|
On December 22 2012 20:59 submarine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 13:44 Rabiator wrote:On December 22 2012 09:28 submarine wrote: I do not agree that the immortal is the only or the biggest problem of the tank right now. It would be OK if the immortal would rape tanks if the tanks had other strenghs. But honestly right now, the only ground units the tank really dominates in TvP are the sentry and the HT. Tanks are effective in TvT and to a certain extend in TvZ because they really kill stuff while that stuff moves from range 13 to range 6. Toss Units in general have a lot of HP, are big and on top of that zealots with charge "autosplit".
To make the siegetank a good unit in TvP it needs to do more damage. The steps i would like to try are:
1. Give tanks a "hold fire" or "target fire only" command. This will give the Terran the ability to time his shots and aim at certain targets with the first shot. It will also make tanks more useful in late game TvZ against Broodlord infestor. 2. Add a damage buff against shields. Maybe as an upgrade in the fusion core. Maybe even earlier. 3. If thats not enough maybe try to increase the damage dealt to the one unit the tank targets. With that tanks would be better against big units while they would not be a lot better against a lot of small units. 4. Create a good synergy: Maybe add a unit or ability that works well together with the tank. Something that increases the time the enemy has to spent in the dead space between range 6 and range 13. Some ideas: Make the auto turret useful as tank! (More HP more Armor less damage); maybe add a slow effect to another mech unit(mines), maybe even EOF; another idea would be to make hellbats immune or take less friendly fire from tanks. 1. Nope ... too complicated and Terrans already have the "siege/unsiege" to use skillfully with the tank already. 2. Nope ... smells too much of "we are bad at game design so we have to add specific things to correct one bad thing". Abilities which are designed against one race specifically are terrible! 3. Thats more or less done by simply increasing the damage already and since the central splash area is so tiny already you are hitting 1-3 units there only anyways. The Siege Tank is SUPPOSED TO deal AREA damage and not single target damage and Zealots / Stalkers come in huge numbers anyways. 4. Nope ... Terrans already have the most work to do and we know how terrible of a concept of a "required spell/ability" to make a unit work is ... Forcefield and Fungal Growth ... please dont add another one of those. So altogether pretty bad suggestions that wont work IMO. On December 22 2012 03:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2012 02:57 Hider wrote:On December 22 2012 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote: Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle?
Tanks in TvT and TvZ are actually pretty fun and awesome. Should we ruin two matchups simply because we miss a style of play that was in BW?
Even the Widow Mine is now just an awkward version of the Lurker. A short ranged burrowed unit that attacks. Although cheaper, has a crappier attack.
How about scrap the widow mine as a unit and bring back the Warhound. But instead of trying to make it Thor light/anti-mechanical--actually use it to fill gaps in mech play. And by gaps in mech play, I'm not talking about "bring back BW TvP" but I'm actually asking about gaps that Factory compositions, as they are right now, needs.
Tanks are good versus stalkers Thors are (just now) good support Hellbats are good buffers Hellions are good at harass
What is missing? If there isn't enough DPS, then Warhound should be that. If there isn't enough "tanking" then the Warhound could be that (high priority, high armor combat unit, or maybe casts Defensive Matrix, or whatever...), etc...
Let the Terran have a scary deathball--then make it gas heavy enough that in order to get it you'll realistically need 4-6 bases. Games then devolve into Planetaries and turtling as Terran builds up his war machine.
Are these good ideas? Probably not. But you guys are just circle jerking over nostalgia if the only thing you want to talk about is how to make sc2 tanks mimic BW tanks instead of actually trying to deal with the problem at hand--how can we improve the factory unit composition so that it can survive a fight versus protoss, after which we can then "nerf it" by giving it the types of drawbacks that would require "mech play" to circumvent those drawbacks.
For example, people keep talking about mines being this thing that have to be as close to zero supply as possible despite Blizzard saying that they don't want zero supply units--so why not just make them buildings SCVs build quickly on the ground like an actual mine layer would set up. Just because it is a mine doesn't mean it has to come out of the factory.
Or, instead of whining about why we can't have Goliaths we could simply say "I guess Vikings have taken over that role and maybe we shouldn't be doubling up on long range anti-air units"
Let's stop being so distracted guys. If all you guys can do is try to mimic already attempted ideas then you're no worse than the supposedly uncreative Blizzard team you enjoy mocking so viciously. The difference being that they at least make a product while you're simply yelling at a computer monitor. Shoudn't be that. If terran needs a couple of planetaries to move out it incentivizes upper turtling too much (boring games). Rather, terran should be able to defend locations with a couple of mines and well positioned tanks. I think removing mules and planateries + buffing tanks + nerfing immortals will make tvp so much more interesting. Sackings scvs and massing orbituals + planataries is just boring game play. Maybe its fun the fist 1-2 times you watch it, but over the long haul its stupidly boring. Also, it makes no sense that we shouldn't be allowed to say what we want, just because Blizzard is incompetent and doesn't understand proper game design. Building up 6 bases while harassing with hellion/vulture drops while your immobile tanks turtle is exactly what happened in BW. There is no difference between defending your base with 1-2 tanks and mines versus defending your base with a 1-2 planateries and some support. Whether you defend your sixth with a Planetary or whether you defend it with a Siege Tank makes no tactical difference other than nostalgia. You CANT defend most bases with 1-2 Planetaries due to the size requirement of the buildings and the need of Terrans to have A LOT OF SPACE for production buildings ... lots more than any of the other races. On December 22 2012 03:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2012 02:57 Hider wrote:On December 22 2012 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote: Maybe we're coming at this from the wrong angle?
