats and goliath. Firebats are useful early game especially against zealots, but after that became kinda useless while marines pretty much can be useful the whole game.
The AI for goliath is so crappy. Even worse than dragoons. It is somewhat useful but I never get them when I play Terran. They are just not useful enough.

Zerg:
Ultralisks, queen, infested terran.
Ultralisks are just crappy in general. Not much use except maybe takes hits...boring. Queen are caster with weak abilities. Ensnare .... c'mon hahahah...the only decent one was broodling and after one use pretty much it. Who is stupid enough to let you take over a CC ... hahaha...
Hononrable mention: Devourer...they are pretty weak against air of the same rank. 5 devourers against either 5 BCs, 5 Carriers, or even 5 scouts...they lose to all.

Protoss:
Both archons, arbiter. Both of the Archons were crap in my opinion...too much time to get them. The regular archon is very fragile and the dark archon....also blah... Arbiter well too expensive and not enough reward. By the time you research all those abilities you can be dead already.
Honorable mention: Scouts and Dragoons. Dragoons are good units but suffers from terrible AI. Running amok everywhere. Scouts...well....everyone have bashed this one to death.

I'm sure in TEN more years we'll be having another one of these with the aptly titled "what are the worst units in SC2" ahahaha

 

Nice complaint Explanation Option lol :good:

And another one, the Terran Wraith are ver useless some times why look, even they have the ability to stEALth still the can easily detect and kill when it comes to a Attack based,, and they are very weak against the Enemies photon cannons and Missile turrete, and they can easily kill also by the Dark Archon in one feed back, thats why i said that Wraith are useless peace :thumbup:

 

Edited out quotes, do not excessively quote large blocks of text in their entirety. Please read the forum rules and refrain from quoting unnecessarily.

You probebly don't use the right unit's for the right thing's because You can't really send in an army with all mixed up thing's and let fate deside.

 

I really wanted to stay out of this discussion but I saw some posts made by Remy that are flat out wrong.

First I want to say your starting post was actually good. I like the Queen, Ultralisk and Infested Terran but as practical units in the zerg army they certainly have issues.

What bothered me were two things.

The first being your post on mutalisk damage. It doesn't matter how much armor any unit has they never reduce damage to zero. So the last bounce for mutalisks will always damage.

The second is the notion of valks sucking or not. Valks pretty much are the best Terran air unit there is.

In T vs T its usually insane to use Battle cruisers because of Goliaths. Even if the player doesn't have enough factories to pump out Goliaths he probably doesn't have enough because of starports which means he can use wraiths against you. The only way to make your bcs economical against wraiths is with valks. So unless you are on an island map battlecruisers are too much resources to be forced to use valks or siege tanks to protect them against wraiths and goliaths respectively.

One could go mass wraiths but Valks are too efficient at destorying them and their ground attack in general is too weak to seriously consider them as raiders like they were in SC pre BW.

If valks didn't exist battlecruisers would never be able to win an econ war with wraiths and valks existence and wraiths poor ground attack basically negates they idea of trying to use them enmasse.

In protoss games nobody builds scouts so you are left with arbitors and corsairs. Corsairs can't beat valks period. I've done a test of corsair vs valks with relatively equal cost and valks almost walked away with 60% of their combined health. On a couple of flukes the corsairs managed to whittle down the valks to 40%. As for arbitors wraiths are generally better because of concetrated attack and because they are better suited against carriers.

Against zerg valks are great until devos. When devos arrive it's a toss up. I've played games where I've won the game because of muta devos against valks but I've seen the same combo run into a brick wall when facing bcs and valks on the BW campaign and it was obvious it was mostly the valks doing most of the work.
Valks like sairs kill overlords efficiently unlike wraiths.

 

@ Mutantmagnet , welcome to the forums. A good post. But it's filled with a little flawed logic.

I'm going go beyond the errs you've made of Remy's post and leave you to his mercy .

But when you talk about the Valkyries and their usefulness against the Terran, I'm going to have to stop you there. The stiuation you are talking about is an extremely specialized one. Of course you can't use Wraiths as an en masse ground attack, but they certainly are useful for establishing air dominance. Usually you can just use cloaked wraiths on an opposing group of Wraiths and use EMP. This will end the first encounter and allow you that advantage to use your BCs.

Then you talked about Valkyries versus Corsairs. I can only assume that your experiment involved absolutely no micro because Corsairs deal direct splash damage rather than an AoE attack. This means if you correctly spread your Corsairs, you will win the fight.

