Rasera Profile Joined November 2011 Canada 96 Posts Last Edited: 2012-09-27 01:24:07 #1

1) What is a deathball?

2) What are the race specific deathballs?

3) The issue of Colossi

4) Terran necessities



TL;DR: Read Everything Bolded



Introduction



Death-ball play was first conceived around the notion that players should bunch up their lower tier, less expensive units en masse around the high tech, expensive (and most of the time, fragile) units. The logic behind this style of play is quite sound, as leaving high tech units to fend for themselves by themselves allows them to be picked off very very quickly. Combine this with the high cost of the high tier tech and the long build times for each respective race, and the death ball was born.



The Death-ball refers to not only using your lesser tier cannon fodder to protect the higher tier, but most specifically, as packing your units as efficiently as possible to maximize your damage against an opposition's position. Currently, 2 of the 3 races can create a Death-ball in the sense of the word. The closest Terran can create to a death-ball is the bio ball (more on this).





Qualitative Damage-to-surface area Ratios per race



Terran



Terran gets first mention in this situation as they are the only race that cannot create a true deathball. The Terran bio ball is a ball of units similar to a deathball that CANNOT increase their damage-to-surface area ratio. Every unit in the bio ball has a collision radius and all units collide with the ground. This means that unless Terran can add additional units from the Starport, the damage-to-surface area ratio of will never increase.



2 Marauders and 7 marines will have the same dps-to-surface area ratio as 18 marauders and 63 marines.



However, It is worth mentioning that Terran have the highest Damage-to-surface area ratio pre death-ball stage. It is due to this that many TvX strategies revolve around ending the game pre-death-ball, and many XvT strategies revolve around passivity until death-ball stage.



Zerg



Recent Metagame shifts have shifted zerg towards a deathball style of ultra late game. Indeed, Brood lord/Infestor/Roach is a very cost effective deathball, with Brood Lords contributing the most to Death-ball Dps. The combination of ranged, non-ground collision with the creation of free, collision-causing melee broodlings allows for the Zerg death-ball to deny surface area to attack



Pre Broodlord; Zerg takes the middle ground for dps-to-surface area ratio, as the roach is quite supply effective, and the ling and bling have extremely small surface areas.



Protoss



The primary viewed Death-ball race, it relies on using gas intensive units and spell casters in the early and mid-game in order to pump out enough AoE to counter the higher dps-to-surface area armies of the Zerg and Terran. It has the lowest dps-to-surface area ratio army until the colossi comes onto the field, which easily turns this low dps army into a very cost efficient death-ball due to the inherent strengths of the colossi.



Collosus



The primary offender in the Protoss death-ball, this unit has some very strong features (high damage, high mobility, horizontal aoe (unique only to colossi)), but the strongest of all is 'unitwalking'.



To illustrate 'unitwalking', simply see below







This is a close to realistic death-ball under standard conditions. Obviously, the build the opponent chooses changes, but this was to simply illustrate Colossi in their current state.



As you can see, this is a very clumped death-ball and quite potent.



To save time, here is the problem simply: The Collossus is not a ground unit that can be attacked by air. It is an aerial unit that can be hit by Ground attacks.



The anti-Death ball fix



This image below was made just as the previous one was; map editor, same units, same supply, and I tried to clump the units as much as I could. The only difference? Collosi have Ground collision enabled.







Comparing the two images, a Death-ball without ground collision and a Death-ball with ground collision, one can visually see the death-ball has a much greater surface area, resulting in a much lower dps-to-surface-area ratio. Now the colossi suffers much the same issues as the Thor, in that it is a large clunky unit, requiring much greater control for positioning, defense, and effectiveness. This one change alone helps Terran bio balls in the later game as well as vikings, as units cannot simply sit underneath the colossi and continue to dps.



While this may not solve all issues with the Colossi, I believe this change would help alleviate the overly high dps of a deathball and start favoring more tactical posturing and multiple attack angles (less units bunched, less awkward unit collision).



Final Thoughts on Terran



To summarise these points and extrapolate, the reason that toss and zerg deathballs are so effective are that each race has a cost efficient aerial (or pseudoaerial) seige unit that contributes greatly to the overall dps-to-surface area.