Tanks in TvT and TvZ are actually pretty fun and awesome. Should we ruin two matchups simply because we miss a style of play that was in BW?
Even the Widow Mine is now just an awkward version of the Lurker. A short ranged burrowed unit that attacks. Although cheaper, has a crappier attack.
How about scrap the widow mine as a unit and bring back the Warhound. But instead of trying to make it Thor light/anti-mechanical--actually use it to fill gaps in mech play. And by gaps in mech play, I'm not talking about "bring back BW TvP" but I'm actually asking about gaps that Factory compositions, as they are right now, needs.
Tanks are good versus stalkers Thors are (just now) good support Hellbats are good buffers Hellions are good at harass
What is missing? If there isn't enough DPS, then Warhound should be that. If there isn't enough "tanking" then the Warhound could be that (high priority, high armor combat unit, or maybe casts Defensive Matrix, or whatever...), etc...
Let the Terran have a scary deathball--then make it gas heavy enough that in order to get it you'll realistically need 4-6 bases. Games then devolve into Planetaries and turtling as Terran builds up his war machine.
Are these good ideas? Probably not. But you guys are just circle jerking over nostalgia if the only thing you want to talk about is how to make sc2 tanks mimic BW tanks instead of actually trying to deal with the problem at hand--how can we improve the factory unit composition so that it can survive a fight versus protoss, after which we can then "nerf it" by giving it the types of drawbacks that would require "mech play" to circumvent those drawbacks.
For example, people keep talking about mines being this thing that have to be as close to zero supply as possible despite Blizzard saying that they don't want zero supply units--so why not just make them buildings SCVs build quickly on the ground like an actual mine layer would set up. Just because it is a mine doesn't mean it has to come out of the factory.
Or, instead of whining about why we can't have Goliaths we could simply say "I guess Vikings have taken over that role and maybe we shouldn't be doubling up on long range anti-air units"
Let's stop being so distracted guys. If all you guys can do is try to mimic already attempted ideas then you're no worse than the supposedly uncreative Blizzard team you enjoy mocking so viciously. The difference being that they at least make a product while you're simply yelling at a computer monitor. Shoudn't be that. If terran needs a couple of planetaries to move out it incentivizes upper turtling too much (boring games). Rather, terran should be able to defend locations with a couple of mines and well positioned tanks. I think removing mules and planateries + buffing tanks + nerfing immortals will make tvp so much more interesting. Sackings scvs and massing orbituals + planataries is just boring game play. Maybe its fun the fist 1-2 times you watch it, but over the long haul its stupidly boring. Also, it makes no sense that we shouldn't be allowed to say what we want, just because Blizzard is incompetent and doesn't understand proper game design. For example, does the Goliath answer the Broodlord problem? Actually no, because Broodlords don't kill Terran as much as Infestors do. Without Infestors Broodlords die to stimmed marines. Goliaths would add NOTHING to TvZ. What about TvT? Lategame TvT is already a fun spectacle incorporating all units except the Reaper. It doesn't really *need* fixing. The Goliath doesn't add anything to 66% of the matchups and its role is already taken up by the Viking in the TvP matchup. And yet people keep asking for it pretending like what is stopping mech is sudden Carrier transitions when in truth the zealot warp ins kill Mech more often. Why suggest the Goliath then? Nostalgia. Much like asking, no, REQUIRING the siege tank to be the main force in TvP while pretending that what they're asking for is positional play. If what is wanted is positional play--lets see what other tools we have for positional play. Simply asking for the Siege tank to be buffed to the point that all protoss units melt to it is just nostalgia talking. There are other options--no one seems to want to talk about those other options. Broodlords can do the killing and Infestors are "multipliers" which synergize with that, but Zerg DONT NEED them because of the ridiculously low Siege Tank damage which kills Zerglings and Banelings only in the relatively tiny central radius. If you play mech you dont have / arent supposed to have stimmed Marines in large enough numbers and should have a "mech unit" capable of doing the same job. The Thor doesnt do that. Before you say anything like "but stimmed Marines are good" ... its all about the buildings required to build the units and as a mech player you basically want to have only 1 Barracks and not 3 with Reactors to spam Marines. Mech needs a useful mineral dump unit (which the Hellion isnt due to its terribly restricted damage) and a good and flexible anti-air/anti-infantry unit (which the Thor isnt). So ... the Goliath is NEEDED (and the Vulture). So which other option are there? You say "lets talk" but refrain from giving any ... and I see none. What you say is: Small changes that address the specific problems tanks have in TvP, won't work. Try to redesign the game from the start by removing race specific designs like wg, mule and injects instead. Sorry, but thats just nonsense. You don't need to buy a new car when your tire is flat. There are some things that will never realistically be changed in SC2. The core race mechanics are one of those. 1. Target fire: It is a small design change that would really benefit those terrans that put in the effort. You already have to focus fire your tanks if you want them to have a positive influence on the fight. 2. More shield damage: While i agree that it is sloppy design, i think it is a rather good way of making tanks better against toss without effects on the other MUs. Toss units in general have more hp and are bigger and autosplit. On top of that: Toss can build units anywhere on the map and is able to attack from multiple directions. It is not like they have to because tanks are pretty bad :D. To make AOE damage powerful against them you need a little bit more damage. Just think of storm in PvP. 3. More single fire damage: That is something that would make tanks better against bigger units with minimal effect on their effectiveness against a lot of small low HP units. The current splash design is not something set in stone. Tanks will not be totally different if they do more damage to that one targeted unit. This would also help tanks a little bit against ultras in late game TvZ. Ultras are stronger now as you might know. + There is a new Zerg caster unit that is very good against tanks. 4. Synergy: I think it would be pretty sweet if terran had something that would work together with tanks very well. The optimal unit would be a fast unit with rather strong anti air, a lot of hp and weak ground damage and maybe an ability that is somewhat of a counter to immortals. Tanks need a buffer unit that forces the enemy to stay in the siege tank fire. I am not yet convinced that the hellbat is there yet. All the other unit additions and changes do not really aim at that specific weakness of tank based mech. It would be a very nice dynamic if he toss had to remove this protective screen somehow to trade effective with tanks. A few guys said that the tank would be OK against toss ground apart from the immortal. Well, OK is not enough. Tanks are expensive, build slow in an expensive building, they are immobile, have no anti air, have a minimal range and pretty low hp and armor. They better dominate ground units at similar cost. It is not surprising that most of the guys that make mech work in TvP build no tanks. Tanks just do not do their job against toss. Your comparison to the car assumes that the car is working as intended. The "car SC2" is moving, but not doing so quitely or without problems. So the whole thing doesnt work, because they - Dustin and his gang - didnt / dont bother looking at the old car to see how it worked. They just grabbed some tyres, a steering wheel and then fitted that all to the largest engine they could find.