Then you talked about Zerg vs. Valkyries. Of course with Battlecruiser backup the Terran air is going to win. That's just how it works. The Valkyries can apply proper damage while the Battlecruiser can finish them off. But once again, the effect of the Devourers can be maximized by using proper micro management while the Valkyrie cannot.

 

Welcome to the forums mutantmagnet.

It's good that you are eager to argue your point, but perhaps your should better prepare yourself and arm yourself with more facts before doing so.

Units actually are able to deal zero damage on a hit in StarCraft.  You can easily test this quickly with cheats to speed things up.  Last bounce of the muta will hit a sunken colony for ZERO damage for instance, because sunkens have a base damage of 2.  Or zerglings doing zero damage vs an upgraded ultralisk.  However, even hits that deal zero damage after armor calculations, they still deal fractional damage.  Fractional damage kicks in after each alternate hit, hitting for zero then hitting for 1 on every other hit.  You can test all of this, don't take my word for it.  But the truth is, 0 damage per hit is realistically possible.

About the valkyrie, that's really a subjective thing.  But I've never really said valks sucked because they couldn't be AA, I said they sucked because of their worth to the Terran on a whole, and how they effect Terran play.  I've already went into detail about it, in other thread too, so I won't repeat too much of what I've already posted to death about.

Basically, on island maps, you're gonna see air.  I've never discounted the fact that Terran, or anyone for that matter, pull air on island maps.  But the truth is, in normal games at higher level play, Terran players don't really get BCs period.  So you arguing the worth of valks based on the sole premise that BCs are present is already very situational and limited to begin with.  You are making an argument on something that I've never argued against in the first place.  It's valkyrie's general application that I find lacking.  Every unit is "useful" in one situation or another, no unit is completely useless.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT:  Holy crap, this particular reply took me forever to post.  You would think that your wife and son would leave you alone to post in peace at such a late hour.  I never should've started my wife on WoW... sigh~

 

the valkyrie might be effective at would it do, but is not going to be used in most situations for 2 reasons:

1. it's too expesive
2. it's too high up the tech tree

that's what makes it redundant.

 

I think that rail gunned one, (I don't remember the name..) will replace the vulture, but it was slower than I expected. Maybe there will be an upgrade, like at the vulture.

 

Thanks for the greetings.

Before I even looked back at this thread I gave some more thought about my post and decided to retest certain things. Corsairs I have to agree can win in a resource war but it's not easy. So I agree with you on that Joneagle.

Remy I wasn't citing obscure scenrios but trying to extrapolate on the metagame of Terran air usage. In a normal game we don't see BCs fielded and for good reason. Yet sometimes we forget why that is the case so I was extrapolating on the eventual dominoe effect of trying to use BCs which leads to the eventual brick wall that is Goliaths on the ground and valks in the air if Goliaths aren't an option due to terrain constraints. I was further exploring the idea of trying to use wraiths in general beyond hunting dropships and sci vessals. Wraiths only work if you can prevent scouting long enough to get a group and hold off against the terran's tank push with your smaller tank army. Early on missle turrets and MnM are your only options and in protracted fights valks are viable and in all three cases they are usually more efficient than cloaked wraiths. Since Wraiths nor BCs can't be used valks never need to be fielded. The thing to recognize is that part of the reason these other air units aren't used is partly due to the threat of valks. Simply by having the option to build valks shutsdown certain strategies especially those involving wraiths that could be used in SC pre BW.

Just to be brief the same extrapolation on the metagame I used for TvT applies for TvZ or TvP scenarios.

In the end wraiths work best against late game Protoss and the first half of the mid game for Terrans. In any other situation you are most likely better off using valks or battlecruisers as an air unit that attacks anything.


I never noticed fractional damage being reduced to zero but the time I checked for this I only allowed on hit to occur so I assumed the minimum damage for anything was 1. I just used a longer test case now and you are right. Sometimes one damage bleeds through and other times zero damage occurs.

 

Actually, the fractional damage will always register a hit of zero first.  It's the hit that comes after where it would hit for 1 damage. So even if you tested only a single hit, you could still see that the last bounce does zero damage vs armor.

I don't really see how the same for your example applies to TvZ and TvP, only the Terran has goliaths.  And as for AA support air unit, I've already covered why in that case valks still suck.  It's because the other two races can afford to invest more into their air than Terran can with valks.  The more you put into valks, the more risk you are riding.  Valks are a great liability for the Terran unlike what other air units are to their race.  Island maps are just a different different games altogether, you're guaranteed to wage the air war.

And just what is "metagame?" I have no idea what that is.