As removing the brood lord and colossi is much too much, a simple alternative would be to take a look at Sky Terran as opposed to mech Terran.

The Battlecruiser in it's current manifest does not do enough dps or have enough range to justify it's cost and size (collision with medivac must still be considered).

A Banshee is too fragile and does not have enough range, but it is early in tech so a banshee change may not be ideal.

The Raven is being explored currently, but the spells are once again too close range for the investment. An increase in the cast ranges, a decrease in the spell cost and/or an increased survivability would allow for more effective raven use, especially given it's build time, latency time and gas investment.

I also think the viking should be tweaked in terms of its ground based dps. As a bio ball disappears and the need for vikings decrease, the unit should still have some viability on the ground. At this point, it increases the surface area of the bio ball so greatly that dps is lost by simply landing it, never mind it attacking.



Edit: Grammar, spelling, tried to break up the wall of text a bit. In this lengthy post, I touch on1) What is a deathball?2) What are the race specific deathballs?3) The issue of Colossi4) Terran necessitiesDeath-ball play was first conceived around the notion that players should bunch up their lower tier, less expensive units en masse around the high tech, expensive (and most of the time, fragile) units. The logic behind this style of play is quite sound, as leaving high tech units to fend for themselves by themselves allows them to be picked off very very quickly. Combine this with the high cost of the high tier tech and the long build times for each respective race, and the death ball was born.The Death-ball refers to not only using your lesser tier cannon fodder to protect the higher tier, but most specifically, as. Currently, 2 of the 3 races can create a Death-ball in the sense of the word. The closest Terran can create to a death-ball is the bio ball (more on this).Terran gets first mention in this situation as they are the only race that cannot create a true deathball. The Terran bio ball is a ball of units similar to a deathball that CANNOT increase their damage-to-surface area ratio. Every unit in the bio ball has a collision radius and all units collide with the ground. This means that unless Terran can add additional units from the Starport, the damage-to-surface area ratio of will never increase.2 Marauders and 7 marines will have the same dps-to-surface area ratio as 18 marauders and 63 marines.However, It is worth mentioning that Terran have the highest Damage-to-surface area ratio pre death-ball stage. It is due to this that many TvX strategies revolve around ending the game pre-death-ball, and many XvT strategies revolve around passivity until death-ball stage.Recent Metagame shifts have shifted zerg towards a deathball style of ultra late game. Indeed, Brood lord/Infestor/Roach is a very cost effective deathball, with Brood Lords contributing the most to Death-ball Dps. The combination of ranged, non-ground collision with the creation of free, collision-causing melee broodlings allows for the Zerg death-ball to deny surface area to attackPre Broodlord; Zerg takes the middle ground for dps-to-surface area ratio, as the roach is quite supply effective, and the ling and bling have extremely small surface areas.The primary viewed Death-ball race, it relies on using gas intensive units and spell casters in the early and mid-game in order to pump out enough AoE to counter the higher dps-to-surface area armies of the Zerg and Terran. It has the lowest dps-to-surface area ratio army until the colossi comes onto the field, which easily turns this low dps army into a very cost efficient death-ball due to the inherent strengths of the colossi.The primary offender in the Protoss death-ball, this unit has some very strong features (high damage, high mobility, horizontal aoe (unique only to colossi)), but the strongest of all is 'unitwalking'.To illustrate 'unitwalking', simply see belowThis is a close to realistic death-ball under standard conditions. Obviously, the build the opponent chooses changes, but this was to simply illustrate Colossi in their current state.As you can see, this is a very clumped death-ball and quite potent.To save time, here is the problem simply:This image below was made just as the previous one was; map editor, same units, same supply, and I tried to clump the units as much as I could. The only difference? Collosi have Ground collision enabled.. Now the colossi suffers much the same issues as the Thor, in that it is a large clunky unit, requiring much greater control for positioning, defense, and effectiveness. This one change alone helps Terran bio balls in the later game as well as vikings, as units cannot simply sit underneath the colossi and continue to dps.While this may not solve all issues with the Colossi,(less units bunched, less awkward unit collision).To summarise these points and extrapolate,The Battlecruiser in it's current manifest does not do enough dps or have enough range to justify it's cost and size (collision with medivac must still be considered).A Banshee is too fragile and does not have enough range, but it is early in tech so a banshee change may not be ideal.The Raven is being explored currently, but the spells are once again too close range for the investment. An increase in the cast ranges, a decrease in the spell cost and/or an increased survivability would allow for more effective raven use, especially given it's build time, latency time and gas investment.I also think the viking should be tweaked in terms of its ground based dps. As a bio ball disappears and the need for vikings decrease, the unit should still have some viability on the ground. At this point, it increases the surface area of the bio ball so greatly that dps is lost by simply landing it, never mind it attacking.Edit: Grammar, spelling, tried to break up the wall of text a bit. "Sir, the Yamato Cannon is fully charged and ready." "Excellent! Now, aim it at that Zealot's face."

