|
Hey guys, in my last game of the beta I joined a custom match, PvT. IT TOOK US 45 MINUTES TO PLAY IT OUT.
The guy rushed to siege tanks, I went DT tech (sounds like the most recent Day9 Daily =P). After some early harassment with my DTs the game went on. I was feeling good, having had my main and nat, and about to take the gold. He was STILL on 1 base, and was just harassed.
As the game went on I kept harassing him with blink stalkers from behind his nat (Map was blistering sands). He then builtt missile turrets and had tanks sitting around. Finally after 45 MINUTES OF PLAY, I FINALLY DESTROYED HIS NAT AND MAIN. It is just absurd how many units he made off o 2 bases. It was in the hundreds. It was just absurd. I could not believe 1- how annoying siege tanks are and 2- how much efficiency they can get off of 2 bases
Terran is just obnoxious. I honestly think they need to give them a different unit other than tanks. They are just absurd and give terran WAY too much defense.
|
On June 08 2010 15:58 Surrealz wrote:
Hey guys, in my last game of the beta I joined a custom match, PvT. IT TOOK US 45 MINUTES TO PLAY IT OUT.
The guy rushed to siege tanks, I went DT tech (sounds like the most recent Day9 Daily =P). After some early harassment with my DTs the game went on. I was feeling good, having had my main and nat, and about to take the gold. He was STILL on 1 base, and was just harassed.
As the game went on I kept harassing him with blink stalkers from behind his nat (Map was blistering sands). He then builtt missile turrets and had tanks sitting around. Finally after 45 MINUTES OF PLAY, I FINALLY DESTROYED HIS NAT AND MAIN. It is just absurd how many units he made off o 2 bases. It was in the hundreds. It was just absurd. I could not believe 1- how annoying siege tanks are and 2- how much efficiency they can get off of 2 bases
Terran is just obnoxious. I honestly think they need to give them a different unit other than tanks. They are just absurd and give terran WAY too much defense.
Yet another whine of a non-terran who tries to go with his head through a wall - with some siege tanks behind it - and fails. You WON dude, so why complain about siege tanks being IMBA?
Todays Day[9] showed nicely how to beat a terran mech with Zerg. The general strategy applies to both Zerg and Protoss ...
1. let the Terran expand so he has to defend at more than one place
2. take lots of expansions and get tons of resources while he is doing that
3. creep up the map (= build pylons everywhere)
4. DONT use small infantry like Hydralisks and Roaches but rather take the big ones in addition to the swarm unit. This is actually not comparable for Protoss, but using DTs, hallucinations (to soak up shots while charging the tanks), blink, charge ... should work as well.
Creativity is required to play this game and doing the "bull rush" does not work against Mech. Stop complaining about it ...
One last hint: You DONT need to kill the army, but rather the bases and if a Terran is spread out he cant defend effectively everywhere. Use mobility to make him move and you win.
|
On June 08 2010 16:21 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 15:58 Surrealz wrote:
Hey guys, in my last game of the beta I joined a custom match, PvT. IT TOOK US 45 MINUTES TO PLAY IT OUT.
The guy rushed to siege tanks, I went DT tech (sounds like the most recent Day9 Daily =P). After some early harassment with my DTs the game went on. I was feeling good, having had my main and nat, and about to take the gold. He was STILL on 1 base, and was just harassed.
As the game went on I kept harassing him with blink stalkers from behind his nat (Map was blistering sands). He then builtt missile turrets and had tanks sitting around. Finally after 45 MINUTES OF PLAY, I FINALLY DESTROYED HIS NAT AND MAIN. It is just absurd how many units he made off o 2 bases. It was in the hundreds. It was just absurd. I could not believe 1- how annoying siege tanks are and 2- how much efficiency they can get off of 2 bases
Terran is just obnoxious. I honestly think they need to give them a different unit other than tanks. They are just absurd and give terran WAY too much defense. Yet another whine of a non-terran who tries to go with his head through a wall - with some siege tanks behind it - and fails. You WON dude, so why complain about siege tanks being IMBA?
