Something that bothers me about widow mines is that the only Zerg unit that outranges widow mines before the upgraded range hydra is the Ravager, which is a very situation costly unit that you normally don’t want to make as a Zerg player.
This means that you always have to take a hit from a widow mine before clearing it as Zerg. I don’t mind trading a ling for a widow mine, but I do mind that Zerg has to take more actions to destroy a widow mine than the Terran player needed to plant the Widow mine
Terran Actions:
Move the Widow Mine to the location it is required to burrow.
Burrow the Widow Mine
Zerg Actions:
Move a detector to a location near the widow mine.
Move a unit in, to take the damage from the widow mine.
Clean the widow mine up with your units.
In a game this effort can be frustrated by an attack elsewhere that you have to pay attention to, and if you miss the 29s recharge, you have to repeat step 2.
This problem is exaggerated at lower levels of play where players have less apm and are less able to multitask which helps the Widow mines reputation as a noob killer.
I prepose that Widow mines are given a minimum range of 1 like the siege tank so that a single Zergling can take out an isolated widow mine without taking damage and without the need of 2 orders. I don’t think this would effect pro play, since widow mines are only used for drops or as apart of larger armies, but it would make the unit less effective as a tool to use up low-level players APM.
I am confused by the complaints about the WM. Against armies, detection is relatively cheap to include. One ling and two banes, the banes tagged to follow the ling, will also smack the WM. Along mineral lines and at bases, a pair of spores and spines one combo of each posted at either end of the mineral lines will pretty much make mincemeat of a WM or two.
Disclaimer, I do NOT play co-op or versus, b/c I can’t handle the game speed (I have trouble with being partially ambidextrous, and my hands/fingers can ‘crossfire’ when I get rushed).
I would be interested on feedback for a proposed adjustment - that burrowed WM are counted as structures, like lifted buildings are considered air. BUT, uprooted spores and spines are counted as units until rooted. OFC, this would mean that you could transport them via overlord (maybe same space req. as siege tanks?).
So I will try to explain why people don’t like WM, although I myself don’t mind the unit. I just think it could be a bit more intuitive to counter.
it is, the fact that they hide is often not the problem, in fact most Terran players will burrow them in plain view of you. but having to task an overseer or observer to reveal the window mine delays when you can challenge the army (it buys a Terran player time to set up siege tanks and such), I don’t personally have an issue with this though.
window mines cost 75 minerals and 25 gas, so wiping them out with two banes (100 minerals, 50 gas) or 2 spines and 2 spores (600 minerals) is not considered a cost effective solution to widow mines. The normal solution to window mines is to sacrifice a unit into the the widow mine to bait out its fire and then kill it during its long reload.
One of the effective Protoss counters to window mines are phoenix which can unburrow widow mines before they attack using gravitation beams, a far less used counter is abducting widow mines with a Viper, being a building would make them immune to that. Spores and Spines also don’t need a buff.
Interestingly floating Terran buildings are still considered structures as well, for example they cannot be targeted by Parasitic bomb but can be targeted by Caustic Spray.
problem Wm is a terran unit, meaning it is an all-round unit that has little to no counter.
Wm is overloaded for its price. big burst/ aoe/ ok range/ gtg and gta/ burrow/ autocast …
there is already a unit with minimum range, the siege tank and it is also Terran.
so in other words it is very similar to a baneling, but it trades mobility for extra damage and range. More importantly it forces Zerg and Protoss players to avoid headlong engagements into Terran armies. Which reinforces the tactical way Terran players are suppose to play.
I would also be fine with a splash radius decrease, it is infuriating to lose hundreds of minerals and gas to a single shot, especially with banelings, an entire engagement can be decided by one lucky mine hit and the skill difference needed to set up mines VS the skill needed to get rid of them is ludicrous.
I also want to slam my head into the keyboard when a mine gets a hit against an early stalker. You look away for one moment and BAM, a 75/25 unit just got doubled returns on its cost with a single spellcast.
Also, how on earth are widowmines invisible? It’s ridiculous, those things are about the size of a car, how could they “snuggle” into the ground, are my units mentally challenged?
yeah, I know, but the point is to ward you off where the widow mines are, they even give you a second to react and point out where they are before they hit you. If the splash radius was too low, you might be able to overwhelm them with numbers.
Also that splash damage also damages the Terran as well, so it makes it possible to deal with marines and medivacs with their own widow mines if they try to bait you into them.
yes, but banelings aren’t suppose to hold ground. The baneling is a doomsday weapon that on creep rolls towards you faster than you can run away from it.
If Zerg had defensive weapons as good as the widow mine they would be unstoppable as they already have the fastest expansion rate. I suppose they do get a really good defensive weapon in the Lurker, but I have always felt Lurkers ruin the Zerg identity.
are you sure?
example you rush lurker so you are “safe”, in ZvZ maybe but ZvP depending on toss but vs terran ~ drop it doesn’t matter where the lurker is.
in most cases you are behind.
the bane is a counter to the marine in the same way the Zealot is a counter to a ling. You can still beat zealots if you have enough lings.
in the same way it matters where the widow mine is or a siege tank. Anyway, the only change to the Lurker I am interested in is removing them from the game entirely.