Broodlings Profile Blog Joined November 2009 United States 152 Posts #2 Did you factor in that BC's in HoTS have higher dps?? ... Overall very interesting There is no Karont3 icon???? what is this madness?

Rasera Profile Joined November 2011 Canada 96 Posts Last Edited: 2012-09-27 01:18:31 #3 On September 27 2012 10:09 Broodlings wrote:

Did you factor in that BC's in HoTS have higher dps?? ... Overall very interesting



I think range is another issue they should also consider. I mean, that thing is massive for it's size, of course it takes up Starport time, is quite slow in its current manifestation, and of course, has energy.



In my mind, range, damage, and energy should all be things they should look at. I understand the desire for energy, but with feedback always in the mind of a Terran (especially since HT's are almost always or always in play), I still don't think they should have that much energy. If they want it to have energy fine, but in my mind, energy regen is easy to manipulate in the data editor. Cut total energy, energy costs and energy regen in half. Still same usage, but feedback is literally half as effective.



That large of an investment should not be countered by a single spell (and before you ask, yes, I hate archon toilet mechanic in its present incarnation).



And you really shouldn't have to EMP yourself to stay safe from feedback. It'd be like saying I should be using storm on myself so EMP doesn't have any shield to take away. I think range is another issue they should also consider. I mean, that thing is massive for it's size, of course it takes up Starport time, is quite slow in its current manifestation, and of course, has energy.In my mind, range, damage, and energy should all be things they should look at. I understand the desire for energy, but with feedback always in the mind of a Terran (especially since HT's are almost always or always in play), I still don't think they should have that much energy. If they want it to have energy fine, but in my mind, energy regen is easy to manipulate in the data editor. Cut total energy, energy costs and energy regen in half. Still same usage, but feedback is literally half as effective.That large of an investment should not be countered by a single spell (and before you ask, yes, I hate archon toilet mechanic in its present incarnation).And you really shouldn't have to EMP yourself to stay safe from feedback. It'd be like saying I should be using storm on myself so EMP doesn't have any shield to take away. "Sir, the Yamato Cannon is fully charged and ready." "Excellent! Now, aim it at that Zealot's face."

FrozenProbe Profile Joined March 2012 Italy 237 Posts #4



Everyone put fingers on colossi, but they're just a bad-designed unit that actually is needed in the way it is now, or blizzard has to redesign the whole race (I'm still hopin' that they will put away colossi and buff gate units ) The problem is not colossi can float over armies or colossi cannot float over armies, is that protoss t1-t2 units are just melted by every cheaper composition of the other races, is not so hard to understand. Against terran nowadays a protoss player need to get both of the AoE damage in the two different techs or terran's dps just melt everything. And against zerg colossi aren't a problem since like infestor buff (or infestor's discover).Everyone put fingers on colossi, but they're just a bad-designed unit that actually is needed in the way it is now, or blizzard has to redesign the whole race (I'm still hopin' that they will put away colossi and buff gate units

Steelo_Rivers Profile Blog Joined January 2011 United States 1965 Posts #5 On September 27 2012 10:09 Broodlings wrote:

Did you factor in that BC's in HoTS have higher dps?? ... Overall very interesting

? when did that happen? last I heard, BCs and ravens got a nerf. ? when did that happen? last I heard, BCs and ravens got a nerf. ok

EnderSword Profile Joined September 2010 Canada 662 Posts #6 Very interesting...but very very selective reasoning in this.



You take Totally Tier 1 Terran then Compare to Tier 3 Protoss and Zerg.



