Get the Desktop App for Battle.net Now
- All your games in 1 place
- Log in once
- Automatic game updates
you have queens with a HIGH HIT POINT value, that spread creep! and inject larva! they are the most important unit for zerg, so get them! you don't need 10, you only need 3-4 because transfuse is... an ability too!
Edited by MYeGame on 3/15/2012 5:51 PM PDT
I think it would AWESOME if Zerg has stronger T1 anti-air. Furthermore, I don't think it would hurt anything/make Zerg OP or anything like that.
At the same point in time, I don't think Zerg getting T1 AA is NECESSARY either. Like Zerg can live without it and be fine.
From a balance/necessity standpoint, it's NOT a big deal that Zerg don't have better earlier AA. From a convenience/cool factor, yeah I'd like to see it happen, similar to Zerg anti-armor, and Zerg T3 which can shoot ground and air. But I don't think it will happen because it doesn't NEED to happen.
Edited by Valkar on 3/16/2012 1:22 AM PDT
Stop Mentioning Tiers
I'm talking about arguments like these:
"Tier 2 ghosts shouldn't counter tier 3 brood lords and ultralisks."
"Protoss has to make tier 3 units just to deal with Terran tier 1."
"Terran is so easy; you only have to make tier 1 units."
"Terran tier 3 is garbage."
There are no tiers in StarCraft 2. The tech trees of all three races aren't set up in a linear path. One exception to this could be Zerg with hatchery->lair->hive, but what meaning does that have if it's only relevant to one of three races? Terran's barracks->factory->starport don't mean anything because, even though, say, a medivac is from the highest tech building, it can still be created more quickly than a thor. Good luck trying to make any sense out of Protoss.
Furthermore, a lower "tier" of unit can become significantly more powerful with upgrades from a higher tier. Think cracklings, charge zealot, blink stalkers. Do these upgraded units still belong to their original (and nonexistent) tier? If they do, how can one make an argument based on tiers when the strength of a tier's units varies wildly at different parts of a game?
Because of these discrepancies, we see a wide variety of definitions for tiers. There is no official tier list and none of them are generally agreed upon. How can you define something if no one is sure of exactly what it is?
Lastly, the game was not created with the intention of higher tiered units outright crushing lower tiered units. There's nothing wrong having to make tier 3 colossi to counter tier 1 marines and there's nothing wrong with tier 3 carriers being countered by tier 1 marines. Is pressing C to build a colossus any more difficult than pressing A to train marines? Should the person who pressed C be given a higher reward? Surely not, at least not in any sensible world.
Here is what I ask:
1. Focus instead on whether or not creating colossi or high templar is viable as a way to counter Terran bio (one example of many).
2. Refer to units not by their tier but by their timing. For example, a zergling is an early game unit and a brood lord is a late game unit.
Thank you, loyal subjects.
Stop Mentioning Tiers
Thank you for putting what I thought into words.
honestly thats basicly what tier means. Tier (at least when used properly) is simply a rough measure of time and resorces that it takes to be able to start producing a given unit. I mean your agrument about how its okay that tier one can counter certain tier three, and vice versa, and all that, I agree 100%. But trying to get folks to stop saying teir and say timing is just an argument of semantics, like arguing over the diference in dark blue and midnight blue. But still teirs are not a garentee of power, and are only a rough guide to tech.
Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.
Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.
Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.