Because our only method of stopping terran mech is to go air. Even in Day9's latest daily he went Phoenix to lift the tanks, and STILL almost lost his entire army. Also, the problem with going air against tanks is that alot of terran are using a marine/tank/raven army comp, so the mass marines will rip through the air units you bring in. Its just really, really, REALLY hard to kill any number of siege tanks right now. They are obnoxious, and the level of power/defense they give is unmatched by any other unit in this game.
|
On June 08 2010 16:26 Surrealz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 16:21 Rabiator wrote:On June 08 2010 15:58 Surrealz wrote:
Hey guys, in my last game of the beta I joined a custom match, PvT. IT TOOK US 45 MINUTES TO PLAY IT OUT.
The guy rushed to siege tanks, I went DT tech (sounds like the most recent Day9 Daily =P). After some early harassment with my DTs the game went on. I was feeling good, having had my main and nat, and about to take the gold. He was STILL on 1 base, and was just harassed.
As the game went on I kept harassing him with blink stalkers from behind his nat (Map was blistering sands). He then builtt missile turrets and had tanks sitting around. Finally after 45 MINUTES OF PLAY, I FINALLY DESTROYED HIS NAT AND MAIN. It is just absurd how many units he made off o 2 bases. It was in the hundreds. It was just absurd. I could not believe 1- how annoying siege tanks are and 2- how much efficiency they can get off of 2 bases
Terran is just obnoxious. I honestly think they need to give them a different unit other than tanks. They are just absurd and give terran WAY too much defense. Yet another whine of a non-terran who tries to go with his head through a wall - with some siege tanks behind it - and fails. You WON dude, so why complain about siege tanks being IMBA? Because our only method of stopping terran mech is to go air.
So do you complain about not being able to use DTs effectively when the Terran has detectors too? Just curious, because some strategies (like the infantry assault vs. Mech) are SUPPOSED TO not work well against certain other strategies.
|
Plat 2k before reset, diamond 11 post reset. I favor tech openings that lead to macro games and I strongly preferred mech over bio. But with the last couple patches, I feel that pure mech does not have the endgame potential as it did before.
There are a lot of posts that talk about terrans some of which seem unjustified as a terran player.
TvZ
Mech is almost unviable now because of the tank nerf and ultralisk buff. Yes, ultralisk buff. A lot of people have been complaining that ultras are too weak, but they do an INSANE amount of damage once it gets to your mechline. With 25mana frenzy, there's no point in neural parasite. Frenzy 4 ultralisks, and they will wreak havoc on a tankline. If you say that 450 is a low amount of health, think about it in terms of tanks. You need roughtly 8 shots to 1 shot an ultralisk. And ultras are so big that splash is wasted. With 3 supply tanks, the usual number of tanks the terran has is around 15. Similar supply of 7 ultralisk charging at a tankline will DEMOLISH them. With their splash and armored bonus backed up by frenzy, there is no way that a pure mech army can take zerg army with ultras head on. I've tried battling ultras with sieged tanks and unsieged tanks, and on open maps like desert oasis, mech is a suicide against zerg's ground army.
Now, I'm not saying that ultras are imbalanced. They do their job of countering terran mech REALLY well. But they are not very great against marauders with similar upgrades and backed up by medivac. This is probably why people have the wrong idea that ultras are trash, because they probably faced more bio than mech in the earlier stages of beta. Right now, siege mode is almost a joke; many times in tank fights it's better to leave them unsieged even when charging because the transform time and the lower dps gives a terrible disadvantage. Yes,a 100 supply's worth of pure roaches and hydralisks that charges at 60 supply's worth of sieged tanks -. -. That's what tanks in siege mode are supposed to be: Incredible long range damage dealer that CANNOT MOVE. Siege sacrifices a TON of mobility for high damage output, but it's just not there right now, shown best in a mech fight vs ultralisks.
You may argue, why don't you just get 30 tanks? The problem with this is that zergs can go broodlords which absolutely demolishes terran's ground army. If you have a army that is too centered on tanks, you will not have enough supply buffer to produce enough vikings, and the game can be lost at one strike by the zerg.