Your single fire damage is USELESS unless you increase the rate of fire as well, because you still have to overcome the problem of the HORDES of infantry rolling over the Siege tanks with ease. Large units like Colossi arent the big danger to Siege Tanks and in any case there is the unsieged mode which has single target damage.
On December 22 2012 20:53 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 03:08 Rabiator wrote:On December 22 2012 02:01 Sissors wrote: I disagree, I dont think you can really fix siege tanks agains toss without making them OP against other races, unless you manage to change something which only affects toss: doing full damage on shields would be a good first step. TvT isnt "another race", so only Zerg is another race in question. - Does Zerg really have problems against mech now? - Isnt the Vipers "abduct" spell specifically aimed at eliminating mech? Answering those two questions should clearly show that TvZ wouldnt be imbalanced by making mech stronger ... especially with the new stuff that Zerg gets in HotS. Sure, you might not be able to win against a "HotS-free mech army" with your own "HotS-free Zerg army using the old strategies", but thats kinda the point of an expansion: to change things around and force people to exercise their brains again. The Siege Tank does a whoppping 35 damage against light units ... which kills Zerglings (unless they have 1 armor upgrade and the tank zero attack upgrade), BUT due to the splash damage effect of the Siege Tank it only affects a core radius of 0.4687 "matrices" (which I believe to be "1 matric = 1 building square") which would be less than a 1*1 square ... i.e. about 3 Zerglings at most. The rest of the Zerglings get half or quarter damage. In BW the "core damage" was 70 and thus Zerglings got killed up to the secondary radius and thats not too much. One of the problematic Protoss units for a tank is the Zealot, because it is light and - most likely - has charge, so it only takes at most 1 shot per Siege Tank ... not enough to really damage any of them, not even the ones at the center of a blast. Since the Zealot has only 50 shield and 100 hit points you wont get far with an EMP grenade. Another problematic Protoss unit is the Blink Stalker, because you can basically do the same as a Zealot: get into the "no attack zone" of the Siege tank with maybe 1 hit taken and the EMP ammunition wont really change much here either. Neither one of them is really the issue anymore. Blink stalkers not since in a direct fight stalkers are pretty much only toss units countered by tanks (the problem is them running around killing your base without being able to catch up with them besides with hellions, which dont do anything against them), and zealot is countered by hellbats. It is true EMP shells would have limitted effect against them, but it helps, just like it helps against stalkers. I rather see small changes than huge changes. Lets just stop comparing it to BW, it is a different game. Anyway regarding TvZ, I think viper can be largely countered by good positioning, it is true it might be enough of a reason to boost mech a bit, but you dont want to overdo it. And I dont want TvT to completely invalidate bio play (even though I dont do it myself). One other option I see is not increasing splash radius as what some want, but increasing single target damage. The problem is that splash is fundamentally less effective against toss, I dont see siege tanks becoming useful vs toss due to larger splash, without it becoming at the very least the only option in TvT/TvZ. Cant play hots a bit for now, so cant try out further the strategy I have been using, but what I am trying now is going bio mech. For now tried hellbat/thor + marine, but planning when I can play again to try hellbat/tank + marines. Hellbats play the meatshield role against zealots and also tank the siege tanks friendly damage. Marines are nice against immortals. Against toss air switches I am now of the opinion massing marines is simply alot better idea than trying to counter it with mech. Sure it isnt impossible, but also not my favourite idea. Finally raiding with hellions is fun in the beginning, but later it is impossible without medivacs (due to ease of simcity for toss), and they chronoboost bunch of new probes out anyway in no time. Meanwhile a bunch of stimmed marines simply take out the complete expansion if the toss army isnt near enough. And I have for example had that my army and toss army were at the side of the map in front of each other, bit out of range of each other, and I just stimmed in 20 marines into his main. You can also do that with hellions, but they wont do any damage. My last game was a TvT, where due to some luck I managed to catch most of my enemies army between two of my armies (main army on one side, reinforcements of mine blocked his army at the other side). That was a really bad situation for him, the frontal assault was only way to get out, and even though his army was way larger than my second blocking force, he couldnt attack it without enormous losses. Then I thought what would happen in a TvP, he would a-move over my much smaller blocking force Not comparing it to BW - which worked - is stupid since SC2 is based upon BW.
