|
On December 18 2012 18:33 SheaR619 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:29 Sissors wrote:Well I hope that is patched, because running mines into toss armies is imo not a fun/good game mechanic, but I think your post is accurate, although you also got sentries which with good forcefields would give you an autoloss. @Shear, blink stalkers decimate siege tank play, but not for the frontal attack, because indeed massed siege tanks, maybe some widow mines between your tanks, do good against stalkers. However what if he takes 15 stalkers and blinks into your base? The only fast unit you have are hellions, which you really don't want to use against stalkers (despite that some people claim massed hellions do fine against stalkers, they don't). And even if you had 1-2 siege tanks there for defense, they simply die immediatly. So your only solutions are either base trade, or turtling up heavily. Currently I am trying the hellbat/thor combo backed up by marines, granted my win prc against toss is so low I wouldnt try most stuff I try, but still it might work without going pure bio. Maybe mix in a few siege tanks, although I dont know yet if there aditional long range dps is worth the lack of mobility. But the idea is the hellbats/thors provide a nice a-move meatshield, while the marines got their traditional role. Also directly a nice counter to toss air without having to screw around. And finally late game I take marines any day over hellions to harass, since they can actually destroy his infrastructure. Yes I know for God's sake but with Hellbats you are able to fight them now at least. In WoL, you are doomed once Charge is researched.
There you also got BFHs. And preferably you have them really in front of your army, so you can kite the chargelots in, and with a good engagement it isnt that bad. Sure hellbats are WAY better at the job, but at the same time toss also got way more toys. So in the end I rather play mech in WoL than in HotS. Of course, but if you deny an observer getting into your base, blink play can be negated along with sensor tower you can spot it coming. I do understand that the threat of blink stalker running into your main is deadly and basically keep you contain that for sure and if they do get in, things can get nasty fast. "Deny the Observer" isnt a good answer, because there should be UNITS to be able to deal with UNITS in an RTS and not the good old "dont let him get there" tactic which Blizzard added into SC2 to call everything balanced and declare the game as "ready".
|
On December 18 2012 20:31 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:33 SheaR619 wrote:On December 18 2012 18:29 Sissors wrote:Well I hope that is patched, because running mines into toss armies is imo not a fun/good game mechanic, but I think your post is accurate, although you also got sentries which with good forcefields would give you an autoloss. @Shear, blink stalkers decimate siege tank play, but not for the frontal attack, because indeed massed siege tanks, maybe some widow mines between your tanks, do good against stalkers. However what if he takes 15 stalkers and blinks into your base? The only fast unit you have are hellions, which you really don't want to use against stalkers (despite that some people claim massed hellions do fine against stalkers, they don't). And even if you had 1-2 siege tanks there for defense, they simply die immediatly. So your only solutions are either base trade, or turtling up heavily. Currently I am trying the hellbat/thor combo backed up by marines, granted my win prc against toss is so low I wouldnt try most stuff I try, but still it might work without going pure bio. Maybe mix in a few siege tanks, although I dont know yet if there aditional long range dps is worth the lack of mobility. But the idea is the hellbats/thors provide a nice a-move meatshield, while the marines got their traditional role. Also directly a nice counter to toss air without having to screw around. And finally late game I take marines any day over hellions to harass, since they can actually destroy his infrastructure. Yes I know for God's sake but with Hellbats you are able to fight them now at least. In WoL, you are doomed once Charge is researched.
There you also got BFHs. And preferably you have them really in front of your army, so you can kite the chargelots in, and with a good engagement it isnt that bad. Sure hellbats are WAY better at the job, but at the same time toss also got way more toys. So in the end I rather play mech in WoL than in HotS. Of course, but if you deny an observer getting into your base, blink play can be negated along with sensor tower you can spot it coming. I do understand that the threat of blink stalker running into your main is deadly and basically keep you contain that for sure and if they do get in, things can get nasty fast. "Deny the Observer" isnt a good answer, because there should be UNITS to be able to deal with UNITS in an RTS and not the good old "dont let him get there" tactic which Blizzard added into SC2 to call everything balanced and declare the game as "ready".