You don't actually test what the DPS actually IS, and then don't seem to consider the way various units worth, like Zealots or Lings being Melee range vs a Ranged Marauder etc...



I think of the 3 Balls, the Terran one is actually the highest DPS ball as well as being the most mobile with stim. So I just don't know if the DPS per surface area really makes sense. The entire Terran ball can focus fire a single target like a hatchery , but the Zerg or Protoss ball can't do the same to a planetary because of the differences in the way the units attack. roaches, Lings, Zealots have to spread more to attack it well.



I would like to see something done to the Colossus, because it limits what else Protoss units can be developed, but I don't think removing the collision really makes sense as a fix.



Something needs to be done, but this type of look at it is just really one-dimensional....Literally 1 measurement is being taken, circumference, and didn't even calculate a DPS number or explain why 'surface area' matters? Isn't the fact that you're in a huge ball with large surface better? because it spreads out melee damage a lot while the whole ball can fire at any target.



You kind of just say who you think has highest and lowest numbers, but is this based on anything? How'd you test this, or did you?







Bronze/Silver/Gold level Guides - www.youtube.com/user/EnderSword

AtlasSCII Profile Joined April 2012 United States 8 Posts #7 On September 27 2012 11:05 LgNKami wrote:

? when did that happen? last I heard, BCs and ravens got a nerf.

Apparently BC buff was an accident or something, so I guess battlecruisers will still only be used in tvt. Apparently BC buff was an accident or something, so I guess battlecruisers will still only be used in tvt. More GG more skill.

AFIsurvive Profile Joined June 2011 United States 6 Posts #8 BC's actually did recieve a ground attack buff. In WoL they currently have a ground attack damage of 8. In HotS their current attack damage to ground is 10. Their air attack remains the same at 6.

boxman22 Profile Blog Joined October 2011 Canada 373 Posts #9 On September 27 2012 11:31 EnderSword wrote:

Very interesting...but very very selective reasoning in this.



You take Totally Tier 1 Terran then Compare to Tier 3 Protoss and Zerg.



You don't actually test what the DPS actually IS, and then don't seem to consider the way various units worth, like Zealots or Lings being Melee range vs a Ranged Marauder etc...



I think of the 3 Balls, the Terran one is actually the highest DPS ball as well as being the most mobile with stim. So I just don't know if the DPS per surface area really makes sense. The entire Terran ball can focus fire a single target like a hatchery , but the Zerg or Protoss ball can't do the same to a planetary because of the differences in the way the units attack. roaches, Lings, Zealots have to spread more to attack it well.



I would like to see something done to the Colossus, because it limits what else Protoss units can be developed, but I don't think removing the collision really makes sense as a fix.



Something needs to be done, but this type of look at it is just really one-dimensional....Literally 1 measurement is being taken, circumference, and didn't even calculate a DPS number or explain why 'surface area' matters? Isn't the fact that you're in a huge ball with large surface better? because it spreads out melee damage a lot while the whole ball can fire at any target.



You kind of just say who you think has highest and lowest numbers, but is this based on anything? How'd you test this, or did you?



Also no one actually engages in a ball like the one you pictured for toss. Colossi have such massive range that removing unit walking wouldn't really matter anyway. Also no one actually engages in a ball like the one you pictured for toss. Colossi have such massive range that removing unit walking wouldn't really matter anyway.

Ender2701 Profile Blog Joined January 2012 United States 575 Posts #10 I'd much rather see the Colossus change and the broodlord removed or made more situational than see more powerful air armies for all races. Huge air battles aren't nearly as interesting as huge ground battles à la BW style. starleague.mit.edu

Noahnao Profile Joined December 2010 United States 11 Posts #11 On September 27 2012 11:53 AFIsurvive wrote:

BC's actually did recieve a ground attack buff. In WoL they currently have a ground attack damage of 8. In HotS their current attack damage to ground is 10. Their air attack remains the same at 6.



This change was already reverted. This change was already reverted.

Rasera Profile Joined November 2011 Canada 96 Posts #12 On September 27 2012 11:31 EnderSword wrote:

Very interesting...but very very selective reasoning in this.



You take Totally Tier 1 Terran then Compare to Tier 3 Protoss and Zerg.



