Units that sucked!

[Remy]

I'm still bored from not having any new info to talk about.

So I'm going to talk about units that sucked, and thus probably will be, or needs to be, replaced or revamped.

First of all, the list. I guess I'll start with my main race, Zerg.

Ultralisk
Queen
Infested Terran
Broodling

These Zerg units sucked. Let's discuss their usefulness, or rather, how they sucked. But first, let's talk about why you would make hydras over zerglings for a second.

Let's forget about the fact that hydras can attack air and lings can not for now. Even if we only look at each of their damage dealing potential vs ground, we still can't ignore the fact that hydras have a ranged attack. But against a melee attacker, a hydra can maybe get in one free attack, at most two, before the melee unit closes in. Zerglings attack at approximately double(not precisely but very close to be good enough) the rate of hydras.

While hydras deal 10 explosive damage per attack, lings do 5 normal damage per hit. Even if we forget about the fact that hydras will deal reduced damage to many units(50% to lings for example), a ling attacking twice as fast as a hydra will match its damage output more or less. And this is just one zergling, you get two per larva.

So if you look at it larva for larva, food count for food count, lings double(200%) the damage output of hydras per food count in most cases and quadruple(400%) the damage output in situations where hyrdas deal half damage per hit. Lings out damage hydras, so obviously you don't get hydras for better damage.

Hydras have a build time of 28, as well as do lings. However, you get two lings per larva, so technically each ling has a build time of 14. But since realistically you do not have the option of building just one zergling, we go back to the fact that hydras and lings have equal build times per larva, or at equal food counts. So you don't make hydras because they build faster to help you out of a pinch either.

Each zergling has 35 HP, so lings have 70 HP per supply. Hydras on the other hand have 80 HP. However, they cost 25 more minerals and 25 more gas to make, the 10 HP hardly justifies the extra cost. For every 4 unit supply worth of units that you get in lings over hydras, we're talking about one free mutalisk or queen. Every 8 supply is one free ultralisk. So this is no chump change. Hydras do have 1 matrix longer sight range, but no one would pay 25 minerals and 25 gas for that. So you definitely don't get hydras for the bargain price, when you're paying more for a measly 10 extra HP while getting 50~25% damage output. Hydras are also higher tech, there's a price tag for that too.

So why DO you get hydras over lings? It's because they have a higher "minimum durability required to be functional" factor. This is one of the main reasons for choosing hydras over lings. What is this!? You've never seen this on any of the unit stat sheets? Let me explain.

We'll use siege tanks as an example. If the enemy is a few siege tanks, even if they were in siege mode, a group of lings could take them out easily. But if you add one siege tank at a time, it gets harder and harder for the lings to kill them, until at some point it becomes virtually impossible.

A siege tank in siege mode deals 70 explosive damage plus splash. Even with a 50% damage reduction to small units(lings) and without upgrades it is enough to kill a zergling in a single hit. However, the splash damage gets weaker the farther away from the center, thus most lings not taking the direct hit will survive to close in and destroy the tank. But as you increase the number of sieged tanks, you'll eventually come to a point where even the splash damage will take out most if not all of the lings in a single round of fire. This is when the situation surpasses the zerglings' threshold of "minimum durability required to be functional." A unit needs to be able to survive long enough to perform its functions, that's what "minimum durability required to be functional" is, and what it is exactly changes per situation.

The next step up from lings to obtain a higher "minimum durability required to be functional" factor would be hydras. Lings spread their life pool per larva/supply over two units, for 35 HP each. Hydras have all of their 80 HP all in one place, they have a higher "minimum durability required to be functional" factor than lings.

Higher "minimum durability required to be functional" is the reason why static D(towers) are effective in aiding base defense. They don't have to have the best damage output, and it is true that the money could be put into units for defending instead. However, in situations where "minimum durability required to be functional" have gotten higher, marines killing all your units as soon as they are built for instance, sunkens can still survive long enough to perform their functions.

Now if we go back and add even more siege tanks, it will eventually come to a point where even hydras won't be able to get close enough to attack even once before they wipe out. With enough tanks, the "minimum durability required to be functional" can still be ridiculously high even under the protection of darkswarm.

This is where ultralisks come in, our first "unit that sucked." They serve no other purpose, other than to survive and take hits in situations where the "minimum durability required to be functional" has gotten too high for the rest of Zerg's ground units.

Even though the "minimum durability required to be functional" factor is one major reason to get hydras over lings, there are other important reasons other than that such as anti-air, focus fire, etc. But not ultras, there is no other reason. Damage output of ultras are unimpressive compared to equal food hydras, and down right pathetic compared to lings. Ultras are high tech, high supply, expensive, and require all researchable upgrades to even be able to do what they are used for in the first place. Add to that, no anti-air, no focus fire, poor damage, poor maneuverability, and high liability for being resource/supply hogs.

But there are times Zerg players have to get them. Ultras are "only-if-must" units. No sane Zerg player will get them when they don't need to just because they are nice. Whenever Zergs tech ultras it's always because they are forced to. No matter how much they suck, we still have to reluctantly tech ultras because we have no better option. Ultras suck like hell, they need to be replaced or revamped.

Then we have the queen. These are even worse. Even though ultras are "only-if-must," at least there is a "must" for ultras. Not queens, there is no must, they just suck. Sure the abilities themselves are arguably not completely useless. After all, it's not like they do absolutely nothing after you click on them. But in all situations, you can just manage with just your other units. This way you get to save on tech expense and the trouble of making queens altogether. Queens qualify for a different category. While ultras are "only-if-must," queens are "more trouble than it's worth" units. There is very little incentive, let alone need, to justify the expense and effort that goes into getting them.

Broodlings sucked too. Out of all of queen's crappy abilities, spawn broodling is probably the closes to being almost useful, although still not reason enough to get queens. Broodlings themselves however, are completely and utterly crap, unlike the ability which was at least close to some usefulness. Sure, they can make free sack lunches for defilers. But why would you get queens, research the spell, charge energy, just to feed defilers, when you can just use easy-to-get lings for no additional tech at 25 a pop? Basically, for the ability to even be used meaningfully in the first place, broodlings will be killed instantly as soon as they are spawned because of their positioning.

I don't know what's the point in Blizzard even making the spell give you these units in the first place. And they even placed timers on them because they thought some geniuses might spawn a million broodlings off of broodlings sitting at home doing nothing else. They die instanly to anything, not even good for harassing workers. Broodlings suck like hell.

Having one crappy unit produced off of crappy queens wasn't enough, they made another. Infested terrans suck by default because they require the production of queens in the first place like broodlings. Not only that, they also require that you either have someone give you a free CC or that you be in a definite winning position anyway where you can mop up a base/expo and take the CC without retaliation coming to destroy the infested CC. Wonderful, something that's got even more trouble in the "more trouble than it's worth."

500 splash damage seems very impressive on paper. At first glance, infested terrans are practically walking nukes. WTF holy roxorz~!! Not quite. Most of their impressive splash damage goes into killing other infested terrans and nearby friendly Zerg units. Their splash radius also becomes less impressive when you decide to attack buildings.

When you're able to obtain infested terrans, there is no realistic use for them that late in the game. They are truly more trouble than they are worth, both in getting them and using them. Even with careful micro, they hinder your army's forward movement more than they aid it. If any accidentally go off on a closed in melee unit, there goes your other units. Even if you carefully send one at a time, in situations where the infested terran can actually reach its target, you can actually advance faster with you troops, rather than trying them one at a time.

Dropping is the one strat at least remotely useful. However, dropping infested terrans instead of other units mean that you lose the option of mopping up the base/expo when you're drop succeeds. The base/expo was obviously poorly defended, or had a glaring blind spot, for the extremely time consuming infested terran drop to work in the first place. In the same situation, other units would still deal much greater damage overall, even though none of them have the impressive-on-paper 500 damage per hit. 500 damage per hit is the last hit, the only hit, if it even hits at all.

Infested terrans require you to get a queen, which is already a "more trouble than it's worth unit, not even "only-if-must." Infested terrans require you to obtain a CC somehow and be able to have it where it's safe enough to sit and queue them. Infested terrans have a build time of 40, equal to overlords, for a small one-shot unit, that hella long. Infested terrans are expensive, have low "minimum durability required to be functional," have a danger factor for the rest of you unit investment, and are not even hit-or-miss with a one shot chance to blow your other units up or nothing at all. If you can send in multiple infested terrans and have it work, without fear of blowing up other infested terrans or other Zerg units, it would be a whole different story. But since that's not the case, infested terrans suck like hell.