Of course, I never said that this is the solution. I only said that if you see a blink stalker heavy force the can expect him to probably do a blink attack. Considering that most protoss would go for a chargelots centric army rather then a stalker heavy army and if they do go for stalker heavy, they are probably going air. I do believe that having 20 stalker blinking into your main, you might as well counter attack because you will never be able to kill those stalker cause they will just blink away. So in a way, you can deal with it to an extent.
|
I'm sorry, but I have the same question for you, have you seen the new Carriers in action? Because they are NOT stopped by PDD.. What this means is that you can use like 2-3 PDDs to stop Tempests and it is really enough due to how slowly they fire. The rest of energy can go into HSM and sniping Carriers. It takes 2 HSM to snipe both Carrier/Tempest.. 1 HSM is more than enough, because you have Vikings/Thors to finish them off..
but your protoss opponent is using HT's don't he? I dont know how you can make this kind of statement. Your vikings cluster like crazy and get stormed or picked out by blink stalkers the moment you move forward. The ravens will get hit by feedback as soon as they come in range to set up a missile. From my experiences you cannot support a huge air army by the time protoss gets tempest / carriers. He can play super greedy because every midgame push will be held by a protoss army. So by the time you could push out with your maxed army you have to replace your mech units with air units. A starport costs 125 gas to build ravens / bc's or 150 to build vikings. So you're very limited on production cause you cant add 8 starports and start pumping out air units like a mad men cause you will never have this much of a gas bank @30 min mark.
|
On December 18 2012 20:38 EuSpex wrote:Show nested quote +I'm sorry, but I have the same question for you, have you seen the new Carriers in action? Because they are NOT stopped by PDD.. What this means is that you can use like 2-3 PDDs to stop Tempests and it is really enough due to how slowly they fire. The rest of energy can go into HSM and sniping Carriers. It takes 2 HSM to snipe both Carrier/Tempest.. 1 HSM is more than enough, because you have Vikings/Thors to finish them off.. but your protoss opponent is using HT's don't he? I dont know how you can make this kind of statement. Your vikings cluster like crazy and get stormed or picked out by blink stalkers the moment you move forward. The ravens will get hit by feedback as soon as they come in range to set up a missile. From my experiences you cannot support a huge air army by the time protoss gets tempest / carriers. He can play super greedy because every midgame push will be held by a protoss army. So by the time you could push out with your maxed army you have to replace your mech units with air units. A starport costs 125 gas to build ravens / bc's or 150 to build vikings. So you're very limited on production cause you cant add 8 starports and start pumping out air units like a mad men cause you will never have this much of a gas bank @30 min mark.
Ok, let's pretend Ghost is removed from the game.
Also, let's pretend you just sit in your base, make only ground mech army, don't scout at all, use all your energy on Mules and your Protoss opponent takes whole map while making Carriers/Tempests/HTs.
You are right.
|
On December 18 2012 20:43 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 20:38 EuSpex wrote:I'm sorry, but I have the same question for you, have you seen the new Carriers in action? Because they are NOT stopped by PDD.. What this means is that you can use like 2-3 PDDs to stop Tempests and it is really enough due to how slowly they fire. The rest of energy can go into HSM and sniping Carriers. It takes 2 HSM to snipe both Carrier/Tempest.. 1 HSM is more than enough, because you have Vikings/Thors to finish them off.. but your protoss opponent is using HT's don't he? I dont know how you can make this kind of statement. Your vikings cluster like crazy and get stormed or picked out by blink stalkers the moment you move forward. The ravens will get hit by feedback as soon as they come in range to set up a missile. From my experiences you cannot support a huge air army by the time protoss gets tempest / carriers. He can play super greedy because every midgame push will be held by a protoss army. So by the time you could push out with your maxed army you have to replace your mech units with air units. A starport costs 125 gas to build ravens / bc's or 150 to build vikings. So you're very limited on production cause you cant add 8 starports and start pumping out air units like a mad men cause you will never have this much of a gas bank @30 min mark. Ok, let's pretend Ghost is removed from the game. Also, let's pretend you just sit in your base, make only ground mech army, don't scout at all, use all your energy on Mules and your Protoss opponent takes whole map while making Carriers/Tempests/HTs. You are right.
Honestly, you are going mech. You are going to lose alot of map control to the protoss and he will have a superior economy. There nothing you can really do about him being up in economy.