You don't actually test what the DPS actually IS, and then don't seem to consider the way various units worth, like Zealots or Lings being Melee range vs a Ranged Marauder etc...



I think of the 3 Balls, the Terran one is actually the highest DPS ball as well as being the most mobile with stim. So I just don't know if the DPS per surface area really makes sense. The entire Terran ball can focus fire a single target like a hatchery , but the Zerg or Protoss ball can't do the same to a planetary because of the differences in the way the units attack. roaches, Lings, Zealots have to spread more to attack it well.



I would like to see something done to the Colossus, because it limits what else Protoss units can be developed, but I don't think removing the collision really makes sense as a fix.



Something needs to be done, but this type of look at it is just really one-dimensional....Literally 1 measurement is being taken, circumference, and didn't even calculate a DPS number or explain why 'surface area' matters? Isn't the fact that you're in a huge ball with large surface better? because it spreads out melee damage a lot while the whole ball can fire at any target.



You kind of just say who you think has highest and lowest numbers, but is this based on anything? How'd you test this, or did you?











It is true, this is very one-dimensional in terms of how to look at it, but it is purposely leaned one-dimensionally to emphasize the collision factor. To look at it with no bias is very difficult simply because of melee problems (which you touch on), engagement conditions, army proximity (are roaches headbutting stalkers? or are they at max range in a concave?). Added complications include the Terran with no melee unit currently (BH appears to fill somewhat well). It's extremely complicated in that sense to determine, so the basis is as qualitative as it gets: when are terran units best? when do zerg units supercede? when do toss units supercede? I could attempt to put numbers to it, and it would strengthen in terms of data and theory, but there are too many variables to account for in my mind for this.



The intent of the Tier 1 and Tier 3 comparison was to compare, for lack of a better word, 'standard' playstyles within each race. I did not want to touch on mech, as there are many threads regarding mech, so I chose to compare the Terran bio ball with the rest. While it is biased in this sense, a 'standard' Terran composition in PvT is tier 1 heavy



Surface area is important to consider as the more compact your army can remain during an engagement, the more dps can be put on a specific area. It's important to consider this especially when an engagement can occur and there is only limited space in which to engage with/in. Of course compact armies are more vulnerable to AoE, and that's a drawback to any deathball play, but the hope of some of the post was to articulate that the Colossus is able to maneuver too easily and concentrate dps per surface area.



For the sake of the argument, and what I was hoping to imply but may not have been clear, I was attempting to explain the deathball effect of T3 units on the dps-to-surface area ratio. The ratio idea is more or less saying, all else equal, adding B-lords and Colossi adds extra dps at no ground collision cost. Terran doesn't have this luxury currently. There is no siege ranged air (or pseudoair) unit that can add consistent and high dps like the Brood lord or colossus. The idea was to suggest a change to the colossi that doesn't necessarily affect it's damage output, but it's maneuverability. The huge advantage to the Colossus is that maneuverability, almost to a point that it hits a very low skill cap.



While I don't want the Colossus to be a siege tank either for obvious reasons, I feel like ground collision is a potential skill increase, as the colossi must position well behind units to attack. 9 range versus 6 is still a decent amount of room, but now I can't send my colossi extremely forward to snipe a specific group of units as easily.

