Official Q&A Compilation, WWI 2008

[furrer]

Had to post a new one guys!
These are the questions and answers from this topic:
http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5411 and no other
This topic will be updated by me till the realease of Starcraft 2.
The original questions and answers will not be edited in any way.
PS: This should be made sticky. Im also please if you point out any grammar mistakes done by me, as Im not that good in english. It will take a while for me just to finish the questions made the last days.

[furrer]

Questions and answers about Protoss:

I would like to ask whether you think the Colossus would be less overpowered and have more of a micro aspect to it with its old attack?
Jon: The Colossus might indeed be more balanced with an attack that simply does not waste damage, but for the cost I think it needs that "mass" destruction aspect that it has. I think the damage rate just needs to be reduced. Just one or two can completely turn the tide of a gigantic battle. It's almost unfair. But that's just a balance issue. :D The Colossus is a great unit and it has a new attack animation. The beam starts at one spot and sweeps either left or right. It's no longer a "fan" of lasers.
The MS was build at the Nexus, so in lategame you can have it everywhere where you have bases, doesnt that make up for its slowness?
Jon: To a degree, yes. I don't know if you guys are understanding the true SLOWNESS of the Mothership in this build, though. We're talking 10 minutes to cover a medium-sized map. Slower than a floating Command Center from SCBW. There are often four or five ways to counter a specific strategy rather than the one you usually have in StarCraft.
Do you mean it [the colossus red.] still needs some AoE to it's attack to justify it's cost, or do you just like the sight of sweeping destruction? How do you think it would fair if it still had the old attack, but there was a small range AoE around the beam's target?
Jon: Still needs AoE to justify it's cost. The old attack with a small AoE might work but it's so cool as is.
What does the 5x2 (x8 Intercept) mean? Each one does 5x2 damage? That seems like a powerful attack to me. Is the Carrier useless because of the lack of focus fire, or the step down in health/shields from SC:BW?
Jon: 5x2 means two attacks for five damage. So 10 damage total per attack cycle. I'm not sure exactly how this works, but the Carrier is just expensive and lacks any real bite. It's HP has definitely taken a hit. Not to mention Interceptors are also 25 minerals apiece. Expensive. 400 gas? Sheesh.
Is the Archon still just a damage sponge, or has it gotten any abilities back? Do you think it needs any (like Maestrom, etc.)?
Jon: Damage sponge. It wasn't as overpowered in this build as it was last time. Before it could almost 3v1 Ultralisks, but now it's back to about 1.5v1.

[furrer]

Question and answers about Terran:

Marauder or Medic? Or both?
Jon:: The Marauder is entirely sufficient to help keep your Marines alive. The Terran can do completely without a Medic. If she's needed at all it would be in the later tiers when you can get the Medivac Dropship (which I still hate). I just wish the darn Marauder weren't so expensive.
Thor limits the use of the Viking? As to me the Viking seems like a unit which could be used all game, but with the Thor changes, it seems to limit it, to only be used as a harasser or to catch tanks off guard.
Jon: The Thor is a lost soul. I don't know where it fits and neither does Blizzard. The Viking, however, is useful, but is pretty expensive for being relatively weak. It's good to drop in and surprise units and is especially good against tanks, like you said. I prefer the Banshee 100 fold.
Was the reaper very usefull, compared to the medivac dropship, or did those two just overlap?
Jon: I found the Reaper to be very useful against Light units. They absolutely own Marines pound for pound. They do the same to Zealots. Their mobility is also a huge advantage. Bringing the Medivac Dropship along just slows them down. They're fine on their own. Just run when there's a serious fight. I also liked to leave my mines behind and retreat slowly, thereby causing MASSIVE damage to any serious force pursuing me.
So the Terran can fight against Stalker/Immortals if they use Marines + Tanks? Does that mean that this build is usefull: Barracks + reactor with Factory + Tech Lab?
Jon: Yes, but you will take massive losses with your Marines. The trade off is that you can produce so many Marines so quickly that it hardly even matters. I liked to intersperse some Marauders because of their higher hit points.
Was the Jackals "fire" usefull against Zerg and Zealots?
Jon: Yes. I said somewhere in the article that beyond those early light units, though, the Jackal becomes useless. Remember how the Vulture was pretty much helpless against Dragoons? It's the same way with the Jackal and Stalker except amplified. The Jackal has only 90 HP and so is very susceptible to all attacks. Just two swipes from a Colossus will destroy an entire group at once. But it's very nice to deal a lot of splash damage to Zealots and Zerglings. It's also very effective against Roaches. I just wouldn't produce them en masse. That's why I don't understand why the Reactor for the Factory produces Jackals instead of Vikings like it used to. Maybe even allow it to produce two tanks?
Does the ability of the Thor to rebuild itself make it a viable tank option, or is it's ground attack so weak that the enemy can just ignore it until all your other units are dead? And do you think that the Battlecruiser needs 2 abilities? Wouldn't it be more sensible to just have Yamamoto Cannon, and leave the air splash to the Thor so there is less overlap.
Jon: The Thor is definitely a tank. It also has a great GTA attack. That's why it's so confusing. You can either tank it (though it's pretty ineffective as an actual offensive unit GTG) or you can keep it home as a mobile and extremely effective GTA weapon. It's rebuild looks really dumb ATM but I can see some potential. I still think it should just lift off like a building and then it would be more unique. I even suggested to Samwise (Dustin wasn't around WTF?) that the Command Center have an upgrade to "Thor" and would thus emphasize it's "building" status. Right now it just has NO identity. It's not even built by an SCV.
How did the ghost play out if you even used it. How early can you nuke and what abilitys do the ghost have currently? And the Nomad how was the Nomad if you even used it.
Jon: The Ghost is a very useful unit, though most definitely it's very tough to use. I simply don't have enough experience with the game (so neither does anyone else) to use it effectively. But it has huge potential. I mostly used it for its EMP ability against Protoss. It's devastating. Nukes are great. They have a bit smaller of a radius and since they're totally ineffective against Immortals it's difficult to use it effectively for its cost. But it's still an awesome weapon. Plus it looks schweet!