The point is, is that carrier are now cost efficient vs viking. Terran dont really have any way to deal with carriers. Viking raven is good but if you have the economy to make that many raven to combat his carriers army then you should have already won the game. Also dont forget he can just remax after ward and run you over.
|
On December 18 2012 20:51 SheaR619 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 20:43 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 20:38 EuSpex wrote:I'm sorry, but I have the same question for you, have you seen the new Carriers in action? Because they are NOT stopped by PDD.. What this means is that you can use like 2-3 PDDs to stop Tempests and it is really enough due to how slowly they fire. The rest of energy can go into HSM and sniping Carriers. It takes 2 HSM to snipe both Carrier/Tempest.. 1 HSM is more than enough, because you have Vikings/Thors to finish them off.. but your protoss opponent is using HT's don't he? I dont know how you can make this kind of statement. Your vikings cluster like crazy and get stormed or picked out by blink stalkers the moment you move forward. The ravens will get hit by feedback as soon as they come in range to set up a missile. From my experiences you cannot support a huge air army by the time protoss gets tempest / carriers. He can play super greedy because every midgame push will be held by a protoss army. So by the time you could push out with your maxed army you have to replace your mech units with air units. A starport costs 125 gas to build ravens / bc's or 150 to build vikings. So you're very limited on production cause you cant add 8 starports and start pumping out air units like a mad men cause you will never have this much of a gas bank @30 min mark. Ok, let's pretend Ghost is removed from the game. Also, let's pretend you just sit in your base, make only ground mech army, don't scout at all, use all your energy on Mules and your Protoss opponent takes whole map while making Carriers/Tempests/HTs. You are right. Honestly, you are going mech. You are going to lose alot of map control to the protoss and he will have a superior economy. There nothing you can really do about him being up in economy. The point is, is that carrier are now cost efficient vs viking. Terran dont really have any way to deal with carriers. Viking raven is good but if you have the economy to make that many raven to combat his carriers army then you should have already won the game. Also dont forget he can just remax after ward and run you over.
I've just watched Dragon split map going mech versus Protoss and he ended up with 200/200 Bc/Raven/Viking that just could not be killed. Protoss opponend proceeded to leave the game as he realise there is no way he can win, so only thing he could do is avoid frustration.
As for the remax, it's not nearly as effective as in WoL, since you can remax mainly on Zealots/Stalker.. Hellbats/Thors/Ravens deal more than fine with those. You will win the air battle and you will have units left over. If you don't believe me, go into unit tester and try it out, or let's go and play 20 no rush game and see how it goes.
|
I've just watched Dragon split map going mech versus Protoss and he ended up with 200/200 Bc/Raven/Viking that just could not be killed. Protoss opponend proceeded to leave the game as he realise there is no way he can win, so only thing he could do is avoid frustration.
You play this game with terran yourself or are you just talk about hypothetical things you saw from others? To play mech, split the map and turtle until your opponent leaves is the point of going mech or even reflects the reality? I think this was just trolling from dragon and he also has done this a lot in WoL on shakuras. (btw is this strat just viable on those "split-able maps" which aren't a lot)
I told you how it is. Even if: "let's pretend you just sit in your base, make only ground mech army, don't scout at all, use all your energy on Mules and your Protoss opponent takes whole map while making Carriers/Tempests/HTs" is true... what the hell you want to do against that even IF you scout? Your harass is shut down by the protoss having watchtower / mapcontrol and enough minerals to defense his bases with canons. Protoss can delay your push endless by just forcing you to siege up again and again until he has enough units to take the fight.
I even had a game where I pushed out, landed a direct hit with a nuclear missile on his main army and lost the game cause his 4 carriers showed up. lawl
|
On December 18 2012 21:25 EuSpex wrote:Show nested quote +I've just watched Dragon split map going mech versus Protoss and he ended up with 200/200 Bc/Raven/Viking that just could not be killed. Protoss opponend proceeded to leave the game as he realise there is no way he can win, so only thing he could do is avoid frustration.
You play this game with terran yourself or are you just talk about hypothetical things you saw from others? To play mech, split the map and turtle until your opponent leaves is the point of going mech or even reflects the reality? I think this was just trolling from dragon and he also has done this a lot in WoL on shakuras. (btw is this strat just viable on those "split-able maps" which aren't a lot) I told you how it is. Even if: "let's pretend you just sit in your base, make only ground mech army, don't scout at all, use all your energy on Mules and your Protoss opponent takes whole map while making Carriers/Tempests/HTs" is true... what the hell you want to do against that even IF you scout? Your harass is shut down by the protoss having watchtower / mapcontrol and enough minerals to defense his bases with canons. Protoss can delay your push endless by just forcing you to siege up again and again until he has enough units to take the fight. I even had a game where I pushed out, landed a direct hit with a nuclear missile on his main army and lost the game cause his 4 carriers showed up. lawl
Sure I have my own experience with these kinda scenarios. Also, this is not, how I play mech. But since your starting argument is "lol I just sit make carriers and win and you can't do anything", it's really hard to have argument with you.