Zerg alone has four units that sucked, and suck like hell they did. Zerg is still my main race though, I love Zerg. I wonder if even a single person will read this whole thing lol. I said I was bored.

[Remy]

Wow, someone read it, just wow.

I did mention hydra anti-air, it's after I got into ultras. It was brief though.

Another major merit of hydras, or any ranged unit for that matter, is that with enough in number and good positioning, they can raise the level of "minimum durability required to be functional" for the opposition. Just like the marines example.

Along with focus fire, these are the main advantages of having hydras, or just ranged units in general.

But that wasn't my point. It's about units that sucked! :P

[Gold]

sorry man, cant read something so long
il modify this post when i do read it

[Remy]

This covers zerg race. You need the other 2 now ;P


I just remembered that I'm gonna lose internet service for about two weeks because I'm moving today.

If by the time I get my internet service back up there is still no new info on SC2, I guess I'll get back on this out of boredom.

Thanks for reading btw.Â* Thnx on the power up also, but more for reading.

I knew there were other bored people dang it.

[zeratul11]

wow! this novel is interesting. :thumbup:
i like ultralisk not in game value but the ultralisk model itself, they look like big pets. and i think they are a cool zerg units.

i dont like overlords they are disturbing, annoying and i hate the way they sound.
yes i hate queen (specialy the unit image, similar to that female gremlin in gremlins 2 movie *yuck) and its broodling. yeh, they suck like hell.

last one, i have to say vultures except for their spider mines. they are boring when they are out of mines.

where are you moving? korea? .hehe. since you are moving.... :powerup:

[Ghost]

Nice analysis man. That really could do it for a Medium-Advanced player looking how to improve his tactics using teh zerg.

[Associate]

I used to play as zerg sometimes in a multiplayer map and I can agree about the "un-usefulness" of some of the units you have cited, But i think the zerg "queen" is overly underestimated, yes they do not have any attack abilities that can be of use against air or ground targets, but they can be a very effective support unit, for example, her ensnare ability if used properly can help slow down incoming enemy raids especially air units, making them vulnerable targets for your scourges, it can also reveal cloaked units within its target radius. another useful ability is the queen's parasite, which will allow you to gain vision of the target enemy unit, this is not useful against cheap units though as your opponent will most likely decide to kill them, but if you try infesting units like Carriers or Battlecruisers, then perhaps your enemy will think twice before deciding to destroy them. Her spawn broodling ability doesn't do much but it can still be very annoying against your opponent

[Dxun]

very nice remy cant wait for your views on the other 2 races... and the queens parasite ability is good for scouting :P

[mc2]

What other units suck?

Cosairs - they are weak, have horrible attack damage and cannot attack ground. They are not even that fast.

Valkyrie - for similar reasons, it cannot attack ground.

Ultralisks - they use too much resources for it's effectiveness. Could have been more powerful, instead of behaving as a meat-shield

Vultures - apart from the mines and scouting I don't see much effectiveness in them.

Dragoons - they are big, dumb and clumpsy. Often they get stuck in tight spaces and choke points. This blocks the way for other units and they really need to be improved.

[PowerkickasS]

note: the following comment will most-likely be offensive >xP power me down if you want lol
i can't believe what you guys are saying....some of you guys really don't seem to have a clue about starcraft strategy =/
go on youtube, and either search up games of:
nal_ra / slayers_boxer / savior / julyzerg / bisu / nada / iris / reach / iloveoov
or go to the starcraft group and watch some of their latests VODs.....
and for people who are at least slightly up with any official sc tournaments out there (MSL OSL PGT) will all know that there is only 2 incredibly useless units in the game: scouts and valkyries

Warning: becareful of heart attacks from OMGBBQWTFLOLHOLYSHIZSNITCHMOTHEROF when watching the VODs of those professional korean gamers/"sc pimpest plays 2002-2006" videos for the first time =P

[paragon]

Yes scouts are quite useless. Piss poor ground attack, okay air attack, entirely too expensive. If you really want something anti air get dragoons. If you really want to fly around killing stuff, get a ****load of corsairs. Sure they can't attack ground but with scouts you wouldn't want them to attack ground anyways. Corsairs have splash and attack quite fast and they have the disruption web which is really good. And they don't cost almost as much as carriers.

Valks are good when your enemy has massed air. Especially zerg air. Or for raping overlord clusters.

Also, infested terrans anyone? First you have to find a command center and not destroy it, get your queen safely there, fly it to a safe place or make where it is safe, then spend lots of resources on something thats just going to blow itself up (or, more likely, die before it explodes). Sure they'd be nice if they were cheap like scourge and not hard to get but they weren't.

The only use for Infested Terrans was when I was already winning by a lot and just wanted to shove it in their face by loading Overlords up with Infested Terrans and dropping them like bombs over the enemy base.

[Sinbues]

Heh i see this as a guide for noobs like me i havent played it in years heh anyway i see as a hydra as kinds one of the best units and a valk sometimes didnt work! it must have been a bug but still i see this as a guide

[Exterranminator]

What other units suck?

Cosairs - they are weak, have horrible attack damage and cannot attack ground. They are not even that fast.

Valkyrie - for similar reasons, it cannot attack ground.

Ultralisks - they use too much resources for it's effectiveness. Could have been more powerful, instead of behaving as a meat-shield

Vultures - apart from the mines and scouting I don't see much effectiveness in them.

Dragoons - they are big, dumb and clumpsy. Often they get stuck in tight spaces and choke points. This blocks the way for other units and they really need to be improved.


Are you singleplayer? I gues you are...Corsairs are much more usefull than Scouts who just suck a lot. They kill mutalisk very easily, they are good in Ovrlord Hunting and scouting as well+disruption web is sometimes usefull.
Valkirie- they are usefull, but only on isle maps against Zerg.
Ultralisk- why are u bashing this unit? it's a very good tanker against both Terran and Protoss. Hes impresive strangth+zerglings+dark swarm=ownage. Anyway it sucks against the Zerg.
Vultures- they are good versus weak protoss units like probes, Zealots and dark templar. Good hit and run+mines.
Dragoons- while they AI sucks they are still basic range units of the Protoss. They are quite easy to kill anyway.

[epic_ending]

very interesting.

what about pointless upgrades? ie upgrades that cost more than it would to build several units, the upgrade doesnt offer much that 1 point of extra armour wont do much good against higher tech units really but an extra 3 units or so could tip a fight to ur favour. so whats the point on upgrades.

any thoughts...?

[proswimma]

the upgrades can be that slight advantage that will win you a fight...you know?

[paragon]

Are you talking just armor upgrades or the armor and weapons. Because weapons upgrades generally add more than 1 point and are generally a good idea to get. Also, having one more armor is taking one less damage for each attack so all those 1s add up.

[mc2]

I agree, upgrades are VITAL in any game. It's surprising to see what a big difference it can make in the battlefield just by having a +3 damage and a +3 armor. Upgraded or un-upgraded units could decide a win or lost in a particular battle. Also other upgrades like zealot's movement speed and zergling's attack speed is DEADLY.

[PowerkickasS]

Shields suck. you should never upgrade it lol.
even if you wanna be funny and mass archons o_O

[Hellbringer]

The Ultralisk's role is more of a damage tank than an offensive unit - for instance mixing a few Ultralisks in with an army or Zerglings will ensure that alot of Zerglings will make it into close combat range, since the Ultralisks will be able to take hits and keep moving - thus stopping shots that would have vaporised a few zerglings. The Ultralisk is more of a support unit to the rest of the Zerg cheap attack units. Its high HP is more of a use than its low attack. The Queen is a real nice unit too - broodling the enemy tanks at the edges of the tank battery, and the other tanks will shoot the broodlings that result - and in more cases than 1, the tanks will kill more of themselves than the broodlings would. The Infested Terrans are another great unit - if you use the them right way. I once met a player who used his Infested Terrans in a similar role to spider mines - burrow them ahead of an incoming force and unburrow on top of an enemy attack force... BOOM! There goes a bunch of Marines/Zealots/Hydralisks etc...

All units have the ability to be very handy - think outside the box be imaginative and you can make units that seem bad quite good.

[mc2]

Hello hellbringer :) all your points are great! I really like how you said you can use infested terrans like spider mines! I've never thought of it before, and I'm sure to try it out next time I play the game.

Except.......this topic is about units that sucked :P

[CrisisDarkerXIV]

That's why you mix units, don't you? You just fight with what you have.... not like you're gonna run away for an enemy to attack your base when you have a a group of zerglings...

[Honus]

roflmao. I sense somebody trying to reach 200 000 min...