Blink Stalkers counter Siege Tanks just as well and every time the Siege Tank unsieges you can easily blink into close range for some free shots. They also "counter" Siege Tanks simply because you can easily outmaneuver the tanks with the Stalkers and kill the Terran base while he is "hurrying back to defend".
|
I am convinced that WoL is a great game that is working, but it has some flaws. The different races with their mechanics are fine. The problem we are talking about here is that a certain playstyle is not working because a certain unit does not fulfill its role. The Siegetank works fine in TvT. It controls space really nice in that MU. The siegetank is OK in TvZ and has a clock (tier3) on its back. Thats especially true in HOTS with the viper. It does not fulfill its role in TvP. It just does not do enough damage to toss units. To fix that you could implement one or more of the specific suggestions i explained to you.
You tell me my single target damage would be useless! I am 100% sure if you give the tank 150 dmg on single targets and change nothing else the tank would be very op in every matchup. Believe me, every single handwheel on every unit has to potential to make a certain unit overpowered or crap. The difficulty of creating an interesting game is to use the right handwheels. If you use the right ones you can buff certain units in certain situations without large effects on other parts of the game that are fine. Right now blizzard seems to use the wrong tools.
Edit: Quote Rabiator: "Not comparing it to BW - which worked - is stupid since SC2 is based upon BW.
Blink Stalkers counter Siege Tanks just as well and every time the Siege Tank unsieges you can easily blink into close range for some free shots. They also "counter" Siege Tanks simply because you can easily outmaneuver the tanks with the Stalkers and kill the Terran base while he is "hurrying back to defend"."
If you make tanks a little bit stronger, you can set up one or two in your base and move around with your support units to defend without just being a-moved at the front. The problem with tanks in TvP is very simple: They do not do enough damage to justify all their huge drawbacks.
I believe we could have a very nice matchup with good tanks in TvP. The Toss has all the right tools to abuse an immobile force. Right now they do not have to. Just build the right units and a click to victory seems to work just fine currently. Thats pretty sad.
|
On December 22 2012 11:01 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 09:28 submarine wrote: I do not agree that the immortal is the only or the biggest problem of the tank right now. It would be OK if the immortal would rape tanks if the tanks had other strenghs. But honestly right now, the only ground units the tank really dominates in TvP are the sentry and the HT. Tanks are effective in TvT and to a certain extend in TvZ because they really kill stuff while that stuff moves from range 13 to range 6. Toss Units in general have a lot of HP, are big and on top of that zealots with charge "autosplit".
To make the siegetank a good unit in TvP it needs to do more damage. The steps i would like to try are:
1. Give tanks a "hold fire" or "target fire only" command. This will give the Terran the ability to time his shots and aim at certain targets with the first shot. It will also make tanks more useful in late game TvZ against Broodlord infestor. 2. Add a damage buff against shields. Maybe as an upgrade in the fusion core. Maybe even earlier. 3. If thats not enough maybe try to increase the damage dealt to the one unit the tank targets. With that tanks would be better against big units while they would not be a lot better against a lot of small units. 4. Create a good synergy: Maybe add a unit or ability that works well together with the tank. Something that increases the time the enemy has to spent in the dead space between range 6 and range 13. Some ideas: Make the auto turret useful as tank! (More HP more Armor less damage); maybe add a slow effect to another mech unit(mines), maybe even EOF; another idea would be to make hellbats immune or take less friendly fire from tanks. From what I've experienced on beta, if my opponent doesn't make Immortals, Siege Tanks are actually really good vs every other Protoss ground unit provided Helbats are utilized to tank Zealots with. I'm absolutely confident that a buff to the Siege Tank is not needed if the Immortal was nerfed so that it was no longer such a hard counter.
I'm a mech player TvP in WoL and I don't think the problem is with immortals or the tank: I always just used ghosts EMP to counter a large immortal force. Now with hellbats, mech has improved in HOTS (if no other Toss units were added!). HOWEVER the problem which made mech WORSE in HOTS are the new Protoss air units. Ghosts are very expensive to counter immortals and (2-3) thors were always able to handle any small amount of air units from Protoss. But now 2 void rays can beat 3 thors (depending on micro). HOTS has made TvP mech worse by making Vray/immortal and a few HT way too cost effective. Ghosts are worthless against that combination after they use EMP; therefore, you basically just spent 200/100 on a unit just for EMP. And you need at least 3-4 depending on the immortal quantity. Throw in 2-3 tempest with their bonus damage to armor and there is no way a maxed out mech Terran can beat such a deathball. Even if they hold, the army supply usually is a wash and Protoss can re-max much faster than Terran (which is not the point in playing mech - a immobile but well positioned Terran army should always win versus any engagement TvP).
To recap: Mech TvP is worse in HOTS than in WoL. All things being equal from WoL to HOTS: Terran got the Hellbat, while Protoss got Tempest (hard counter to mech) and improved Vray (hard counter to mech...which rips through thors like butter). Army supply efficiency for Protoss is too high against Terran mech composition. I suppose you could make tanks stronger to force Toss on ground units longer before the air transition, but right now it is too easy for them to hold mid-game with immortals (Pre-Ghost).
|
On December 23 2012 02:13 SirPinky wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2012 11:01 Vindicare605 wrote:On December 22 2012 09:28 submarine wrote: I do not agree that the immortal is the only or the biggest problem of the tank right now. It would be OK if the immortal would rape tanks if the tanks had other strenghs. But honestly right now, the only ground units the tank really dominates in TvP are the sentry and the HT. Tanks are effective in TvT and to a certain extend in TvZ because they really kill stuff while that stuff moves from range 13 to range 6. Toss Units in general have a lot of HP, are big and on top of that zealots with charge "autosplit".