Carrier/Tempest/HTs you can't achieve this by just making those units from the beginning do you agree? It's the same thing if I was trying to say I can just take my 3 bases, turtle up with BCs and then own everything and you can't do anything, because I have free minerals to build turrets everywhere? Well, that is true, excet for the part, where my opponent can just walk into my base and kill me. The same goes for Protoss...
HOW is he going to force me to siege without ground army? How is he going to stop MY economy if I scout he is going for Carriers? You can't just pretend that Protoss is able to mass air and Terran can't do anything about it or at least the same.
The mass air vs mass air situation is only happening after ground army is exchanged. Any other case is just bad play from the guy, who missed his opponent's air switch.
Also, losing game after landing nuke on his army directly only tells you one thing really and that is you probably didn't play well at all.
|
On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal.
Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL)
On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least.
I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post.
|
Here's the fundamental problem I am noticing with Mech in TvP.
There are two ways to hard counter Factory based ground unit compositions. Hard counter, meaning the units get demolished in a one sided fashion. I will discuss them one at a time.
1. Protoss Air:
An Air Transition from the Protoss effectively negates Thor and Siege Tank heavy play and forces out Vikings. The bigger the Protoss air army, the more Vikings are required to the point where the only way to counter a Protoss late game air army is a full air transition from the Terran player. It only takes a few Tempests, Carriers or Void Rays to completely stop a Meching Terran's advance and force this transition.
Here's why that's a problem. Once a Terran is committed to using Air Units, the Terran Sky Army is INCREDIBLY weak vs Protoss Ground Forces. The only air to ground that Terrans have available to them in their unit compositions are the Banshee and Battlecruiser both of which are somewhat effective vs Stalkers but get absolutely decimated vs High Templar support.
Also with a full Terran air army, there is absolutely nothing capable of stopping Dark Templar or DT economic harassment because the air units themselves are so slow and Terrans have no static ground defense aside from Planetary Fortresses that do not cost supply. Contrast this with Infestor/Broodlord in Wings of Liberty which is an incredibly slow force that can't deal with harassment easily yet Zerg handles it anyway via Spine and Spore Crawlers.
Assuming the Terran can win a battle vs a Protoss air army which in my experience is very hard to do, it's next to impossible to actually win the game because a tech switch back into Protoss ground forces will ultimately win vs a Sky Terran army. Winning said air battle becomes even more difficult if the Terran is investing supply in Widow Mines or Bunkers to defend expansions.
Is it unrealistic to build a full Protoss Air Force capable of forcing the kind of full transition I'm talking about. Well yes, but there's another problem that Terrans have to deal with as well.
2: The Immortal
The Immortal is the second hard counter to Mech and it requires a completely different set of units to deal with than the Protoss Air problem does.
To deal with Immortals, Meching Terrans need either Ghosts, or Air units specifically Banshees or Ravens. If neither of these units are mixed in with the Mech army Immortals will single handedly destroy several time their resource cost in Mech in the blink of an eye.
Ok, but Mech DOES have counters to Immortals why don't they just use them?
THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM:
How does a Mech Terran player accommodate both the threat of Air Units and the threat of Immortals with the same army?
Being unprepared for either will cause the Mech army to completely evaporate because each counter measure Mech has to either threat is exclusive and absolutely worthless vs the other.
Every Viking invested to counter air units is a complete waste vs ground units, every Banshee or Ghost built to deal with Immortals is equally useless vs Protoss Air units.
What this in fact forces Terrans to do is to try and counter both blindly before even moving out. They need to have some Vikings in their army to deal with the THREAT of air units, and they need Ghosts to deal with the inevitable danger of Immortals. What ends up happening at this point is that there is now so much supply invested in countering the various threats to a Mech army that the Mech army itself now lacks the pure firepower to deal with a basic Protoss deathball.
WHERE MECH CURRENTLY IS:
Mech is currently stuck exactly where it is in Wings of Liberty. There's no way to actually win vs a Protoss player in the late game. In WoL this is because Mech has no way of dealing with Zealots effectively and in HoTS it's because of the ability to tech switch back and forth between Immortals and Air units faster than a Terran can respond to either.