As for the Nomad, they switched the model back to the original for WWI but told me that the new one is there but hasn't been perfected yet. I was a little mad about that. It was the first unit I looked for. But no ability changes there.

Editors note: Blizzard said in an interview that they could not find a good solution for the Nomad, so they just kept the old Nomad.

Judging from your article it seems the Reactor has pushed Terran towards building some weaker units en masse, which is more of a Zerg thing. Do you think that the Reactor should be nerfed by increasing the time taken to produce units simultaenously? For example, say it takes 40 seconds to produce a Marine. If you produce two at once with the reactor, the time taken increases by 10%, making the 2 marines take 44 seconds to be produced. The numbers could be changed, but I believe such a change could still keep the Reactor usefull without pushing Terran players to delve into Zerg tactics.
Jon: The Reactor needs some work. Not sure what needs to happen here. I would say that perhaps there needs to be a mineral cost associated with producing Marines at that speed. Maybe the Reactor just needs to be more expensive and build very quickly. Perhaps 200/200? It's just so easy to get now. Anyone can build 50 Marines in less than 4 minutes of game start.
The Battlecruiser wasn't in the statsheet. Is the 8x8 attack still there, and is it causing as many problems as you say? How would you propose nerfing it? Would having it waste damage from attack cycles be enough, or would it be more effective to decrease the number of attacks/the damage of each attack?
Jon: Unfortunately I didn't do the Terran stats. Nikzad did. I don't know, but it's not on the list he gave. I think the 8x8 attack is still there and it definitely switches to the next target in the middle of a burst. I think it just needs to be more expensive. The unit is great because it can contribute significantly to Terran forces just by itself, but a player should not be capable of massing it like I saw done. For sure, Terran air is the most powerful ATM. By a long shot. Remember that video where a Battlecruiser took on two Carriers with ease? That's about where we stand.
What units are buildable with a reactor?
Jon: Barracks = Marine, Factory = Jackal, Starport =Viking
How about bunkers?
Jon: Any infantry unit can sit in the Bunker and can use all of their abilities. Marine, Marauder, Ghost, etc
How about Reapers mine ability. How were they offencivly in unit to unit combat? Did you ever throw them during a fight??
Jon: I used it a couple of times. Mostly I would raid and enemy mineral line and do a lot of damage and then as any serious response came up (anything more than just Marines because Reapers can easily handle Marines almost 2 to 1) I would lay mines and retreat slowly. This would force the other player to continue firing at my Reapers instead of the mines and would do decimating damage to the units pursuing my Reapers. They're pretty effective.

[furrer]

Questions and answers about Zerg:

How much did the Roach cost?
Jon: 75 minerals, 25 gas (Same as past Hydralisk)
The Lurkers + 10 armor makes it weakers against Marines, its counter in sc2, how did that work in?
Jon: Lurkers are definitely weaker against Marines. They're better for taking out large groups of Vikings and Jackals or Stalkers, but overall I found them pretty useless relative to their cost. I only tried to use them once and learned my lesson quickly.
+ 20 vs armor for the Marauder, are you sure? Other sites say between 5 - 10
Jon: According to my notes the Marauder has +14 damage to Armored units. I said 20 in the article only because I was emphasizing the point.
The Hydralisk, cant be build in masse so? Did the zerg feel less massing then?
Jon: No, just certain units. I'm disappointed with the Hydralisk and Lurker, but that's just a cost issue. I think it is easily corrected. The problem is balancing its use while keeping it separate from the Roach.
Early air attack vs Zerg: Did the hdyralisks big gas cost hinder you in definding phoenix (or what its called/spelled)) / dt rushes (bisu-build)?
Jon: I tended to be more reliant upon the Roach and Mutalisk. The Corruptor is relatively cheap and since it can be built directly from the Lair tech without a Spire it can respond quickly to air threats. It's just not effective against Capital Ships in ANY way. I didn't find the absence of the Hydralisk to be particularly worrisome. It's just difficult when you need a strong ranged unit. I utilized mostly Banelings and Zerglings but it is difficult, I assure you.
Edit: One more thing, who do Nydus worms work now?
Jon: And the Nydus Worm requires Creep and is a building. You have to be able to see the area you're creating it at. It's exactly like the old Nydus Canal ATM. It's pretty nerfed and dumb. But that is a VERY recent change as all the build devs still thought it was a unit! :D It's still very powerful but nowhere near as cool.
What was the attack speed of the Corruptor? Do you think an increase in it's attack speed would make it more useful, or just an increase in damage or hp?
Jon: It was pretty slow. I think it needs a bigger attack. And when it infests units they should start shooting back to help turn the tide. Currently the shooting back feature is gone. I think it should be very similar to the Devourer. Lots of armor, lots of HP, and it's attack should bring Capital Ships to their knees.
Has loss of stacking Mutalisks really had such an impact on their usefulness?
Jon: Yes, they're far less mobile. Now they're just an annoyance. Especially with even one Thor hanging around. The dev team has assured me numerous times that they WILL make the Mutalisk stack.
Did having the Crawler buildings built from Drones again feel like a hindrance, or was the extra cost of a Drone to build a good exchange for not having base defense depend solely upon the Queen?
Jon: I think it's fine. Not a hindrance at all. The Devs just need to be careful that they don't put too much of a burden on the Zerg to sacrifice Drones while the Protoss and Terran are chugging away. But I do think it's a good idea to move away from the Queen because she allowed for mass defensive structures.
It seems like the Crawlers may be overpowered with their ability to move. Do they still lose HP off the creep? How fast do they move? Do you think the movement speed of Crawlers should be decreased, or should uprooting and moving be a research upgrade to prevent the early game crawler rushes you described?
Jon: Don't worry. I didn't have any problem with this. They're pretty slow overall and they lose ALL their armor when they uproot as well as a large chunk of HP. They're so easy to kill when uprooted (and can't attack) that I routinely ignored units to kill them if someone uprooted one (because they're slow to build and cost the player 150 minerals). That's how quickly they died when uprooted. The problem I described had to do with a player's inability to get a head start in building their Spine Crawlers by building a Creep Colony.
did you think that the Roach filled its role nicely, or do you think it could change?
Jon: I like the Roach. I just don't like that it has sent the Hydralisk packing. They need to find a way to work the Hydralisk back in to a prominent position. I keep thinking the Roach should be a mutation of the Hydralisk (like the Lurker) or vice versa (Hydralisk from Roach).
you didnt talked much about the Ultralisks or the Infestor, how was they like? was there any changes to them?
Jon: Not many changes to them except that the Ultralisk does +40 damage to buildings or something ridiculous like that. Ultralisks absolutely tear through buildings. I was talking with some other site admins about a fully upgraded Ultralisk which would theoretically do something like 115 damage to a structure.

The Infestor apparently has a model change in the works, but no other changes to note other than that.

[furrer]

Questions and answers about the gameplay:

Were all units usefull (overlaps perhaps a bit with the first question)?
Jon: Most units were useful. I think some were a little overpriced and a bit too weak like the Hydralisk and Lurker. For their cost there are just better options.
Did the 2 gas make it possible to go for more gas heavy strategies (very fast tech, things like phoneix (or how its spelled) + dt from one base etc.)
Jon: The two gases were really there to counterbalance the fact that a lot more buildings require gas. The whole new gas system is really there to give the whole game a little more macromanagement requirements. But yes, you can tech much more quickly but you will also mine less. It's the same trade off as in the original.
How did it work with the 6 workers 5 minerals per field? Was
Jon: The number of minerals you had was always an increment of five, so it was a little easier to spend. But I don't think it really changed the gameplay at all. I don't think it's better or worse. I think if you had the whole 8 that it used to be the gameplay might be a little TOO fast, but I'm unconvinced. I don't think there's a real reason.
What do you think of the "minerals for gas" abbility in the extractor?
Jon: I think it's annoying, but I do think it brings a little more macromanagement in. If that's what's necessary... I don't think it will be in the final build. They'll find something more interesting. I had heard a similar idea to it from the design team. They said originally that they had an ability which costs 100 minerals that instead of regaining operation of your extractor you would be able to mine with six workers from it for a short period of time.

But the good thing about the way it is now is that your gas never permanently depletes. That means you can continue to use higher tiered units later in the game and the chances of running out of resources altogether is much lower.
In SC1 you could scroll over your units upgrades to see their attack. Does doing this in SC2show the bonus damage certain units do, or did you have to pit units against each other to approximate?
Jon: You can still see bonuses and attacks.
How does the bonus damage work for units that have multiple attacks, like the Reaper? If I'm reading the table right, he gets +15 vs light units. Is it 15 for each shot, upping it from 3x2 to 18x2, or is it divided amongst each attack, making it 10.5x2? do upgrades to damage work the same way?
Jon: Not sure, but I would venture to guess that it divides it up.
What do you think the Biggest change in the game needs to be?
Jon: The Terran need something that puts them more in line with their race identity. Then balance, balance, balance. But the game overall is very fun and exciting.

Other questions and answers:

Did you have a good time? :D
Jon: I had a good time but it was pretty difficult to get around and get things done. Also lost my camera :-\.