To make the siegetank a good unit in TvP it needs to do more damage. The steps i would like to try are:
1. Give tanks a "hold fire" or "target fire only" command. This will give the Terran the ability to time his shots and aim at certain targets with the first shot. It will also make tanks more useful in late game TvZ against Broodlord infestor. 2. Add a damage buff against shields. Maybe as an upgrade in the fusion core. Maybe even earlier. 3. If thats not enough maybe try to increase the damage dealt to the one unit the tank targets. With that tanks would be better against big units while they would not be a lot better against a lot of small units. 4. Create a good synergy: Maybe add a unit or ability that works well together with the tank. Something that increases the time the enemy has to spent in the dead space between range 6 and range 13. Some ideas: Make the auto turret useful as tank! (More HP more Armor less damage); maybe add a slow effect to another mech unit(mines), maybe even EOF; another idea would be to make hellbats immune or take less friendly fire from tanks. From what I've experienced on beta, if my opponent doesn't make Immortals, Siege Tanks are actually really good vs every other Protoss ground unit provided Helbats are utilized to tank Zealots with. I'm absolutely confident that a buff to the Siege Tank is not needed if the Immortal was nerfed so that it was no longer such a hard counter. I'm a mech play TvP in WoL and I don't think the problem is with immortals or the tank: I always just used ghosts EMP to counter a large immortal force. Now with hellbats, mech has improved in HOTS (if no other Toss units were added!). HOWEVER the problem which made mech WORSE in HOTS are the new Protoss air units. Ghosts are very expensive to counter immortals and (2-3) thors were always able to handle any small amount of air units from Protoss. But now 2 void rays can beat 3 thors (depending on micro). HOTS has made TvP mech worse by making Vray/immortal and a few HT way too cost effective. Ghosts are worthless against that combination after they use EMP; therefore, you basically just spent 200/100 on a unit just for EMP. And you need at least 3-4 depending on the immortal quantity. Throw in 2-3 tempest with their bonus damage to armor and there is no way a maxed out mech Terran can beat such a deathball. Even if they hold, the army supply usually is a wash and Protoss can re-max much faster than Terran (which is not the point in playing mech - a immobile but well potioned Terran army should always win versus any engagement TvP). To recap: Mech TvP is worse in HOTS than in WoL. All things being equal from WoL to HOTS: Terran got the Hellbat, while Protoss got Tempest (hard counter to mech) and improved Vray (hard counter to mech...which rips through thors like butter). Army supply efficiency for Protoss is too high against Terran mech composition. I suppose you could make tanks stronger to force Toss on ground units longer before the air transition, but right now it is too easy for them to hold mid-game with immortals (Pre-Ghost).
Agreed completely about the root cause of the problem in HoTS being the new air units in addition to what they already had vs Mech.
Where I differ in opinion is that I feel that the match up would be better suited to Protoss having stronger air units vs Mech and a weaker ground force. If Tempests, Void Rays and Carriers were their answer to strong siege tank forces in the late gamer I feel the match up could evolve in a similar way to how Mech operates in TvZ right now, where the Mech player has a strong ground army pre-Broodlords.
But with Immortals already available to invalidate Siege Tanks in the midgame, and strong air units in the late game there's currently no point in the game where Mech has a strong presence, and especially when compared with Bio just has far too many counter units that Protoss can field against it.
I think with the addition of the new Void Ray and Tempest that Protoss no longer really needs the Immortal for the role that it fulfills right now and the beauty of it is that you can nerf Immortals without also nerfing them vs Roaches or Stalkers by simply adjusting their Hardened Shields and not their damage or range. Hell you could even use it as a reason to buff their base hit points, shields or armor which would make them even better in the role they currently fill vs Zerg and Protoss while at the same time nerfing them out of their hard counter mech role.
With Immortals no longer a hard counter unit, Mech has opportunities to actually be out on the map in the mid game and not have to worry about being immediately steamrolled. That would allow the Terran player to actually pressure the Protoss to prevent their easy tech up into Stargate, thereby creating at least somewhat of an even dynamic for the match up.
|
Wow i have just tested Voidrays vs terran units in the unittester and they are way to good imo. Only stimmed Marines are realy effective against them. At least you have to micro them against Thor splash damage.
|
On December 23 2012 04:00 Shox85 wrote: Wow i have just tested Voidrays vs terran units in the unittester and they are way to good imo. Only stimmed Marines are realy effective against them. At least you have to micro them against Thor splash damage.
I wouldn't worry about Void Rays for too long, they are going to get nerfed, not because of how good they are vs Terran but because of how strong they are vs Corruptors now.
Protoss Air if allowed to build a good fleet is way too powerful vs Zerg on beta, it's actually kind of crazy.
|
On December 23 2012 00:35 submarine wrote:
Edit: Quote Rabiator: "Not comparing it to BW - which worked - is stupid since SC2 is based upon BW.
Blink Stalkers counter Siege Tanks just as well and every time the Siege Tank unsieges you can easily blink into close range for some free shots. They also "counter" Siege Tanks simply because you can easily outmaneuver the tanks with the Stalkers and kill the Terran base while he is "hurrying back to defend"."
If you make tanks a little bit stronger, you can set up one or two in your base and move around with your support units to defend without just being a-moved at the front. The problem with tanks in TvP is very simple: They do not do enough damage to justify all their huge drawbacks.
I believe we could have a very nice matchup with good tanks in TvP. The Toss has all the right tools to abuse an immobile force. Right now they do not have to. Just build the right units and a click to victory seems to work just fine currently. Thats pretty sad. Exactly what I think is necessary (well apart from the changes which they wont implement ever as long as Dustin Browder still gets a paycheck from Blizzard) ... a DECISIVE increase in damage for the Siege Tank to where it kills Zerglings/Marines in the secondary splash radius as well. That should be a nice reduction in the number of shots needed to kill Protoss units while not really changing the situation against T/Z - except to making tanks viable in all matchups as base defending units in low numbers.