The only winnable route from this point is to all in before the late game can ever actually take place or to cause a critical amount of economic damage in the early game. This is the exact same place Mech is in WoL. Mech does not have the ability to apply constant pressure to slow down Protoss teching the way that Bio can and unlike TvZ it's much easier to protect outlying expansions from Hellion pressure with basic Pylon/Photon Cannon simcity especially considering that it doesn't require sacrificing Drones to do it and Photon Cannons also counter Banshees which is the only other unit that Mech can harass or apply pressure with.
The only way for Mech to actually be viable in the match up is for it to be a dominant force in a straight up battle, that is the only strength the playstyle has. It will never be that as long as Protoss has multiple ways of hard countering it that require exclusive counters to deal with.
|
On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post.
You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0."..
|
On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. Then you should read all the other posts I have made on the topic - of which there are quite a few - to get the whole picture of what I am saying. Endlessly repeating EVERYTHING RELEVANT to a point in every post is stupid and just makes each post longer and longer.
To sum it up: With the tight unit movement, unlimited unit selection and boosted mass production of infantry you CANT buff Siege Tanks without making them totally OP in small numbers. Not even reducing them to 2 supply will work, since they cant really defend themselves anyways and there are too many ways to easily kill them. Sooo ... the only solution is to get rid of the "advanced" SC2 junk which Blizzard came up with and remove the three stupid things I listed above from the game to give greater importance to single (few) tough units and enable them to hold a position against an enemy on their own.
The only possible solution to fixing the Siege Tank *might* be a change to their attack buff from the upgrades and to increase the gain exponentially .... like +3 for the first upgrade, +6 for the second and +12 for the third ... for a total of +21 in the end. You can make the tank much stronger for the endgame while preventing it from dominating the early game. This plus a little fiddling with the "bonus" damage - to make it less useless against light units - could possibly make the Siege Tank viable without having to resort to removing the three stupid mechanisms, but its all a matter of timings ... i.e. Can Terrans get there without being overrun in the meantime?
On December 18 2012 22:14 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0.".. At 35 damage vs light they *should* theoretically be able to kill Zerglings with one shot, BUT the Zergling possibly has +1 armor - started a lot earlier than any mech upgrade - and then it will survive to start regenerating and to run into melee range of the Siege Tank, draw friendly fire from other tanks and maybe soak up shots from Marines defending it.
|
On December 18 2012 22:14 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0."..
You have to consider that when you mech this allows Zerg to control the map relatively easily, so as a result you will have to fight two 200/200 Zerg armies because of larva inject and larva banks. With this in mind I think the tank is rather underwhelming, because even if you manage to trade evenly with Zerg lategame you'll have to deal with an instant remax and/or tech switch. If your tanks aren't even one-shotting Zerglings then against an opponent of equal skill it will always be a fundamental uphill battle for the Terran player because a mech army cannot be remade, and this isn't even considering the effects that Vipers have had on mech recently.
Considering the above and given the inherent drawbacks of the tank (it can't move in siege mode, and becomes a free gas donation when surrounded) combined with the production restraints of Terran the tank should be a force to be reckoned with in order to be viable. BW had it right. It should be "How can I think strategically and circumvent the defense of this tank line?" and not "Well I'll just make another round of lings and a-move him frontal assault with my army because tanks do no damage".
For similar reasons the tank, and subsequently mech, also fails in TvP. It's just not a threat.
|
"With the tight unit movement, unlimited unit selection and boosted mass production of infantry you CANT buff Siege Tanks without making them totally OP in small numbers. Not even reducing them to 2 supply will work, since they cant really defend themselves anyways and there are too many ways to easily kill them."
Wait what? :D
Also, buffing Tank doesn't necessarily mean buffing it's damage. But holy shit, what are you smoking you are able to come up with such ridiculous sentences. :D Tell me, I'd like to taste..
|
On December 18 2012 22:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 22:14 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0.".. You have to consider that when you mech this allows Zerg to control the map relatively easily, so as a result you will have to fight two 200/200 Zerg armies because of larva inject and larva banks combined with mech armies taking significantly longer to create. With this in mind I think the tank is rather underwhelming, because even if you manage to trade evenly with Zerg lategame you'll have to deal with an instant remax and/or tech switch. If your tanks aren't even one-shotting Zerglings then against an opponent of equal skill it will always be a fundamental uphill battle for the Terran player, and this isn't even considering the effects that Vipers have had on mech recently. Considering the above and given the inherent drawbacks of the tank (it can't move in siege mode, and becomes a free gas donation when surrounded) combined with the production restraints of Terran the tank should be a force to be reckoned with. It should be "How can I think strategically and circumvent the defense of this tank line?" and not "Well I'll just make another round of lings and a-move him with my army because tanks do no damage". For similar reasons the tank, and subsequently mech, also fails in TvP. It's just not a threat.