[Hellbringer]

In StarCraft, all units have their uses - there are no "useless" units. Everything has its strengths and weaknesses - Terran Marines for instance, are the first offensive Terran unit, yet they are used nearly everywhere. Protoss Reavers, these are pure evil when they are used in the "Reaver Recall" tactic. Zerg Queens - once again these are excellent - especially when used in conjunction with a Defiler and Hydralisks against ranged units: Battlecruisers, Carriers, etc...

No units outright suck...

[paragon]

except scouts.

[Nikzad]

yes
YES
I wasted so much money on scouts so often before i gave up on them

[10-Neon]

Scouts are good for making fast behind-enemy-lines ground raids that other units just can't pull off. You'll see the Terran and Zerg counterparts (Wraith and Mutalisk) being used for this, but rarely Scouts. The main problem is that most of their firepower is in anti-air, even though the Corsair and Carrier already cover that, and the fact that they cost nearly as much as an unarmed Carrier.

[Nikzad]

well wtf else am i gonna do I'm blockaded by siege tanks and need to get rid of them and don't want to spend the money for carriers

[paragon]

Nikzad, use Dark Templars.

Carrier: 350 Minerals, 250 Gas
Scout: 275 Minerals, 125 Gas
Difference: -75 Minerals, -125 Gas Scout

Carrier: Ground Attack 6 (times number of interceptors), Air Attack 6 (times number of Interceptors) (Attack Damage of 48 includes 8x25 Minerals required for Interceptors) (11.46 Minerals per attack point, 5.21 Gas per attack point)
Scout: Ground Attack 8, Air Attack 28 (34.38 Minerals per Ground Attack point, 15.63 Gas per Ground Attack point, 9.82 Minerals per Air Attack point, 4.46 Gas per Air Attack point)
Difference with full interceptors: Ground +40, Air +20 Carrier

Carrier HP/Shields: 300/150 (4 Armor) (1.16 Minerals per HP, 2.33 Minerals per Shield Point, 87.5 Minerals per Armor point / 0.83 Gas per HP, 1.66 Gas per Shield Point, 62.5 Gas per Armor point)
Scout HP/Shields: 150/100 (0 Armor) (1.83 Minerals per HP, 2.75 Minerals per Shield Point / 0.83 Gas per HP, 1.25 Gas per Shield Point)
Difference: +150/+50 (+4 Armor) Carrier

Carrier Range: 8 (43.75 Minerals per range point / 31.25 Gas per range point)
Scout Range: 4 (68.75 Minerals per range point / 31.25 Gas per range point)
Difference: +4 Carrier

Based on cost/benefit analysis, Carrier wins
The only edge the Scout has is in air attack.
However the carrier also attacks faster.

[Itsmyship]

IS the Scout 275? I thought It was around the 150-75 mark...

[paragon]

Yes, I just rechecked it on the StarCraft official page before making that post

[mc2]

In that case the cosairs are also not all that useful. The disruption web's lasting time have been decreased dramatically through patches, meaning the player have to destroy the static defenses as soon as possible. And their weak 5 damage of makes them pretty useless too. Their only "real" use is to harrass lone overlords or other transport unit.

[paragon]

Corsairs are good in packs. Which they can have since they are only 150 minerals/100 gas. And their cool down is 8 (milliseconds?) in comparison to the scout's 22 cooldown. So, the corsair gets in 2.75 shots for every 1 shot the scout makes (which is 13.75 damage)
So thats:
Corsair: 10.9 Minerals per damage point and 7.27 Gas per damage point
Scout: 9.82 Minerals per Air Attack point, 4.46 Gas per Air Attack point
This gives the scout a slight advantage in terms of minerals and shows that the Corsair is pretty gas heavy. However, it does not take into account the splash damage which becomes more effective the more Corsairs there are. So, taking splash into account the Corsair is more effective vs. air in terms of mineral cost.

[PowerkickasS]

in the really old starcraft versions it was like 300 minerals....(i think?)
lol nice cost/benefit analysis....:P but heck im gonna keep accounting/finance clear away from sc =/
im sure scouts attack at like 1.5x faster than interceptors though

EDIT: i just saw your post above. all you needed to say was you never see nal_ra using scouts so gg!

[Remy]

Finally got my internet back up. Time to reply the replies.

My rant was about units that sucked first of all, not units that were useless. There is moot point in arguing uselessness, because it doesn't exist for any unit in the game. Even critteres are useful for parasiting for instance.

Infested terran still suck with burrowing considered. That late in the game, that high in the tech tree, it doesn't make it very useful. Start believing that people use detectors. If random burrowing was useful at all, let alone choke burrowing, you would see random spider mining later in the game, but you don't. Burrowing after mid-game against a player intermediate or higher is pretty much for isolating irradiated units.

=======================
ATTACK/ARMOR UPGRADES
=======================

Someone asked about attack/armor upgrades, I feel like touching on that.

Again, as mainly a Zerg player, I'll explain it in Zerg terms. Even though upgrades are expensive and you can make additional units with that money, they will turn the tide of battle.

For example, two Zerg players both went mutas, and one carelessly upgraded attack first, while the other upgraded armor like you're suppose to. If all other conditions were pretty much equal for both players, the armor up'd mutas will beat out the attack up'd mutas.

If you understand how mutas attack, you'll know their bounce attack hits for 9-3-1 initially(1/3 for each subsequent hit). The attack up'd mutas will hit for 10-3-1 after the first upgrade, because mutas have an attack mod of 1. Only the first hit is effected because 1/3 of 10 after rounding is still 3. The armor up'd mutas will gain one armor, so 1 point of damage will be reduced from every incoming attack. Since the muta's attack bounce for three hits, it'll take 1 point off of each of the three hits. Now the attack up'd mutas will be hitting the armor up'd mutas for 9-2-0 per attack after damage mitigation from the 1 armor upgrade, while the armor up'd mutas are still hitting them for the same 9-3-1. Armor upgrade wins.

Although just generally important, there are other key upgrades such as the muta's case that are common knowledge. Protoss attack upgrade early on letting zealots kill each full HP zergling in only two hits as opposed to the initial three hits is one example. Of course, one armor upgrade on the Zerg's part will tip this back to three hits. Basically, as long as attack/armor upgrades are researched at a proper pace without over-exertion, they are important to get timely to not fall behind.

One other upgrade related thing for people who didn't know. Mind controlling will steal upgrades for you.

For example, you MC'd a drone against a Zerg and built up part of the tech tree. If say, you made some hydras without upgrades, then you MC an enemy hydra that had full upgrades, all of your hydra upgrades are now considered researched. Not too useful, but pretty nifty.

EDIT: Oh yea, corsairs and vultures are useful and didn't suck btw.

[paragon]

EDIT: Oh yea, corsairs and vultures are useful and didn't suck btw.

Thank you, heres a power up. This point cannot be stressed enough.
The only air corsairs are bad at killing is BCs and Carriers because of the amount of armor they have.

[Remy]

Corsairs were never meant to take down BCs or carriers.

If people think corsairs suck for not being able to effectively kill units that they were never meant to kill in the first place, then oh well that's too bad. No one will be sad for them for missing out on all the other wonderful uses they have.

Zerglings must suck like hell too. They get killed easily by EVERYTHING, even workers, have no special abilities, crap HP and stats in general, no ranged attack/AA, and have weak ass 5 damage. Yup, trash.

Anyone else want a hit of this good sh** that they are passing around? Smoke up.

[ImaGiNe.]

I can not say that any starcraft unit sucked, they all have exceptional uses. I was going to write about how sucktastic the Terran Ghost was until I remembered it's useful applications with Lockdown and the god of all of gods, Nuke.

Damn it! This sucks!

[Nikzad]

Nikzad, use Dark Templars.



how do I get them in range? they always get incinerated before they get near enough to do psi storm

[Nikzad]

ohh right I would use DT but I didn't play Brood War online because I was playing with my friends and they didn't have the expansion (n00bs)

I guess not playing Brood War online doesn't let you experience the full effect of how balanced it was in the end

[ImaGiNe.]

Nikzad, use Dark Templars.



how do I get them in range? they always get incinerated before they get near enough to do psi storm

Wait just a minute... Dark Templars can use Psionic Storm?! You must be mistaking them for High Templars. Dark Templars are the cloaked assassins of StarCraft (aside from the Ghost.) There are quite a number of ways to get rid of Siege Tanks, you should experiment with bum rushing them and then storming or dropping on top or whatever the situation calls for.