 

by "metagame" i think he means theoretical game scenarios

also the fractional damage thing is most noticeable when marines shoot at larvae, soon after i started playing i noticed it takes a single marine forever to kill a single larva and some times the attack doesn't do any damage. if you think back to your gaming experience, you'll remember that a bunch of marines would still take a while to kill a single larva, but the larva only have 20 or 25 hp, under the same firepower zerglings die in a flash (and lings have more hp)

 

Metagame is one step above theoretical by being about practical theory. By playing the metagame you essentially are playing scenarios in your head while you play. Ultimately certain tactics become more common in terms of build order and tech selection because the longer you participate and observe in events the faster it is for you to reach conclusions on what should be used when.

 

Wikipedia is your friend:
# eine griechische Präposition (????, wörtlich „mit“, „mitten“, zeitlich „nach“, übertragen „über“, „neben“ wie in „metaphorisch“) und ein entsprechendes Präfix.

# ein Präfix, das eine Aussage auf einer höheren als der aktuellen Ebene, einer Metaebene, kennzeichnet.

I´d define Metagame as "game outside of the game". That would be like observing a concurrents game in a Tourney to anticipiate what Strategy he might use against you. It has nothing to do with the match itself but it still can give you an advantage - or your enemy might use your anticipation against you.
Metagaming means to play outside of playing, playing it outside of the dimension of the game itself.

Another example would be the Browsergame "Urban Dead". In the game itself it is important to share informations with your "team" (either the living or the dead) to be succsesfull but the means to that are limited in the game itself (you need a reciever and the right frequency to hear radio messages for example). Metagaming there would be to communicate outside of these limitations, for example per E-mail.

mutantmagnets Example works too, by learning common tactics you can easier guess and counter an enemys strategy. Some strategies are more common not because of effiency but being popular.

 

Thanks for the help on the term guys, much appreciated. But I don't see how this "metagame" business really changes anything. The valk still sucks as far as a I can see it.

Based on what is explained on "metagame," I don't see how anyone who's good at SC can be bad at this metagame thing, due to the nature of the game itself. It's almost something that you'll naturally have an understanding for as you get better at the game, it is a real time strategy game after all.

Not to boast or be cocky, but I personally have great confidence in my own understanding of StarCraft, its intricacies, game flow, strategies, and various other elements as well as the game as a whole pertaining to competitive multiplayer gameplay. Back when most of my friends were heavy into SC, I was the "strategist" of the group and used to direct a lot of traffic. In team games, I would often look at what the enemy has and look at what my friends have and tell them either "go in, you'll win" or "back off, you'll lose." But as much as I'm inclined to think that I might not be too bad in this whole "metagame" thingamajig, I still fail to see how that changes anything but a person's own success in competitive play. There are a lot of units that are very good, and then there are some that are not so good, some are just generally impractical at higher level play, I don't see how anything changes because of metagame.

 

Lol Remy... tell it like it is....

Pretty much, you can put any term you want but that doesn't change the type of unit or its functions. The unit still stinks no matter how you define the situation it's in.

Of course, no unit can really "stink" in EVERY scenario. The definition to us, however, is that it sucks in MOST situations. So coming up with one scenario out of a hundred in which a particular unit is useful doesn't do you much good.

And Remy, I would completely believe that you could orchestra 3 or more players into a total pwnage machine. I'd like to see it.

Would you mind posting some of your Zerg strategies for me? I need some new ones besides my usual build orders... after all, I need to change for SC2

 

Huh? What do you mean? I don't know any Zerg strats, I'm a Protoss player.

OK, maybe not, but my super-duper-insanely-powerful-even-beat-the-pros Zerg strats are all top secret. Kidding again. But seriously speaking, I used to start out with a few sets of pre-defined text book build orders just like anyone else. However, over the years, I've come to believe that it is better to play Zerg without strict BOs and take maximum advantage of their flexibility. So instead of going by someone else's BO, I think it's better to just play it "loosely." It's kind of like Bruce Lee's philosophy LOL.

You probably know everything that I know about Zerg. If you educate yourself enough and practice it enough so you are able quickly determine in any given situation what the best plan of action is, I think that's all you need. Instead of Zerg strat #19 beats Protoss strat #12, I think you should just do what is needed for that exact situation. Everything in SC is highly dynamic after all. The Zerg is too good to limit yourself with strict BOs IMO, you can't maximize on fun that way.

 

No Terran/Protoss units that sucked, Remy? Awww, shucks.

 

I think you need to read the entire thread...