While I agree with you as I have experineced exactly such scenarios by myself, there is this question that comes into my mind. Are you going to buff Tank (probably damage) only because of this case, where you are supposed to deal with 400 supply? Are you even supposed to do so? I don't know..
|
On December 18 2012 22:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 22:14 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0.".. You have to consider that when you mech this allows Zerg to control the map relatively easily, so as a result you will have to fight two 200/200 Zerg armies because of larva inject. With this in mind I think the tank is rather underwhelming, because even if you manage to trade evenly with Zerg lategame you'll have to deal with an instant remax and/or tech switch. If your tanks aren't even one-shotting Zerglings then against an opponent of equal skill it will always be a fundamental uphill battle for the Terran player, and this isn't even considering the effects that Vipers have had on mech recently. Considering the above and given the inherent drawbacks of the tank (it can't move in siege mode, and becomes a free gas donation when surrounded) combined with the production restraints of Terran the tank should be a force to be reckoned with. It should be "How can I think strategically and circumvent the defense of this tank line?" and not "Well I'll just make another round of lings and a-move him with my army because tanks do no damage". You also have to take into account that "positional mech play" in BW incorporated turrets and a few bunkers as well and due to the super high speed creep spread ... which disappears at a snails pace after you kill the tumors AND which you cant really quicken (maybe give EMP and Psi Storm creep-removal capability?) actively yourself ... you cant really build anything on the Zerg half of the map to support your mech.
I think Day[9] explained "attacking in BW" as "rush across most of the map to a certain point and then take a slow assault from there on" ... and thats pretty much what mech should be. Due to the creep its impossible to do it though.
On December 18 2012 22:45 Everlong wrote: "With the tight unit movement, unlimited unit selection and boosted mass production of infantry you CANT buff Siege Tanks without making them totally OP in small numbers. Not even reducing them to 2 supply will work, since they cant really defend themselves anyways and there are too many ways to easily kill them."
Wait what? :D
Also, buffing Tank doesn't necessarily mean buffing it's damage. But holy shit, what are you smoking you are able to come up with such ridiculous sentences. :D Tell me, I'd like to taste.. 0. Learn to quote?
Ok, lets go through the options for "buffing Siege Tanks" ...
1. Buffing damage You can either do a flat increase or just get rid of the bonus damage and change it to a flat +50 damage. Both are increases in damage and they dont seem to be "overpowered", since - at 50 damage - a Zealot would still take 4 whooping shots to kill. The major point which people totally forget is that the main abused drawback of the Siege Tank is called FRIENDLY FIRE and at this damage (or a little more) you DONT kill enemies outright and most likely end up just dealing more damage to your own forces. So its going to be a useless buff unless you get into the range of "killing outright" or at least requiring only 2-3 shots for infantry units (apart from Marines and Zerglings) such as Zealots, Roaches, Marauders, Stalkers.
2. Reducing Supply You still have to have the economy to build them AND be allowed the time to build them, so this really isnt a buff at all except for the super late game and it helps exactly nothing at all with the "reproduction problem" of Siege Tanks.
3. Buffing defensive values. Sure you can make Tanks more durable, but due to their "siege up vulnerability" and their "minimum range" they wont really be better off against any Zealots or Zerglings getting into melee range. Stimmed up Marines can get easily into the "dead zone" as well, so all three races have their own easy way to get rid of the Tanks. The only thing this would change would be TvT tank battles by slowing them down just a bit, but the other races still have the advantage over the tanks.
4. Reducing the mineral/gas cost This sounds nice and would enable Terrans to replace the tanks faster (by having more resources left over for extra factories), but that changes exactly nothing about their performance on the battlefield. So it doesnt really count, does it?