And I just remembered about a certain Protoss unit that sucks in my book:

A Protoss Unit That Sucked:


Dark Archon


The Dark Archon is made at the cost of two highly effective offensive weapons with very little to give back in a real game. First, the Dark Archon lacks any real attack (disregarding the use of Feedback which only affects units with Mana) and secondly, the Dark Archons have poor HP/SP. There are times when the use of a Dark Archon is quite useful, especially in Use Map Settings Maps, but in any real melee game, the Dark Archon seems to be quite a hefty investment that does not get you much.

Sure the Dark Archon has Mind Control, but at what cost? 150 MP plus a depleted shield? Normally one would argue that Mind Control is your best friend... Well it will not be in the case of a massive swarm of low tier units such as Zerglings and Hydralisks which is quite a common tactic used in most games to achieve victory anyway.

As I mentioned earlier, the Dark Archon does have some sort of attack but it's only a threat to units with mana. I mean a fully charged Dark Archon (Default settings: 200 MP) could strike four times and then what? It's like using a Derringer against a USP, plus we rarely see units with Mana unless you are playing against a Protoss player who knows how to use High Templars.

I would rather refrain from speaking about Maelstrom... It is way too short, way to expensive, and limited to organic units. Not so great against a Terran or Protoss player who has teched up enough, but it is useful against about 8 Zerg units for about two seconds or so.

So here is my question; is the Dark Archon really worth the investment in any game? You would have to research and spend on it's other abilities for it to be fully functional (for a short period of time) and you would have to sacrifice two perfectly good Dark Templars... I think the clear answer would be "No" unless you are of course playing a money map or are resource rich.

[coalescence]

I can not say that any starcraft unit sucked, they all have exceptional uses.

That's for people who understand that theres more to Starcraft than rushing ;D

[paragon]

If this were like WC3 nobody would be using zerglings past midgame. Also, nobody would be using footmen past midgame. If they did, they would just be raped by tier 2/3 units and be laughed at. So really no units completely suck. Don't know what kinda stuff someone would be smoking to thing zerglings suck but it must be expensive. especially hyperlings those uped zerglings tear through stuff when massed.

As for the dark archon, i don't think i've ever actually used it in multiplayer.

[Remy]

I was sarcastic about lings sucking to make a point that corsairs did not suck. Zerglings are near the top of the list on units that rocked.

Dark archons sucked pretty bad, although ironically all of its abilities were extremely potent and useful. They sucked for the same reason that scouts sucked, but to a greater degree. Time and tech req for DAs were just way too painful.

If we're basing any of this on real multiplayer games with random opponents on standard maps, not every unit is truly useful. Meaning, there are units that are useful on paper or under different scenarios, but are not really useful enough to justify their production(tech, time, and resource req) in competitive multiplayer.

This has nothing to do with the rush heavy nature of early-game. Rushing isn't everything but it is a part of multiplayer, it is made viable by the dynamics of SC gameplay. Rushing didn't make any unit suck, they sucked because they did. No rush 15 isn't real competitive multiplayer, you're adopting custom rules, it's like saying let's make a pair of 2's beat everything else in poker. Staying in your base quietly mining and teching up also isn't a consistantly viable strat in competitive multiplayer.

Face it, as awsome and balanced as SC was, some units really sucked like hell.

[paragon]

I know you were being sarcastic, I was continuing that. I guess the units had to suck to maintain balance.

[shirija]

zerg as a whole sucked simply because they depended so much on numbers. Zerglings especially, is supposed to be the bread and butter of zerg, but the problem is how do you make up ward of a hundred zerglings take advantage of their numbers when you can only select 6 foods worth of zergs at once? even if you do, they will go into a line en route and get obliterated by tanks/templars. Starcraft 1's controls weren't made with zerg in mind it seems! Zerg is too hard to control and too susceptible to splash attack, and guess what the most popular terran and protoss units do? The only popular unit in popular tournament games that isn't based on massing is lurker. They require some skill to place, but their problem is that their damage is low, they are slow to deploy, and are very vespene intensive, yet lurkers are the one unit that can keep a zerg player from getting completely dominated by massed marine/bat/medic and mass zealots early game. That is BULL!

[ImaGiNe.]

The quantity over quality is what made the Zerg... well Zerg. Like the other two races with their special abilities and benefits, this is what got the Zerg where they are today. You ever hear of hotkeying groups? Besides who in their right mind would send hundreds upon hundreds of Zerglings if they know that the Terran/Protoss player is turtling up with Siege Tanks and the like. No one (with the exception of some...) that's who!

It really depends on how well you play and manage your units, I am practically a Zerg player and I have survived against "mass" tactics in Lost Temple and other maps using lings under the support of sunken colonies.

[Remy]

@ shirija

Congratulations, you just outlined what is the Zerg racial identity by game design.

If you came into playing the race that's supposed to consist of swarms of little flimsy weak units thinking that little micro will be necessary for you to play effectively... guess what? I might have some news for you.

Out of all the basic infantry units of all the races, lings are lovely all the way to the end, deep into late-game. If you expect to send some lings and have them mow through everything on their own just because they are Zerg's "bread and butter," then might I suggest not to leave home without power overwhelming.

[shirija]

I didn't say that the zerg suck because of their dependence on numbers, but that controls of 12 units per time is simply not effective enough to allow zerg's number to shine. It's not about micro either, it is just very hard to control hundreds of units in real time 12 at a time! You can't control the overlap of units by click and drag and as far as hot keys, I usually have 4 keys devoted to hatcheries so I can move around the map quickly and build in the middle of battle and 6 X 12 is only 72 units, that's 36 food worth of zerglings, and that's if you have enough free time to separate them into groups to give them individual numbers. The mass majority of zerg players do drag and select over selective areas to have select encompass as many units that weren't previously commanded as possible. This is extremely inefficient when it comes to zerglings.

Anyways, in conclusion, my beef with zerg is the old control, and not perhaps with the unit itself, but seeing how control is standardized across all races, the race is the only other place to place the blame. Now are you guys satisfied or would you need to flame more before the point is across?

[ImaGiNe.]

zerg as a whole sucked simply because they depended so much on numbers.
What?

I didn't say that the zerg suck because of their dependence on numbers, but that controls of 12 units per time is simply not effective enough to allow zerg's .... mass majority of zerg players do drag and select over selective areas to have select encompass as many units that weren't previously commanded as possible. This is extremely inefficient when it comes to zerglings.
Cut the quote short, but you have a good point there. However I have to say that your posts sound like anybody would be using zerglings almost exclusively through the entire game. Not true, Zerg controls work fine and are similar to the other races with the exception of more units available to select. When it comes down to selecting units of a similar type, I just use SHIFT + DOUBLE CLICK and then attack order to the point of battle.

[Itsmyship]

I'm sorry that this is out of the subject but I got a question. How do you do something where you want all your units to attack different individual units? Like say you have a bunch of ghosts and the enemy has a bunch of cruisers, how do you make it so that the ghosts lockdown their own individual Cruisers quickly?

[shirija]

When it comes to ground battles, and it pretty much always end up as a ground battle, the vespene to mineral income ratio could only be burnt of by havivng a great number of zerglings, so even though they are hardly used exclusivevly, they will definitely constitute the majority of the army. There is no other attacking unit that is below a 3:1 mineral to vespene count. As far as similar type units, if you use that method: when there's so many zerg units on the screen, shift click selects 12, you send them, but the next time you click, chances are quite a few of those are going to be the same as the ones you just sent off but aren't off the screen yet. If you send them off, it means less unit than 12 was sent off and that means a small amount is being sent off to attack. If you wait until they're off the screen, then that would be even worse than the first situation.

The ONLY method I know of where you can force a large amounts of units to attack is to have them all burrow, and ctrl select and unburrow. Burrowed and unburrowed units can't be selected at the same time with type select, so that method is valid. Problem is to burrow all the units it can be quite time consuming, and is just another example of why the controls of starcraft 1 is ill-suited for zerg. I'm praying that the new system will solve this problem, especially since they say thus far there's not even a unit cap on the tray.

[shirija]

I'm sorry that this is out of the subject but I got a question. How do you do something where you want all your units to attack different individual units? Like say you have a bunch of ghosts and the enemy has a bunch of cruisers, how do you make it so that the ghosts lockdown their own individual Cruisers quickly?


In the old system you can't tell them to do so automatically and it's even harder when the units are stacked, with the new system, hopefully the spell will be like warcraft where you can select all of the same type of casters and select spell and target and the nearest one fulfilling the qualifications will attempt the cast.

[Itsmyship]

Huh....I could've sworn i've seen it done before...then again, they were the pros, so I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up :P

[Remy]

You have to do this manually. It's usually a good idea to hotkey the caster units.

[Itsmyship]

Alright, thx for the info. I'm new to multiplayer, so I'm trying to learn as much as I can right now 8) And btw, can you hotkey spells?