Sadly they arent TESTING anything for the Siege Tank and think they can "fix mech" with the stupid Widow Mine and Battle Hellion (I think "Hellbat" is a terrible name, because a) its still a Hellion at heart and b) the slowly lumbering and tough "Hellbat" has nothing in common with bats whatsoever). Sadly they think flashy names and new and improved death animations are important in this game ...
|
Give tanks a researchable upgrade vs shields (mid game or later so they don't bury the tank even more to nerf 111)
And make sure the new toss air isn't ridiculous and mech might stand a chance. The biggest problem is that tanks just don't pack any punch vs toss. Their primary role has been to poke the toss so they engage the bio (111).
You'll find about 0.000000001 tanks on average in a mid game tvp army so buffing them at least a bit in that regard can't be bad, especially if they actually want mech to work.
|
So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets.
|
On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets.
Tanks are really good against Stalkers, they're also not bad vs High Templar due to their range and can handle Zealots and Archons relatively well too when Helbats are mixed in.
The problem for the Siege Tank is the Immortal. It doesn't need a damage buff it's damage is fine, the Immortal just needs a nerf, not even to its damage or its range just to Hardened Shields.
|
On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets.
And now add in 1 immortal and see what happens.
|
On December 23 2012 06:05 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets. Tanks are really good against Stalkers, they're also not bad vs High Templar due to their range and can handle Zealots and Archons relatively well too when Helbats are mixed in. The problem for the Siege Tank is the Immortal. It doesn't need a damage buff it's damage is fine, the Immortal just needs a nerf, not even to its damage or its range just to Hardened Shields.
A nerf on Immortals? Why not just remove Protoss from the game -.- Protoss has two good ground units, lets nerf one of them...
Ghosts can always remove the shield from Immortals, if you are afraid of Feedback you can drop them from a low energy medivac.
|
On December 23 2012 06:05 Aquila- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets. And now add in 1 immortal and see what happens.
17 Siege Tanks against 31 Stalkers 1 Immortal. I made sure that the Immortal gets hit right before I blink in. 11 Tanks survived. I see the difference now!
The problem isn't the Siegetank. The problem is that when mech was played a lot the Tempest countered Thors and was strong vs Vikings. If the Tempest alone counters every single unit of Terran that is not a Marine the game is just broken..
Now though, Thors should do pretty well against Tempests, Tempests no longer get bonus damage and Thors got the new attack. I think Mech might work now but finding the right composition will be tough. You need Thors, Tanks, Ghosts, Helions/Helbats and MAYBE Vikings. The ratio is also important.
|
On December 23 2012 06:12 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 06:05 Aquila- wrote:On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets. And now add in 1 immortal and see what happens. 17 Siege Tanks against 31 Stalkers 1 Immortal. I made sure that the Immortal gets hit right before I blink in. 11 Tanks survived. I see the difference now! The problem isn't the Siegetank. The problem is that when mech was played a lot the Tempest countered Thors and was strong vs Vikings. If the Tempest alone counters every single unit of Terran that is not a Marine the game is just broken.. Now though, Thors should do pretty well against Tempests, Tempests no longer get bonus damage and Thors got the new attack. I think Mech might work now but finding the right composition will be tough. You need Thors, Tanks, Ghosts, Helions/Helbats and MAYBE Vikings. The ratio is also important.
My god stop posting you have no clue what you are talking about. If you mass stalkers against mech and then proceed to attack move into sieged tanks then you are probably bronze league and thus not eligible to talk about balance. "Hey I just went to the unit tester and tested pure marine against colosses and the colosses won so they are imbalanced and need to be nerfed."
|
On December 23 2012 06:23 Aquila- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 06:12 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 23 2012 06:05 Aquila- wrote:On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets. And now add in 1 immortal and see what happens. 17 Siege Tanks against 31 Stalkers 1 Immortal. I made sure that the Immortal gets hit right before I blink in. 11 Tanks survived. I see the difference now! The problem isn't the Siegetank. The problem is that when mech was played a lot the Tempest countered Thors and was strong vs Vikings. If the Tempest alone counters every single unit of Terran that is not a Marine the game is just broken.. Now though, Thors should do pretty well against Tempests, Tempests no longer get bonus damage and Thors got the new attack. I think Mech might work now but finding the right composition will be tough. You need Thors, Tanks, Ghosts, Helions/Helbats and MAYBE Vikings. The ratio is also important. My god stop posting you have no clue what you are talking about. If you mass stalkers against mech and then proceed to attack move into sieged tanks then you are probably bronze league and thus not eligible to talk about balance. "Hey I just went to the unit tester and tested pure marine against colosses and the colosses won so they are imbalanced and need to be nerfed."
Wow, you're an agressive little fellow aren't you? The discussion I saw was about Stalkers being too good vs Siege Tanks in direct engagements. I figured simply posting "No!" would not be enough to convince people so I tested some numbers and shared the results. Also I blunk into the tanks. Blinked? Blunk? Something. . .
But yeah you're right, you seem much more qualified to talk about strategy and balance since you are obviously not driven by emotions and very mature.
Edit: Just saw you were the guy saying: "now add one Immortal" I do that, same result Then you go ahead and insult me. That is exactly why I start to despise the average Terran player more and more. For some weird reason this never happens with Protoss and very, VERY rarely with Zergs.
Oh and by the way pure Marine vs pure Colossus results in Marines winning if they got stim. Even without any micro.