5. I dont smoke and maybe you should try that as well.
On December 18 2012 22:48 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 22:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 22:14 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0.".. You have to consider that when you mech this allows Zerg to control the map relatively easily, so as a result you will have to fight two 200/200 Zerg armies because of larva inject and larva banks combined with mech armies taking significantly longer to create. With this in mind I think the tank is rather underwhelming, because even if you manage to trade evenly with Zerg lategame you'll have to deal with an instant remax and/or tech switch. If your tanks aren't even one-shotting Zerglings then against an opponent of equal skill it will always be a fundamental uphill battle for the Terran player, and this isn't even considering the effects that Vipers have had on mech recently. Considering the above and given the inherent drawbacks of the tank (it can't move in siege mode, and becomes a free gas donation when surrounded) combined with the production restraints of Terran the tank should be a force to be reckoned with. It should be "How can I think strategically and circumvent the defense of this tank line?" and not "Well I'll just make another round of lings and a-move him with my army because tanks do no damage". For similar reasons the tank, and subsequently mech, also fails in TvP. It's just not a threat. While I agree with you as I have experineced exactly such scenarios by myself, there is this question that comes into my mind. Are you going to buff Tank (probably damage) only because of this case, where you are supposed to deal with 400 supply? Are you even supposed to do so? I don't know.. Isnt it obvious that the only good solution is to make the "two 200 supply armies after another" impossible, i.e. remove larva inject (and consequently also warp gate, reactor, chronoboost and MULE) from the game? Thats the sensible/easy solution at least, because balancing "1 unit vs 1 unit" is relatively easy, but balancing asymetrically distributed production speed boosts on differently sized maps isnt.
Less is more.
|
On December 18 2012 22:49 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 22:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 22:14 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0.".. You have to consider that when you mech this allows Zerg to control the map relatively easily, so as a result you will have to fight two 200/200 Zerg armies because of larva inject. With this in mind I think the tank is rather underwhelming, because even if you manage to trade evenly with Zerg lategame you'll have to deal with an instant remax and/or tech switch. If your tanks aren't even one-shotting Zerglings then against an opponent of equal skill it will always be a fundamental uphill battle for the Terran player, and this isn't even considering the effects that Vipers have had on mech recently. Considering the above and given the inherent drawbacks of the tank (it can't move in siege mode, and becomes a free gas donation when surrounded) combined with the production restraints of Terran the tank should be a force to be reckoned with. It should be "How can I think strategically and circumvent the defense of this tank line?" and not "Well I'll just make another round of lings and a-move him with my army because tanks do no damage". You also have to take into account that "positional mech play" in BW incorporated turrets and a few bunkers as well and due to the super high speed creep spread ... which disappears at a snails pace after you kill the tumors AND which you cant really quicken (maybe give EMP and Psi Storm creep-removal capability?) actively yourself ... you cant really build anything on the Zerg half of the map to support your mech. I think Day[9] explained "attacking in BW" as "rush across most of the map to a certain point and then take a slow assault from there on" ... and thats pretty much what mech should be. Due to the creep its impossible to do it though. Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 22:45 Everlong wrote: "With the tight unit movement, unlimited unit selection and boosted mass production of infantry you CANT buff Siege Tanks without making them totally OP in small numbers. Not even reducing them to 2 supply will work, since they cant really defend themselves anyways and there are too many ways to easily kill them."
Wait what? :D
Also, buffing Tank doesn't necessarily mean buffing it's damage. But holy shit, what are you smoking you are able to come up with such ridiculous sentences. :D Tell me, I'd like to taste.. 0. Learn to quote? Ok, lets go through the options for "buffing Siege Tanks" ... 1. Buffing damage You can either do a flat increase or just get rid of the bonus damage and change it to a flat +50 damage. Both are increases in damage and they dont seem to be "overpowered", since - at 50 damage - a Zealot would still take 4 whooping shots to kill. The major point which people totally forget is that the main abused drawback of the Siege Tank is called FRIENDLY FIRE and at this damage (or a little more) you DONT kill enemies outright and most likely end up just dealing more damage to your own forces. So its going to be a useless buff unless you get into the range of "killing outright" or at least requiring only 2-3 shots for infantry units (apart from Marines and Zerglings) such as Zealots, Roaches, Marauders, Stalkers. 2. Reducing Supply You still have to have the economy to build them AND be allowed the time to build them, so this really isnt a buff at all except for the super late game and it helps exactly nothing at all with the "reproduction problem" of Siege Tanks. 