[Remy]

Yes, if by hotkey you mean shortcut. You can press L for lockdown for instance.

You can experiment hotkeying casters to match key spells. I often hotkey defilers to keys 3~7(4,5,6 mainly), and press W with my left pinky to cast multiple darkswarms quickly. Hitting L for lockdown with your left thumb or index finger might help you in doing it faster. Anyway, experiment for yourself, it's different for everyone.

[shirija]

All commands in the game have hot keys, a letter you press that would serve the same purpose as selecting them. When you have your mouse over them, one of the letter of the caption will be of a different color. That is the hot key.

For a complete list of commands, you could check gamefaqs.com, look for starcraft, and go to the guide part 1 by jchristopher. I used to look at his guides a lot back when starcraft was still fairly new. His guide should teach you all the details relating to starcraft.

[paragon]

scouts are the best protoss air unit at taking out battlecruisers if you don't have a lot of gas. if you do, carriers all the way. and scouts are too expensive. and there are land based units that do it better.

[PowerkickasS]

remy i thought u knew about sc!
how dare you say that about dark archons =(
BCs > scouts
dark archons > BCs
arbiter > BCs

[ImaGiNe.]

I beg to differ Power, Dark Archons have some useful applications but no one really uses them enough to actually make a difference. Also, BCs destroy scouts, Arbiters are only greater than BCs when they actually have stasis researched, other then that... BCs eat Arbiters for breakfast.

[PowerkickasS]

really......!?
and pvz toss + DA = zerg "holyshizbbqhax"

(unless of course if z = savior then lol protoss would have some trouble saying HAH)

EDIT: unless p = bisu. gg savior bisu owns u in everyway ^_^

[thitian]

i think the unit that sucked most and needs to be redone is the zerg larva lol :thumbup:
while its pretty essential it cant be used for anything else than mutating and you always had to wait for your hq to pop new ones
there should be at least a new building that pops larvas more quickly so you dont have to build 4 hqs or make them fly...

[ImaGiNe.]

Nice one thitian! Though making a building almost exclusively to produce larva at a faster rate would throw off the balance of gameplay. Look at how long Protoss takes already to make something decent and the fact that Terrans need to really mix it up to be effective. But since you went there, I guess I would have to say that the Zerg Egg would also be quite useless... There it is... evolving something but not attacking?! HOW DARE THAT EGG NOT ATTACK!

[paragon]

At least the egg has like 20 armor. It would suck it it had none and just got attacked and killed in seconds. Now why can't they put the egg armor on a unit like the zergling or hydralisk. Have one of those with a bunch of eggs on it and ridiculous armor.

[Nikzad]

yeah so do the larvae...you can shoot and shoot and shoot and they stay alive. then they pop 8)

[Remy]

remy i thought u knew about sc!
how dare you say that about dark archons =(
BCs > scouts
dark archons > BCs
arbiter > BCs


Sorry I gotta tell it like it is.

That's the funny thing about DAs, all of their abilities are very potent, yet when you look at the grand picture, DAs suck ass. They don't suck directly, but it's the time/tech/resource req that makes them suck. To not suck, you gotta be built first, not to mention upgrades.

Maelstrom works wonders for storming, but Zerg ground units already go into the game expecting to eat some storms anyway. It would be nice to get that combo on more costly units like mutas, even better cuz they stack. But too bad you won't have maelstrom+storm combo ready when mutas are picking holes in your base. DAs are cool, but they definitely suck.

Eggs and larvae have 10 armor btw. But yea, eggs and larvae rock.

[ImaGiNe.]

Eggs and larvae have 10 armor btw. But yea, eggs and larvae rock.
Fo shizzle! 8)

A Terran Unit That Sucked:


Valkyrie


The Terran Valkyrie, is it a useful addition to the Terran arsenal or is it the crippled brainchild of Terran developers? [i}"Valkyries are heavily armored, and can take substantial punishment from enemy fire before they suffer any core system failures." -- Battle.Net Excerpt[/i] The Valkyries are able to put swarms of Mutalisk to shame with relatively little effort, however I am sure you have encountered this scenario:

LIKELY SCENARIO: FFA on an Island Hop Map
You control a fleet of Valkyries on a map that contains many cliffs and requires aerial superiority. You seem to have control of the skies until all your enemies decide to turtle in their bases, content with what ground units they have and the impressive plan in their heads.

Suddenly there are squadrons of Battlecruisers, fleets of Carriers and scouts, swarms of Mutalisk all appearing out of nowhere. The Valkyries rush in and you signal your fighters to take action but get nothing but the deadly stares of your units. The Valkyries are not firing?! WHY?! HAVE THEY RAN OUT OF MISSILES?! No, there are just way too many sprites/units on the map and the Valkyrie becomes a flying coffin.

Don't get me wrong though, Valkyries have some really useful applications and can really turn the tide of an air war. I like Valkyries but I hate it when they can not return fire.

[paragon]

Suddenly there are squadrons of Battlecruisers, fleets of Carriers and scouts, swarms of Mutalisk all appearing out of nowhere. The Valkyries rush in and you signal your fighters to take action but get nothing but the deadly stares of your units. The Valkyries are not firing?! WHY?! HAVE THEY RAN OUT OF MISSILES?! No, there are just way too many sprites/units on the map and the Valkyrie becomes a flying coffin.

Don't get me wrong though, Valkyries have some really useful applications and can really turn the tide of an air war. I like Valkyries but I hate it when they can not return fire.

1) if it has useful applications it is not a unit that sucks so the rest of your argument is flawed.
2) You shouldn't have let them stay in their base making massive fleets of carriers or battlecruisers
3) I've never encountered the problem with there being too many sprites on the map in any real game.

[Piretes]

I've had Valkryes stall before... But that's only in Single Player.
Generally they suck...because they dont kill, they fight by attrition... Which doesnt really work out in SC.

[ImaGiNe.]

Suddenly there are squadrons of Battlecruisers, fleets of Carriers and scouts, swarms of Mutalisk all appearing out of nowhere. The Valkyries rush in and you signal your fighters to take action but get nothing but the deadly stares of your units. The Valkyries are not firing?! WHY?! HAVE THEY RAN OUT OF MISSILES?! No, there are just way too many sprites/units on the map and the Valkyrie becomes a flying coffin.

Don't get me wrong though, Valkyries have some really useful applications and can really turn the tide of an air war. I like Valkyries but I hate it when they can not return fire.

1) if it has useful applications it is not a unit that sucks so the rest of your argument is flawed.
2) You shouldn't have let them stay in their base making massive fleets of carriers or battlecruisers
3) I've never encountered the problem with there being too many sprites on the map in any real game.

1. I'm just saying that the Valkyrie sucked in general. If what I said made my post "flawed" then I think this topic should not exist, because all units can have useful applications but no person really uses the said units extensively to even make a real difference. Show me some evidence that people use Valkyries constantly aside from Campaigns.
2. What if your attacks on their base fail? What if they defend their belongings to the teeth?
3. Have you played an 8 player island map? Also this usually happens a lot on money maps.

[Remy]

Valkyries sucked like hell.

[paragon]

I've had Valkryes stall before... But that's only in Single Player.
Generally they suck...because they dont kill, they fight by attrition... Which doesnt really work out in SC.

Um... valks kill a lot. They DONT kill carriers and battlecruisers because those units have high armor. They were also never meant to kill those two units.


1. I'm just saying that the Valkyrie sucked in general. If what I said made my post "flawed" then I think this topic should not exist, because all units can have useful applications but no person really uses the said units extensively to even make a real difference. Show me some evidence that people use Valkyries constantly aside from Campaigns.
2. What if your attacks on their base fail? What if they defend their belongings to the teeth?
3. Have you played an 8 player island map? Also this usually happens a lot on money maps.

1. I've seen valks used a lot, especially against zerg players
2. Then you should assume they are going BCs if terran and carriers if protoss and not get valks because they are not meant to take on those two units. And if you fail to destroy their base you shouldn't just turtle up yourself or keep getting the same units. The least you could do is see what they are getting.
3. Money maps aren't real games. Primeval Islands is the biggest island map and I've played on it quite a few times and never encountered that problem.

[Remy]

You use valks against Zerg cuz there is nothing else to use them on. This is from Blizzard:

"Air Balance Model
The Support Air Units (Corsair, Valkyrie, Devourer) do very well versus the Tactical Air Units of the other species (Scout, Wraith, Mutalisk). The new units in Brood War are intended to be support units, meaning that you cannot win the game with them. Capital Ships (Battlecruiser, Carrier) are equipped to deal with these Supporting Air Units in deadly fashion. The key to retaining air superiority is to be the player with the most balanced air force."