But I see your point. Still I was just testing that specific situation that was discussed.
|
There comes a point where even immortals start falling against tanks in which case P needs to transition into stargate anyway. And terrans should be using using buffers to prevent immortals from getting in range in the first place. Nerfing immortals when they already have clear weaknesses is quite retarded.
|
On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets. As terran I already said that tanks do fine against stalkers in normal fight, so no discussion there.
But defending against runbies by PFs, widow mines and turrets doesnt work. Turrets is kinda obvious, they cant hit stalkers. A widow mine cant even kill a single stalker currently. The density of widow mines required to stop blink stalkers is ridiculous and not a solution. Same for PFs. Extremely late game when your toss opponent decides to make a bunch of blink stalkers, then yes you can make a few extra PFs. But anywhere before extreme late game you cant defend your main with PFs, it is just way too expensive (also they are fairly ineffective against stalkers). So you are stuck on 3 base, you cant get further than that, since that is the maximum number you can defend with siege tanks. Anything more and he just outnumbers your local tank count so hard his blink stalkers will easily kill them.
In WoL it is already hard enough to play mech against toss, and I really think mech is alot harder in HotS due to all the toss air options, the corresponding decrease in banshee harrasment viability, the boosts to toss early agression, and the boost to toss early defense which means they can play alot greedier. The hellbat and removal of thor energy doesnt cut it for me to compensate those boosts. Especially since the traditional tech switch to BCs for mech was also heavily nerfed with tempests.
And really, thor new anti-air is nice, not complaining about it, but it really isnt a proper counter to toss air.
Edit:
Not comparing it to BW - which worked - is stupid since SC2 is based upon BW.
Blink Stalkers counter Siege Tanks just as well and every time the Siege Tank unsieges you can easily blink into close range for some free shots. They also "counter" Siege Tanks simply because you can easily outmaneuver the tanks with the Stalkers and kill the Terran base while he is "hurrying back to defend". Sorry but BW was just a different game, with different mechanics. Nice for getting possible solutions, but not the holy grail of balance in SC2.
Regarding your second point about stalkers, never denied that, blinkstalker play hardcounters siege tanks not due to their combat abilities, but just their mobility.
|
On December 23 2012 06:29 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 06:23 Aquila- wrote:On December 23 2012 06:12 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 23 2012 06:05 Aquila- wrote:On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets. And now add in 1 immortal and see what happens. 17 Siege Tanks against 31 Stalkers 1 Immortal. I made sure that the Immortal gets hit right before I blink in. 11 Tanks survived. I see the difference now! The problem isn't the Siegetank. The problem is that when mech was played a lot the Tempest countered Thors and was strong vs Vikings. If the Tempest alone counters every single unit of Terran that is not a Marine the game is just broken.. Now though, Thors should do pretty well against Tempests, Tempests no longer get bonus damage and Thors got the new attack. I think Mech might work now but finding the right composition will be tough. You need Thors, Tanks, Ghosts, Helions/Helbats and MAYBE Vikings. The ratio is also important. My god stop posting you have no clue what you are talking about. If you mass stalkers against mech and then proceed to attack move into sieged tanks then you are probably bronze league and thus not eligible to talk about balance. "Hey I just went to the unit tester and tested pure marine against colosses and the colosses won so they are imbalanced and need to be nerfed." Wow, you're an agressive little fellow aren't you? The discussion I saw was about Stalkers being too good vs Siege Tanks in direct engagements. I figured simply posting "No!" would not be enough to convince people so I tested some numbers and shared the results. Also I blunk into the tanks. Blinked? Blunk? Something. . . But yeah you're right, you seem much more qualified to talk about strategy and balance since you are obviously not driven by emotions and very mature. Edit: Just saw you were the guy saying: "now add one Immortal" I do that, same result Then you go ahead and insult me. That is exactly why I start to despise the average Terran player more and more. For some weird reason this never happens with Protoss and very, VERY rarely with Zergs. Oh and by the way pure Marine vs pure Colossus results in Marines winning if they got stim. Even without any micro. But I see your point. Still I was just testing that specific situation that was discussed.
Ok I just dont understand what point you want to bring over. You say protoss has only 2 good units and immortal is one of them. You say stalkers are too good against tanks even tho 12 survived. Stalkers are together with sentries the worst unit to make against tanks. Do you want that they nerf stalkers and dont change immortals or what? Sounds like you want to protect the immortal, but it is still the main problem. "Might as well remove protoss from the game" because of an immortal nerf that would help mech a lot? Btw I see a lot of zergs and protosses whining all the time, and no marines dont beat colosses. 60 marines with stim and combat shield lose to 5 colosses without micro and upgrades.
|
But defending against runbies by PFs, widow mines and turrets doesnt work. Turrets is kinda obvious, they cant hit stalkers. A widow mine cant even kill a single stalker currently. The density of widow mines required to stop blink stalkers is ridiculous and not a solution. Same for PFs. Extremely late game when your toss opponent decides to make a bunch of blink stalkers, then yes you can make a few extra PFs. But anywhere before extreme late game you cant defend your main with PFs, it is just way too expensive (also they are fairly ineffective against stalkers). So you are stuck on 3 base, you cant get further than that, since that is the maximum number you can defend with siege tanks. Anything more and he just outnumbers your local tank count so hard his blink stalkers will easily kill them.