3. Buffing defensive values. Sure you can make Tanks more durable, but due to their "siege up vulnerability" and their "minimum range" they wont really be better off against any Zealots or Zerglings getting into melee range. Stimmed up Marines can get easily into the "dead zone" as well, so all three races have their own easy way to get rid of the Tanks. The only thing this would change would be TvT tank battles by slowing them down just a bit, but the other races still have the advantage over the tanks. 4. Reducing the mineral/gas cost This sounds nice and would enable Terrans to replace the tanks faster (by having more resources left over for extra factories), but that changes exactly nothing about their performance on the battlefield. So it doesnt really count, does it? 5. I dont smoke and maybe you should try that as well. Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 22:48 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 22:41 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 22:14 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 21:55 DemigodcelpH wrote:On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Not true. Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0. Tanks are also bad or subpar against a majority of the units of all races except Terran. (HotS alone has introduced about 5 more tank hard-counters between Z and P despite the unit rarely ever being cost-effective or role-effective in WoL) On December 18 2012 17:29 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote: Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade... Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger. On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote: Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army. Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least. I'm not quite following, so excuse me. You're kind of proving your argument wrong within your own post. You are right, but as it seems to be, mech is pretty powerful in TvZ vs basic ground compositions. I don't think that while mech gets destroyed by Broodlord/Corruptor/Infestor, that justifies statement like "Tank damage is pitiful and can't even kill with a Zergling when both are on 0/0.".. You have to consider that when you mech this allows Zerg to control the map relatively easily, so as a result you will have to fight two 200/200 Zerg armies because of larva inject and larva banks combined with mech armies taking significantly longer to create. With this in mind I think the tank is rather underwhelming, because even if you manage to trade evenly with Zerg lategame you'll have to deal with an instant remax and/or tech switch. If your tanks aren't even one-shotting Zerglings then against an opponent of equal skill it will always be a fundamental uphill battle for the Terran player, and this isn't even considering the effects that Vipers have had on mech recently. Considering the above and given the inherent drawbacks of the tank (it can't move in siege mode, and becomes a free gas donation when surrounded) combined with the production restraints of Terran the tank should be a force to be reckoned with. It should be "How can I think strategically and circumvent the defense of this tank line?" and not "Well I'll just make another round of lings and a-move him with my army because tanks do no damage". For similar reasons the tank, and subsequently mech, also fails in TvP. It's just not a threat. While I agree with you as I have experineced exactly such scenarios by myself, there is this question that comes into my mind. Are you going to buff Tank (probably damage) only because of this case, where you are supposed to deal with 400 supply? Are you even supposed to do so? I don't know.. Isnt it obvious that the only good solution is to make the "two 200 supply armies after another" impossible, i.e. remove larva inject (and consequently also warp gate, reactor, chronoboost and MULE) from the game? Thats the sensible/easy solution at least, because balancing "1 unit vs 1 unit" is relatively easy, but balancing asymetrically distributed production speed boosts on differently sized maps isnt. Less is more.
Removing larva inject, warp gate, reactor, chronoboost and mule is sensible and easy solution? :D
|
Dustin has stated that Inject, Warp Gates, and Chrono will not be cut. We have to focus on getting Blizzard's attention in regards to helping out of the tank and other mech units that have been neglected and/or are subpar, and not removing these other things.
The immortal +hp - shield change also seems very reasonable, or perhaps even a damage cut can be considered. It's kind of peculiar that Immortals do significantly more damage (vs armored) than Siege Tanks per shot with a significantly lower cool-down while being able to move.
|
Vindicare made a beautiful post and found the words which i've not found. I can not agree more.
sad that no once notices...
|
Everyone's so defeatist. personally i like to do it this way.
How i do it generally is this
CC first gas rax fac gas Then rush seigetanks and seigemode and between that, constant SCV, Marine, a bunker and seige tanks you can defend yourself form just about anything they throw at you.
Take your third and forth gas but dont put extra SCV's on it till you you can get another CC then saturate all gas's. bank 400 gas and throw down another 3 fac's (2 tech 2 reactor) then get double armory. Stop building supply depots and just use call down mules, (you want to have income form your easiest to defend base's for as long as possible)
Switch into widowmine thor, building hellions when your low on gas andwith your extra mins just start adding orbitals and scanning everywhere constantly.
When 2/2 is finish's start to push using some hellbats, widow mines then thors with your 5-6 seigetanks as support, scanning constantly to eliminate all observers so your mines are safe.
Take a 4th, throw down 4 starports and a fusion core, start your air upgrades and switch into BC's in the ultra late game.
It's fun as fuck.
I'm not going to say i have the golden key's to Mech, but the replay i saw that everyone was whinging about made no use of any of the things that have changed in HOTS. Play the game and stop whinging and you may find some answers.
|
|
|
|