Now I know some of the strats and stuff Blizz puts on b.net is crap, but it's pretty accurate more or less in this case so I'm quoting it. I think they changed a lot of the content over the years based on pro players though. I could've sworn it was way more stupid years ago.

Anyway, just as Blizz puts it, valks were made to kill scouts, wraiths, and mutas. Since you won't see scouts and you're Terran, that just leaves mutas for the most part. Zerg's also got the neighborhood pass around "kick me" sandbag known as ovies, so that's another plus. But you don't necessarily gotta to have valks for that job, most air can get that done pretty well.

So you're basically throwing down 250 minerals 125 gas and 3!!! supply for something that's mainly used to fight one unit in the entire game, mutas. Valks certainly have great AA, but that's it, nothing else. Other than ovies, no one is required to even get in the air at all, and Zerg players already know to guard ovies from hunts, that's worse than how ultras have it.

Other than AA, which is in itself already useless against most things in the game by default, valks don't bring anything else to the table. No ground attack, no cloak, no yamato, no web, nothing. Valks are way too specialized, wraiths are much more versatile and just generally more useful.

Sure, you see valks on island maps. But that's because well, they're island maps. All matter of air crawl out of the wood works on island maps, and a use for AA is guaranteed. In most other situations, valks are a liability.

I'm glad that we're gradually moving onto discuss other units that sucked in this thread. I was starting to feel lazy about doing whole seperate Toss and Terran segments. So yea, valks sucked like hell.

[ImaGiNe.]

I am glad someone else sees the suck that are valkyries. Thank you. On another note, I think this topic is a healthy one, as we are getting POVs from every one and there is nothing better than debate.

[paragon]

Well of course they can't win a game because they can't destroy buildings as they attack air only. The thing with valks is that it is more cost effective to get them rather than wraiths when the enemy does get a bunch of air units. So, they don't suck because they have a use. Just because you won't use them in every game doesn't mean they suck.

[Piretes]

I must say, to however far a degree of suckage Valkyries are, they still fill a niche. Some units get used more than others. Period. That's the whole thing with cost, tech and strategy. But niche units like a Valkyrie can win you battles, albeit only when used effectively.
I myself would hate to see niche units go. Late game strats are the most satisfying.

[Remy]

Having a use doesn't equate to not sucking. Scouts, DAs, ultras, queens, etc. all had a use but they still sucked.

Valks are good against mass swarms of air, but armor upgrades greatly diminish the effectiveness of their splash damage, just as corsairs and mutas. The only one that could still be just as effective against armor up'd air is muta. Someone who plan on using a lot of air would know to get armor upgrades first. That's not to say valks can't AA after armor ups, they still can. But getting pure AA that can't do a damn thing otherwise is still a liability that can suck if your opponents switched to ground.

Compare valks to using wraiths and irradiate vs muta swarms. Even after you win air superiority, you now have a bunch flying school buses on your hands that tie up food that have limited further usage. Outside of island maps, it can be a very bad thing.

Valks are just another unit that's "really good but sucked like hell."

[paragon]

Well I liked having a few for support against zerg.

[opm]

Valkyrie and Wraith are both crap. Valkyrie just doesn't do enough damage for my taste and wraiths are just too weak on ground. It would be nice if they at least had a kamakaze feature

[paragon]

Valkyrie and Wraith are both crap. Valkyrie just doesn't do enough damage for my taste and wraiths are just too weak on ground. It would be nice if they at least had a kamakaze feature

Focus fire about 12 cloaked wraiths and you rape heavy air like carriers and battlecruisers.
Valks slaughter massed air except for battlecruisers and carriers because they can't punch through their armor. Valks have 8 rockets each one doing 6-9 damage depending on upgrades you have. The base damage of 6 means that it deals a total of 48 damage. At full attack upgrade it deals 72 damage. That is a lot of damage for starcraft.

[Remy]

Valks have a long ass cooldown.  If what it looked like on paper was definitive, then infested terrans wouldn't suck.

In the duration of a valk's cooldown, a stimpacked marine can shoot at least 8 times, 9 times if they fired their first shots together.  That's the same 48 damage if we count 8 shots, but this is only per marine.  It's true that the valks missiles do splash damage while the marine does not, but with valk's 3 food, we'd be talking about 3 marines but with 100 minerals and 125 gas to spare.  That's 144~162 damage before the valk gets off a second round.  The splash portion of a valk's damage also suffers a much greater impact from armor damage mitigation.

A valk is also only good against lone muta swarms, a Zerg can easily evolve some into devourers.  Valk's cooldown of 64 is already very long, but it gets ridiculous after a Zerg send in some devourers before mutas.  At max of 9 spores, valk cooldown is 136, not to mention they'll fall easily to mutas and hydras after that.

Valk's really aren't that great.  Corsairs and devourers are much better.

[Piretes]

I have to agree with Remy now, he's just got so much logic, damnit! I actually wouldn't be surprised if Valks were left out this time. Devourers too, I myself never use them, but that's maybe cause I never play Zerg on Island maps.

[PowerkickasS]

yeah more people should realise about valk's crappiness. come to think of it it is used less than scouts and are worse o.0 you cant humiliate people with valkyries =( :D

we need more experts to blurt out info for pros to consider :D

[paragon]

valks rape all air except carriers and battlecruisers.
48 damage base
72 damage after attack upgrade
It does not suck.

[Lt.Newman]

war wise the drone, scv, and probe are all sucky sucky.....all about SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

[paragon]

except that they are key to you being able to win. And you build a lot of them. And it's the first thing you get.

[PowerkickasS]

war wise the drone, scv, and probe are all sucky sucky.....all about SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!

you wouldnt believe this mate.....but they are one of the most useful combatants in games if you know how to use them....ironically.....
(for people who follow MSL/OSL etc etc yes i know it's obvious they're good, but this guy doesnt realise. or does he!?)

i dont know what to think of valks anymore tbh......they are useful but then they arent but then they are....tbh they do suck when singled out from the main army, especially if there are less than 3. microing against valks are so damn easy. and even though their stall sucks you gotta love how once they aim they MUST land 8 missiles. you cant flee your mutas from them like fleeing corsairs ^_^

[PowerkickasS]

except that they are key to you being able to win. And you build a lot of them. And it's the first thing you get.


war wise

[paragon]

except that they are key to you being able to win. And you build a lot of them. And it's the first thing you get.


war wise

War wise nothing. You need resources to fight a war.

[ImaGiNe.]

valks rape all air except carriers and battlecruisers.
48 damage base
72 damage after attack upgrade
It does not suck.

You seem to be basing this on a whether an enemy will invest exclusively on air units, if that is the case, then the Valkyrie will prove to be useful. But once you dominate the skies, what then? Your opponent won't bother to waste resources on aerial units and may stick to ground (This varies on the map but not a lot of people play island maps now.) You'll have invested resources in things that will perform once or twice in the entire game! And that's what sucks about the Valkyrie.

SCVs, Probes, and Drones are actually useful in early game scouting and defense, they make great walls :)

[paragon]

You seem to be basing this on a whether an enemy will invest exclusively on air units, if that is the case, then the Valkyrie will prove to be useful. But once you dominate the skies, what then? Your opponent won't bother to waste resources on aerial units and may stick to ground (This varies on the map but not a lot of people play island maps now.) You'll have invested resources in things that will perform once or twice in the entire game! And that's what sucks about the Valkyrie.

If the enemy will no longer waste resource on air units because you have valkyries then they are doing a job for the whole game. That job is limiting the units that your opponent gets. Why do you think Russia and the US got so many nukes during the cold war? So that the other country would not use nukes against them.
And I don't get valkyries unless I've scouted and seen that they are going air. Also, I rely on siege tanks and goliaths for the base pounding and these can also deal with whatever ground they would send.

[Remy]

Terran can't afford to have a significant part of their unit supply pool tied up in something that they have no direct use for in a particular game.

Zerg can get a large number of mutas and just evolve some devourers when the need arises.  Protoss can get corsairs for their general goodness, and at least use web when there's no air around.

When going heavily into air, for every additional muta Zerg gets you can guarantee that you'll be able to put them to good use.  For every additional valkyrie that Terran gets, it just mean more and more risk and liability.  A Zerg can afford to keep getting more mutas with devourers around to overwhelm the valks, but a Terran can't keep getting more valks just to win the air war.

Terran more than any other race will always need a significant portion of their supply pool dedicated to ground troops in most cases.  And how Terran ground army works, you need to get a lot of different units to be effective.