I don’t think you understood. the difference is Zerg doesn’t have the tools like Terran or toss in the early mid game.
that’s why i said “maybe” in ZvZ.
If you rush as Zerg tec then you have to do something with it muta, nydus etc, but for def it is most useless. example you rush 3-4 lurker-> you have a disadvantage in worker queen count or unit count. T goes to your 3 base oh load in lurker fly in base make dmg there. Lurker useless. you divide your lurkers. 1x scan and and the marine will tear the lurker apart…
Widow Mines don’t have anywhere near enough range to justify a minimum. The delay on the Widow Mine’s attack is long enough that most of the game’s units could easily make it from the edge of the Widow Mine’s range into the safe zone without getting shot; which would make the unit rather useless.
I did not realize the phoenix was used that way, as the AI virtually never moves WM into my bases. Instead of the 2 banes, maybe have 4 zerglings, 1 as lead, followed by 3. The three remaining should kill the WM, right? Alternately, three roaches with tunneling claws, again, one comes to attack after the other two tunnel adjacent to the WM.
Maybe ppl should not look so much at the cost of the ‘trade’, or the prep vs a unit, but at what could be the cost if one doesn’t have an effective response of any sort. Like Terran should have some turrets near their mineral lines, and Protoss spot some cannons.
First, you are forgetting the most important Lair tech unit, the Infestor. Also Muta play is very effective at shutting down medivac drops.
As they should be, Zerg should not be rewarded for turtling. They are a swarm race.
Widow mines are not suppose to be used to kill units, they are suppose to force Zerg players not to charge in with their armies. If lings could overwelm widow mines it defeats the purpose of them.
they have more range than every Zerg unit until you get upgraded Hydralist, I wouldn’t complain if they had 1 less range and Queens, unupgraded Hydra and roach could deal with them.
I don’t think the widow mine attack should be cancelled like a retarget if the unit gets too close, it should save the progress towards the new automatic target that is still in range.
I used cost of the trade because it is what most people understand, but in SC2 it is more complicated than trades and countertrades.
But for Zerg, defending widow mine drops can be seen as a way of delaying your opponent until you have the advantage, the more you spend on it the less advantage you have.
this is the normally accepted solution to the widow mine problem.
again not what i mean, yes with infestor you can make good actions. Mutas can stop drop play.
The point is you don’t go for early tec like Toss/ terran. Example early 2 gase → lair before 3 base you get your infestor and say now i am relatively safe because of my infestor i can trade efficiently.
but they do a lot of damage, for “not suppose to be used to kill units”
but would also be a fun idea, remove the primary damage and halve the aoe damage and give wm root effect or 75% slow effect.
would fit for bio play.
first of all, that sounds overpowered to me, that would basically be a fungal on a non-spellcaster 100 cost unit.
Secondly, the Widow mine isn’t suppose to compliment armies. It does friendly fire for that reason, if one fires at charge zealots attacking marines, it is going to do more harm than good.
That’s a ridiculous take. Every iteration of the Widow Mine was intended to kill units.
The shredder (constant damage) version, the suicide version, the current non-suicide version… Every version of the Widow Mine was intended to kill. Blizzard even tried lowering the Widow Mine’s damage in the past (100%/50%/25% zones, etc), only to rebuff it later.
As for those earlier iterations:
Shredder: Shredder mines dealt constant damage to everything around them. This was eventually scrapped because the constant damage output made the mines far too effective against squishy units like Zerglings, Banelings, and workers compared to everything else. Basically, if a group of mines had the damage output to deal with a Zealot, then Zerglings could never get close enough to attack them, so the unit was doomed to either be useless in most cases or “broken against Zerg” depending on how you set the damage. Burst damage gets around this problem, since any extra damage is just lost overkill.
Suicidal Widow Mines: Proved too inefficient because of the way that Terran production works. The factory is a fairly expensive structure, such that it doesn’t make sense for it to produce units with less than 2 supply, but as a suicide unit that was fairly easy to waste. Perhaps a Spider-mine laying unit could have been a good alternative, but instead the design team just replaced the suicidal lunge with a projectile.
And it is no coincidence that Widow Mines do not one-shot Roaches or Queens. Widow Mines have 125 damage with a +25 shield bonus specifically so that they can be effective against Stalkers, and Zerg’s 2-supply ranged units still have some way to deal with them.
Keep in mind that the Widow Mine is immobile. The Widow Mine’s range does not only determine whether or not an opposing unit can outrange it. It also determines how much area a Widow Mine can cover.
That 1.07 second delay before shooting is also intended to give the opponent time to react, and it opens up options such as rushing a group of shorter ranged units into range to pick off the mine before it can fire or attempting to bait the mines to hit other Terran units (which would not be possible without the delay).
Most units that have a long damage point or other wind-up reset it when you change targets.