Well if you have the stronger army (Tanks vs Stalkers) you obviously will have less mobility and get out manoeuvred for a long time. If that wasn't the case, Mech would be auto-win. But I think you don't really need to take a fast fourth base. Helion drops with super-fast Medivacs are pretty effective, if you have the multitasking and micro to make it work. The micro part is REALLY important here. An average Terran kills a few Probes if he gets 3 Helions in my base. Dragon once got 3 Helions into my base. I tried to defend exactly as I do against any other Terran. He devastated my Probecount. I was really shocked at how big the difference is when you target fire correctly and use the splash. So I mean, a widow mine burrowed behind the mineral line of Protoss' 4th (before taken) Banshees and Helions. You have option to keep Protoss from taking fast 5 Bases and getting 5k 3k banked by the time you are maxed.
In WoL it is already hard enough to play mech against toss, and I really think mech is alot harder in HotS due to all the toss air options, the corresponding decrease in banshee harrasment viability, the boosts to toss early agression, and the boost to toss early defense which means they can play alot greedier. The hellbat and removal of thor energy doesnt cut it for me to compensate those boosts. Especially since the traditional tech switch to BCs for mech was also heavily nerfed with tempests. Yeah, especially with the new void ray a carrier transition seems like the worst possible choice. I still think mech can work. The biggest problem is that almost every Terran spent the last 2 years playing MMM against Protoss. That means whenever Protoss found a new way to fight mech people get discouraged and return to MMM. This way the mechplay will improve so slow that most Terrans don't even bother.
And really, thor new anti-air is nice, not complaining about it, but it really isnt a proper counter to toss air. Haven't played against mech enough to know that but it doesn't seem that strong to me as well.
I am not quite sure how to fix the problem but Tempest
|
On December 23 2012 06:44 Aquila- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 06:29 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 23 2012 06:23 Aquila- wrote:On December 23 2012 06:12 rEalGuapo wrote:On December 23 2012 06:05 Aquila- wrote:On December 23 2012 05:58 rEalGuapo wrote: So I just tested 17 Tanks vs 33 Stalkers, the Stalkers are a bit more expensive but I figured it is fine.
Tanks sieged Stalkers a-moved results in 15 Tanks survived.
Tanks sieged Stalkers blinking in and then stutter stepping forward to get the maximum of damage out. Stalkers were in a concave before the blink. 11 Tanks survived. I did this one several times, 11 Tanks is pretty much what happens everytime.
Unsieged with micro the Stalkers win with 8-10 surviving.
This is without any upgrades.
3-3 on the Tanks, Blink + micro on 3-3-3 Stalkers vs sieged tanks 12 Siege Tanks survive.
I see how the Tanks really need a damage buff!
17 sieged 3-3 Tanks vs 51 3-3-3 Stalkers results in 8 Stalkers surviving, the Stalkers are microed by high master Protoss, the tanks are unmicroed. Obviously Stalkers are broken vs Tanks.
To defend against runbys you always got PFs widow mines and turrets. And now add in 1 immortal and see what happens. 17 Siege Tanks against 31 Stalkers 1 Immortal. I made sure that the Immortal gets hit right before I blink in. 11 Tanks survived. I see the difference now! The problem isn't the Siegetank. The problem is that when mech was played a lot the Tempest countered Thors and was strong vs Vikings. If the Tempest alone counters every single unit of Terran that is not a Marine the game is just broken.. Now though, Thors should do pretty well against Tempests, Tempests no longer get bonus damage and Thors got the new attack. I think Mech might work now but finding the right composition will be tough. You need Thors, Tanks, Ghosts, Helions/Helbats and MAYBE Vikings. The ratio is also important. My god stop posting you have no clue what you are talking about. If you mass stalkers against mech and then proceed to attack move into sieged tanks then you are probably bronze league and thus not eligible to talk about balance. "Hey I just went to the unit tester and tested pure marine against colosses and the colosses won so they are imbalanced and need to be nerfed." Wow, you're an agressive little fellow aren't you? The discussion I saw was about Stalkers being too good vs Siege Tanks in direct engagements. I figured simply posting "No!" would not be enough to convince people so I tested some numbers and shared the results. Also I blunk into the tanks. Blinked? Blunk? Something. . . But yeah you're right, you seem much more qualified to talk about strategy and balance since you are obviously not driven by emotions and very mature. Edit: Just saw you were the guy saying: "now add one Immortal" I do that, same result Then you go ahead and insult me. That is exactly why I start to despise the average Terran player more and more. For some weird reason this never happens with Protoss and very, VERY rarely with Zergs. Oh and by the way pure Marine vs pure Colossus results in Marines winning if they got stim. Even without any micro. But I see your point. Still I was just testing that specific situation that was discussed. Ok I just dont understand what point you want to bring over. You say protoss has only 2 good units and immortal is one of them. You say stalkers are too good against tanks even tho 12 survived. Stalkers are together with sentries the worst unit to make against tanks. Do you want that they nerf stalkers and dont change immortals or what? Sounds like you want to protect the immortal, but it is still the main problem. "Might as well remove protoss from the game" because of an immortal nerf that would help mech a lot? Btw I see a lot of zergs and protosses whining all the time, and no marines dont beat colosses. 60 marines with stim and combat shield lose to 5 colosses without micro and upgrades.
I hope one day you get to meet my friend. His ID is Irony and he's awesome.
Obviously I DON'T want Stalkers or Immortals to be nerfed
Yeah up until 4 Colossi the Marines win, after that the Colossi do. What's your point?
So, again, write this one down: All I did was take a scenario people complained about and showed how it actually plays out. I did this only because I read earlier that Stalkers are too good vs. Tanks. Got it? All I want is to people see the reality instead of thinking something and then take it as a fact.
Do you now understand my point? Tanks win vs Stalkers. Not the other way around.
If you are still uncertain and feel the need to ask again I might chose to ignore you from now on.
|
|
|
|