How high a unit's base damage is doesn't tell you how useful they are.  You have to consider how a unit effects the whole picture, how they impact their race specifically as a whole, to judge their worth.

Looking at just the one part of the stats that can serve to impress is rather pointless.  If you take valk cooldown into account, a corsair does 40 explosive splash damage in the same amount of time.  Sure, it's 8 damage less than a valk, but a corsair is also only 2 food, has the web ability, is a medium unit taking less damage than a valk in most cases, and is just generally more versatile.  The valk is also one of the least maneuverable air units.

Since you want to linger on the valk's "huge" 48 damage, let me help you put everything in perspective.  Valks and corsairs deal explosive damage, only mutas deal normal.  But Valks are large, corsairs are medium, and mutas are small units.  If you take that into account, valks no longer do the 48 damage they have on paper like they're supposed to against targets they were designed to kill, they never did.

Valkyries attacking corsairs(medium) would only do 75% damage, which is only 36 if we calculate based on 48.  But this isn't accurate because it applies to each individual missile and not the entire round of fire as a whole.  I don't remeber if SC round 0.5 up or down, but depending on which, it will be 32 or 40 before armor.  Valks hitting mutas will do even less, it will be 24 per round of fire, and this is accurate because at base damage there will be no decimal values or additional armor calc.

Corsairs still hit valks for full damage, so the 40 splash per round of valk fire stands.  Corsairs also do half damage against mutas.

Mutas do less damage, but mutas aren't in the same class as valks and corsairs.  A Zerg would get devourers in on them before using mutas.  Even at base damage before upgrades, a muta will deal 80 damage at maximum potential in the time a valk attacks once.

Like I said, valks sucked like hell.

[paragon]

Okay. If you're terran and someone gets a mass of mutalisks what would you get? I get valkyries and I've never had a problem with them not being able to completely devastate the mutalisks.

[opm]

Valks have a long ass cooldown.  If what it looked like on paper was definitive, then infested terrans wouldn't suck.

In the duration of a valk's cooldown, a stimpacked marine can shoot at least 8 times, 9 times if they fired their first shots together.  That's the same 48 damage if we count 8 shots, but this is only per marine.  It's true that the valks missiles do splash damage while the marine does not, but with valk's 3 food, we'd be talking about 3 marines but with 100 minerals and 125 gas to spare.  That's 144~162 damage before the valk gets off a second round.  The splash portion of a valk's damage also suffers a much greater impact from armor damage mitigation.

A valk is also only good against lone muta swarms, a Zerg can easily evolve some into devourers.  Valk's cooldown of 64 is already very long, but it gets ridiculous after a Zerg send in some devourers before mutas.  At max of 9 spores, valk cooldown is 136, not to mention they'll fall easily to mutas and hydras after that.

Valk's really aren't that great.  Corsairs and devourers are much better.


thank you for supporting what I thought was obvious. I never new the figures, but i did know that when i build 12 valks I expected them to do some damage, and when they don't the only conclusion is that they suck. subjectively they also look gay. :p

I personally would rather have had wraiths be the unit with a little more defense and maybe a second set of rockets that was for air only.

yeah devourers suck as well. they are good against sairs i guess, but if i want to take down some battlecruisers, i'm thinking defiler or scourge. clearly evolution is flawed. it comes down to mass and you can't mass devourers, jut too expensive when you can go other zerg strats for a lot cheaper.

this leads me to the conclusion of what's so great about starcraft. we can complain about a units merits, but the fact that it has weaknesses leads us to other more creative strategies that make the game more interesting. maybe it's all for the best.

[paragon]

Devourers don't suck... they are support units, they reduce the armor of the target with its attack or something like that.
Valkyries are also support units. You are trying to make them main units which is not what they are.

[opm]

Devourers don't suck... they are support units, they reduce the armor of the target with its attack or something like that.
Valkyries are also support units. You are trying to make them main units which is not what they are.


what isn't a support unit, but then there is a cost associated with these support units and the return on investment isn't justified in my opinion.

[10-Neon]

They not only reduce armor, they decrease attack rate. The two things a unit will have to gain an advantage over another are most often superior HP/armor, and superior attack: the Devourer reduces both of those, making Mutalisks do Scout-like damage, while the enemies end up firing as if they were Siege Tanks (except without the splash!).

[Remy]

Let me clear up on the properties of devourer's acid spore attack.

Devourer acid spores don't actually decrease armor, they increase the damage received by the target to be exact. Usually this kinda mean the same thing but not in the case of mutas, but in any case there are some minor differences, although not in calculation.

When devourers attack, aside from the basic 25 explosive damage that devourers do, each attack also attaches one acid spore on the target. The spores are applied in a splash radius even though the actual damage is single target only. This makes the devourers attacks highly effective even though they have a huge cooldown of 100.

For each acid spore that is attached to a target, any and all attacks received by the target is increased by 1, each target can have a maximum of 9 spores attached on them. This means that the damage of all three bounces of any muta's attack will be jacked up considerably even though the last two bounces are often made useless by armor in many cases. This of course isn't limited to mutas, it benefits from hydras, corsair splash, archon splash, you name it.

The secondary effect of devourer acid spores is that it will slow the attack rate of the target. To be exact, each acid spore attached to the target increases the attack cooldown by 1/8 of the original value. This is just generally a good thing in itself, but as you can see the value is calculated based on the effected target's original cooldown value. This means then, the longer the cooldown a target has to begin with, the greater the adverse effect. Units that have a long cooldown, like valkyries(64) or other devourers(100), will increase the slowing effect of every spore. Each spore increases a valk's cooldown by 8 and a devourer's cooldown by 12.5, but a fast attacking unit like corsair will only have each spore increase its cooldown by 1.

The attack cooldown increase is really just a bonus effect, gravy on top if you will. The damage increase on the effected targets alone will ensure a quick mop up of anything when you bring any other units in to attack them. Even though carriers have no direct attack(thus, no cooldown) themselves, devourers will still be very effective in taking them down just from the damage increase effect.

Every four devourers focus firing on a target is also an instant 100 damage, but this is just another bonus. All in all, devourers are extremely effective anti-air units, this is only slightly offset by their somewhat high cost. But all things considered, tech and cost, devourers fit nicely into a Zerg's game.

[paragon]

Good explanation. Think they will be back?

I really think the expansion units have a high chance of coming back because they were around for less time.
They were made to correct a deficiency in each race and unless another unit is made to correct that deficiency, it would not make sense to get rid of any expansion unit.

[Remy]

Corsairs are already gone. I think valks will be gone too unless they are revamped/tweaked. Dark archons also sucked. Medics didn't really suck but they had crappy abilities other than heal that weren't even worth researching, they need improvement.

The only BW expansion units that I personally believe to be worth keeping unchanged are corsair, DT, goliath(AA upgrade), devourer, and lurker. But even corsair is already replaced by the phoenix(although this is arguably because of scout) so we'll just have to wait and see about the others.

I have no reason to believe that devourers will not return though. I think other than the ones I pointed out, the rest of the Zerg units didn't suck.

[paragon]

Yes but whether or not they sucked is not always the issue. Good units like the corsair and dragoon (forget the dumb AI for now) and carrier have been taken out.

[PowerkickasS]

did you personally test the armor-reduce vs damage-increase?
if not can you tell me your source?

[Remy]

My source is me, and everything I read or tested over the years since 1998(or 1999, can't remember for sure). It's been a while since I've played SC other than a few games out of the blue now and then, let alone testing anything first hand. I've done more testing than I would ever need to years ago. But since that won't be good enough for you, here...

Blizzard mentions nothing of armor reduction whatsoever on b.net, they describe it as damage increase. Here's a direct quote if you need one, "with every Acid Spore that's attached, the unit takes an additional point of damage whenever it is attacked."

As far as I know to the best of my ability, there is no negative armor in SC anyway.

Since you question the credibility of my explanation, I suppose you might also wish to argue that they are really the same thing in different wording. And you might be right in many cases, but not when you deal with mutas, there is indeed a difference.

The fact that the subsequent bounces off of a mutalisk's glave wurm attack is calculated based on the main attack, or the first hit, mutalisk bounces yield some lower than usual attack damage values. To help you understand why this would make a difference, lets say that our mutalisks are going up against some carriers, and everything is at base value without attack or armor upgrades. Also lets go straight to 9 acid spores on the carriers.

Carriers have a base armor of 4, so a muta with 9-3-1 base attack would do 5-0-0. Now since we said we would have 9 spores on our carriers, our mutas would be dealing 14-9-9(5+9, 0+9, 0+9), or 32 damage per attack.