It is true, this is very one-dimensional in terms of how to look at it, but it is purposely leaned one-dimensionally to emphasize the collision factor. To look at it with no bias is very difficult simply because of melee problems (which you touch on), engagement conditions, army proximity (are roaches headbutting stalkers? or are they at max range in a concave?). Added complications include the Terran with no melee unit currently (BH appears to fill somewhat well). It's extremely complicated in that sense to determine, so the basis is as qualitative as it gets: when are terran units best? when do zerg units supercede? when do toss units supercede? I could attempt to put numbers to it, and it would strengthen in terms of data and theory, but there are too many variables to account for in my mind for this.The intent of the Tier 1 and Tier 3 comparison was to compare, for lack of a better word, 'standard' playstyles within each race. I did not want to touch on mech, as there are many threads regarding mech, so I chose to compare the Terran bio ball with the rest. While it is biased in this sense, a 'standard' Terran composition in PvT is tier 1 heavySurface area is important to consider as the more compact your army can remain during an engagement, the more dps can be put on a specific area. It's important to consider this especially when an engagement can occur and there is only limited space in which to engage with/in. Of course compact armies are more vulnerable to AoE, and that's a drawback to any deathball play, but the hope of some of the post was to articulate that the Colossus is able to maneuver too easily and concentrate dps per surface area.For the sake of the argument, and what I was hoping to imply but may not have been clear, I was attempting to explain the deathball effect of T3 units on the dps-to-surface area ratio. The ratio idea is more or less saying, all else equal, adding B-lords and Colossi adds extra dps at no ground collision cost. Terran doesn't have this luxury currently. There is no siege ranged air (or pseudoair) unit that can add consistent and high dps like the Brood lord or colossus. The idea was to suggest a change to the colossi that doesn't necessarily affect it's damage output, but it's maneuverability. The huge advantage to the Colossus is that maneuverability, almost to a point that it hits a very low skill cap.While I don't want the Colossus to be a siege tank either for obvious reasons, I feel like ground collision is a potential skill increase, as the colossi must position well behind units to attack. 9 range versus 6 is still a decent amount of room, but now I can't send my colossi extremely forward to snipe a specific group of units as easily. "Sir, the Yamato Cannon is fully charged and ready." "Excellent! Now, aim it at that Zealot's face."

Rasera Profile Joined November 2011 Canada 96 Posts #13 On September 27 2012 12:14 boxman22 wrote:

Also no one actually engages in a ball like the one you pictured for toss. Colossi have such massive range that removing unit walking wouldn't really matter anyway.



well 3 range between stalkers and colossi is a lot of wiggle room, this is true. I foresee it being an issue where the Protoss army is viking posturing for example, in which case stalkers can't engage well around giant stumps behind them or off to their side.



Similarly, I think it also affects colossi output, as they can only attack from the space of range they currently have, if i wanted my colossi to attack more than what's at the front, I'd have to move everything forward.



It also better rewards the opponent for gaining positional advantages (flanking, multiprong attacks, etc). My units can't run through my colossi to intercept, and my colossi can't run through my units to run away.



If you want to follow that logic, it can be stretched to say you would need better map awareness of both your opponent's positions and possible flank directions. well 3 range between stalkers and colossi is a lot of wiggle room, this is true. I foresee it being an issue where the Protoss army is viking posturing for example, in which case stalkers can't engage well around giant stumps behind them or off to their side.Similarly, I think it also affects colossi output, as they can only attack from the space of range they currently have, if i wanted my colossi to attack more than what's at the front, I'd have to move everything forward.It also better rewards the opponent for gaining positional advantages (flanking, multiprong attacks, etc). My units can't run through my colossi to intercept, and my colossi can't run through my units to run away.If you want to follow that logic, it can be stretched to say you would need better map awareness of both your opponent's positions and possible flank directions. "Sir, the Yamato Cannon is fully charged and ready." "Excellent! Now, aim it at that Zealot's face."

Fig Profile Joined March 2010 United States 1324 Posts #14 Unit walking really makes almost no difference. That is far and away the least worrisome thing about the design of the colossus, and I bet 1% of protosses would mind if they got rid of this. In fact, it would probably be seen as a buff, since then it would actually take more than 2 EMPs to take away all the shields of a bunched up toss army. Can't elope with my cantaloupe

kcdc Profile Blog Joined April 2010 United States 2311 Posts #15 This is flatly wrong on many points. Most importantly, DPS to surface area ratio increases as unit count increases for all ranged units.



Take a ball of marines. The DPS of the ball is equal to the DPS of a marine divided by the unit size (area) of a marine times the size (area) of the ball. Thus, DPS is proportional to the area of the ball, which is proportional to the radius squared.



The surface area is the circumference of the ball, which is proportional to the radius (not squred).



So the DPS per surface area ratio is directly proportional ratio to the radius squred divided by the radius, which simplifies to DPS per surface area being proportional to the radius. In other words, the DPS per surface area of a marine ball increases linearly with the radius of the marine ball.

StooPidMonkey Profile Joined July 2012 77 Posts #16 What terrans need is a tier 3 unit can keep up with Kardashians, I mean mmms. Not only in terms of mobility but also its firepower complement to mm's which in current stage neither BCs nor Thors fulfill the role.