Now if we pretended just for a moment that there was negative armor in SC and that's how devourer acid spores worked, and then calculated based on that, you wouldn't get the same result. Now, instead of the 9 spores adding 9 damage to each bounce, 4 spores would first work to negate the carriers' armor, then the other 5 work it into negative armor(-5 armor). Our mutas in this case would deal 14-8-6(9+5, 3+5, 1+5), or 28 damage per attack. Notice that the subsequent bounces will now deal full damage before applying bonus damage from the acid spores.

Basically to put all this in simpler terms, with the idea of armor reduction, you are actually suggesting that the effect of the acid spores are mitigated by armor. That's not how devourer acid spores work. Every last spore will have the same effect as the first, and will inflict bonus damage of 1, even if the triggering hit deals less than 1 damage. Meaning 9 spores on any target will always cause every bounce of a muta's attack deal 9 more bonus damage regardless of how much base armor the target had to start with. If acid spores worked by armor reduction, then fully armor up'd carriers would only suffer at max a bonus damage of 2 from each attack, again, not the case.

That's just not how SC armor system works, there is no negative armor. There is nothing in the game that reduces armor, and there is nothing that helps to lessen the damage mitigation from armor. There is no direct attack that pierces or negate armor altogether either. Although most spells or special abilities/effects(such as acid spores in this case) disregard armor, almost all attacks suffer damage mitigation from armor, even the mighty nuke.

But of course, I could still be wrong about anything and everything. Feel free to test out any of this.

[Nikzad]

But of course, I could still be wrong about anything and everything. Feel free to test out any of this.


hahaha...always good to cover your ass with a final sentence like that

[Remy]

You got that right baby! You just never know...

[PowerkickasS]

im actually interested to know the real effect of acid spore. never imagined the way you presented it but if you dont have a proper source where you learnt that then i guess im gonna have to test it out myself brb :P

[Remy]

What I've posted about devourer acid spores are the "real effects." It's not really scarce information you know...

And the source is Blizzard, I've inserted a quote for your needs, but you maybe you didn't really read it in detail.

In any case, feel free to test it for yourself.

[PowerkickasS]

ive read that quote before when it first came out :P

[concreteasflesh]

from what i can see and tell Remy sure knows his starcraft facts and stats :D

[PowerkickasS]

to not know is a disgrace! what are you doing on these forums!?

[didd293]

holy **** you should mail this to blizzard or something. you could probably get a job there. and then you'll be able to leak us more info. :good:

[CodyFallsForth]

Let me summarize it.

Valks suck.

[paragon]

Well if you play zerg sometimes and all your air units suddenly disappear due to valks, I'm sure you'll still be saying they suck but instead of meaning that they actually are bad units, you'll be saying they suck because they slagged your entire air swarm.

[I)4rk]

I dunno man, Ultras a pretty good hahaha, I don't get you people saying they suck suck, I mean they are one of the only zerg units that can actually tank. Even though they are high cost and high food, I think they can be worth it at times. Storm > Zerg

[DontHate]

Yea ok ultra's don't suck, but in most situations they're either not very usefull or they're just too expensive. Also i don't like how the only way they can be pretty usefull is getting the ups. This is not the same for say, a hydra or a zergling.

[Lemmy]

Zergling is good. Cracklings are divine.

[qOcOp]

Firebats.


\m/ (>_<) \m/

[Lemmy]

Remy, did you ever mod or work with arsenal unit editor or star draft? If you have no clue about what I am talking about just forget it.

[Remy]

Sorry Lemmy, I've never been into modding anything, didn't follow much of what went on in various mod communities of any game either.  That's just something I'm not really into.

You know, our names are kinda similar. If an illegal immagrant with a nasty accent called one of us, we wouldn't know who.

[ArchLimit]

You know, our names are kinda similar. If an illegal immagrant with a nasty accent called one of us, we wouldn't know who.


Hey now, given my Asian heritage, I resent that remark. I...I've always had hard time with my pronunciation...

...it's why I'm so ronery...

Haha, j/p :P

[Nikzad]

seems rike no-one takes me see-ree-rous-ryyyyyyyyyyyyy

[DontHate]

heh, i'm asian too. Kind funny, eh?!

[Nikzad]

I'm not Asian

go here for some Asian discussion that I started and I think should continue - bubble tea anyone?

http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=1467.0

[Gasmaskguy]

hmm.. I though you discussed what units sucked, not your heritage... well well, now when where at it, iam from Sweden ^.^

[BnechbReaker]

can't believe there are people who think the vulture and the dragoon sucks...

[Remy]

Wonder if it's too early to put the cobra up here...

Reading back, I can't believe I took the time to post some of these... :no: I'm surprise nobody expressed hatred toward me for my text walls lol.

I kinda miss PowerkickasS going "do you have a source for that?" everytime after I give huge ass explanations on something. LOL, good times.

[tweakismyname]

just put ur works cited at the bottom remy

make sure they are hyperlinks so we can correct u ezer.
lol

[Remy]

Heheh, 'sup Tweak, good to see you around. I missed all the old timers.

[tweakismyname]

yeah im around just not posting as much. only like 3 or 4 times a day.

*power to the zerg!*

[Remy]

*power to the zerg!*


YEAH, YOU GOT THAT RIGHT BABY~!! *WOOT*

It's good to see that you still know what's goin' on Tweak, you still got it.

[SOGEKING]

Just looking at the size of the first post gave me the envy to :toilet:

[Lemmy]

Queens have a use: ensnare cloaked units.

[Gasmaskguy]

have´nt we only discussed ZERG units that sucked? or did i just miss a part? Otherwise, tell me the terran and protoss units that sucked.

[Hunter]

can't believe there are people who think the vulture and the dragoon sucks...

The vulture is only useful at the early games.. I like it's booster, zerglings golt no chance against it.

[Gasmaskguy]

lol, the early micro with a Vulture is awsome!
well, now that Terran dont have the Vulture, they will micro with another early unit,
and i guess its the Reaper.

[Remy]

Queens have a use: ensnare cloaked units.


Everything has a use, but even it the case you suggested, the queen really isn't useful. Under most scenarios, Zerg wouldn't worry about cloaked units anyway. But anyway, it's been talked about here (http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=2413.msg62279#msg62279).

@ Gasmaskguy, we've kinda talked about Terran and Protoss through discussions. I've just didn't do a write up on them like the opening post with Zerg.

[Gasmaskguy]

ok, thanx. i will be searching for those posts... *searching*

[JDMFanatic]

Dragoons aren't bad... they just need backup.

[Quanta]

Wow, suprised this old post is active. Well since it is I'll make one comment about Hyrads that you left out which is an addition advantage of range over melee that you did not mention. This may have been mentioned earlier, I don't feel like reading the whole ten pages to find out so if it has been discussed I'm sorry.

One huge advantage of range over melee is the ability for units in the rear ranks to also attack, whereas with melee units, only the front rank can attack. Lets examine some hypotheticals. Lets say you have 4 dozen lings and you meet 1 dozen gooms in a completely open area. Your lings are going to smash the goons. Now lets add a bottleneck to this senario. Now send your 4 dozen lings at 1 dozen goons on a hill guarding the ramp. Now only your front few lings can attack only the front few goons while the goons can attack. Now the 1 or 2 free shots the ranged units get that you talked about is amplified greatly. The front few goons may only get 1 or 2 free shots but the rest will get many. I don't know if the goons will win this battle, they might but if worst comes to worst they are going to kill most of the lings

Now if you have hydras the situation changes radically. The ranged advantage of the goons disappears. The hydros don't have any addition advantages, they just neutralize the goon's advantage. If we reverse the situation and have hydras guarding a bottleneck and have lots attack the hydras have a great ranged advantage.

[Joneagle_X]

Actually, if you face off range upgrade Hydras and ranged Dragoons, the Dragoons have a huge advantage. Not only is their HP and damage output higher, but the second row will fire too because of the longer range. With the hydras, the first rank will stop once in range.

[Remy]

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.

[BnechbReaker]

The vulture is only useful at the early games.. I like it's booster, zerglings golt no chance against it.


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.

[hominiddd]

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

[Protosscommander]

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:

[coreyb]

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

< SNIP >


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.

[mutantmagnet]

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.

[Joneagle_X]

@ 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.

[Remy]

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~

[BnechbReaker]

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.

[Hunter]

lol, the early micro with a Vulture is awsome!
well, now that Terran dont have the Vulture, they will micro with another early unit,
and i guess its the Reaper.

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.

[mutantmagnet]

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.

[Remy]

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.

[BnechbReaker]

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)

[mutantmagnet]

by "metagame" i think he means theoretical game scenarios


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.

[Unentschieden]

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 t