I like the old warhound/thor idea with a little twist.

Warhound should go back to broodwar's goliath function as a mainly anti air unit. Simply remove the bonus damage to light armor(more than often terran doesn't need thor to deal with muta, stim marines do their job pretty good), increase basic damage to 2x15-20 with same range against broodlords. It's anti-ground damage should be close to landed viking rather than cancelled warhound without bonus damage to armored units, but light armored with at least 200hp(the rational is that combined with marauders and battle hellions it holds well against late stage zerg's fast bl/ultra switch)

I really enjoy the idea of one and only super powerful thor. A dedicated tech building(the building itself needs armory) to enable the Planetary Fortress to transform into a giant Gundam. The new thor has 2 form, the mobile form is 800hp, 1.5times of thor's damage, no anti air attack, no energy, speed of 1.88. It can also sit down, (looks like thor engages 250mm Cannons). in its static defense mode, it increase its HP to 1500, benefits additional 2 armors from building armor upgrade research(so when armory's vehicle 3 done, it has 6 armor), attack becomes AOE with same damage, its range should be 7 or 8(short of colossus) it can hold 5 SCVs inside/undercover to repair without enduring any attack, no energy.

The new thor serves as the pivotal unit to deal with late stage toss deathball nightmare. It requires a lot tech and gas so only viable during late stage. With bunches of battlehellions(not to metion its own AOE and 6 armor and repair), it holds chargelots fantastically . Its range makes terran still needs to build vikings, it's almost invincible when surrounded by 20+ SCVs so protoss needs HT or colossus, to counter that, terran still needs ghosts and vikings. It pushes protoss to use more supply on immortals(which can be EMP). It simply gives terran a defense line or u call "hope"in late stage, the best part is, when the one and only thor's destroyed, if terran has back up PF, they can make another one in 20s back in their base so terran won't die with 5000min/2000gas. For people who worry that it makes terran op against zerg, think about how fast 5 ultralisks can takes down a PL no matter how many SCVs are repairing.

Kharnage Profile Joined September 2011 Australia 920 Posts #17 Yeah, i'm sorry, but this is a stupid thread.



You're ignoring all factors to emphasise your bias against he colossus. You're wilfully pretending that banshees and BCs don't exist and that vikings don't increase the 'surface area dps' vs a colossus or BL compoisition.



You're completely ignoring range which is a huge factor. Statements like 2 Marauders and 7 marines will have the same dps-to-surface area ratio as 18 marauders and 63 marines. are incredibly misleading, because as a melee unit closes the units behind them enter effective range and suddenly start doing damage.



You're ignoring how effective AOE is vs this type of composition, especially tanks.



And honestly, I would ditch unit walking for colossus to be no longer targetable by fly AA units in a heartbeat. Not having to worry about vikings or corruptors abusing impassable terrain to attack my colossus? Yes please!

Hattori_Hanzo Profile Joined October 2010 Singapore 1229 Posts #18 Re: OP,



Come on, you propose nerfing a feature of the colossi?

A cornerstone of the race? Big bad units balanced by high cost.



Stalker/colossi deathball while I hate it as Terran, I recognize it as a feature and appeal of the Protoss.

SC universe is unique in RTS due to it's differentiating factors among the different factions.

I still remember the early days of WoL where it was deathballs for everyone!

Matches got very boring quickly.



Glad that era passed quickly. Cauterize the area

Hydro033 Profile Joined July 2012 United States 128 Posts #19 Why was the viking entirely ignored in this? You state that Zerg uses BLs for their deathball and Protoss uses Colossi for theirs. Thus, they can be countered with vikings which increases dps-surface-area ratio. Right? Or am I retarded? #Wet4Ret

Kharnage Profile Joined September 2011 Australia 920 Posts #20 On September 27 2012 15:16 Hydro033 wrote:

Why was the viking entirely ignored in this? You state that Zerg uses BLs for their deathball and Protoss uses Colossi for theirs. Thus, they can be countered with vikings which increases dps-surface-area ratio. Right? Or am I retarded?



Because it would not help reinforce his bias that terran are UP Because it would not help reinforce his bias that terran are UP

1 2 Next All