Thors hard counter mutas, just like how banelings hard counter marines. With micromanagement, mutas can fight thors to a certain extent as well as marines can fight banelings. If there were no banelings, there would really not be a solid answer to mass marines as zerg. If there were no thors' splash, there would really not be a solid answer tot mass muta as terran especially considering the presence of banelings and also the superior mobility of mutalisks.
Neural parasite being able to control air units is a HUGE buff. Yes, it's an upgrade now and costs 100 energy. But after it has been researched, the infestor can mind control medivacs and ravens, which is huge as hell. Just the threat of HSM being used against terran's bioball makes HSM an ability better left unresearched. I would probably never go battlecruisers against zergs because of infestors, or if I do, I would have to get ghosts. And if the game is a case where i can pump BCs AND ghosts, I probably would be in a situation where I can do anything. The fact that now it can take medivacs make dropship harass so much dangerous, altho fungal growth being instant cast made it that dangerous already. I'm not gonna say dropship play is completely negated, because it's not. But there's a lot of risk involved because of neural parasite. And seriously, 50 energy to take your opponent's colo, immo, thor, carrier, bc, raven, tanks, etc...was too much anyway.
All-in-all, I think TvZ is a pretty balanced matchup as of now, and I remember statistics quoted on TL that TvZ is msot close to being balanced. When I lose, there has never been a time where I thought that zerg was imbalanced. And when I win, I had to work damn hard for it against a formidable opponent, who in many times when I watched the replay did not have the best macro, very few actually able to keep their resource count less than 300 during mid-lategame. And so much proportion of TvZ posts are crying that Terran is imba -. -;
|
On June 08 2010 16:32 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 16:26 Surrealz wrote:On June 08 2010 16:21 Rabiator wrote:On June 08 2010 15:58 Surrealz wrote:
Hey guys, in my last game of the beta I joined a custom match, PvT. IT TOOK US 45 MINUTES TO PLAY IT OUT.
The guy rushed to siege tanks, I went DT tech (sounds like the most recent Day9 Daily =P). After some early harassment with my DTs the game went on. I was feeling good, having had my main and nat, and about to take the gold. He was STILL on 1 base, and was just harassed.
As the game went on I kept harassing him with blink stalkers from behind his nat (Map was blistering sands). He then builtt missile turrets and had tanks sitting around. Finally after 45 MINUTES OF PLAY, I FINALLY DESTROYED HIS NAT AND MAIN. It is just absurd how many units he made off o 2 bases. It was in the hundreds. It was just absurd. I could not believe 1- how annoying siege tanks are and 2- how much efficiency they can get off of 2 bases
Terran is just obnoxious. I honestly think they need to give them a different unit other than tanks. They are just absurd and give terran WAY too much defense. Yet another whine of a non-terran who tries to go with his head through a wall - with some siege tanks behind it - and fails. You WON dude, so why complain about siege tanks being IMBA? Because our only method of stopping terran mech is to go air. So do you complain about not being able to use DTs effectively when the Terran has detectors too? Just curious, because some strategies (like the infantry assault vs. Mech) are SUPPOSED TO not work well against certain other strategies.
You completely took what I wrote out of context. I included there that marines will completely counter any kind of air assault on said siege tanks. Not to mention any smart player is going to build a turret or two by their wall of tanks.
Also, terrans only need 1-3 bases to amass a huge army, and they have MORE than enough siege tanks to defend that with that many bases. Its really insane just how efficient siege tanks are.
|
No, marines won't counter carriers, when he has less resources than you and is investing in a lot of tanks. You would've won that game much faster if you just went carriers, since he was sitting on 2 bases and letting you do whatever you want.
Complaining that you need siege units to effectively overcome a strong defense is pretty silly.
|
On June 08 2010 16:38 Surrealz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 16:32 Rabiator wrote:On June 08 2010 16:26 Surrealz wrote:On June 08 2010 16:21 Rabiator wrote:On June 08 2010 15:58 Surrealz wrote:
Hey guys, in my last game of the beta I joined a custom match, PvT. IT TOOK US 45 MINUTES TO PLAY IT OUT.
The guy rushed to siege tanks, I went DT tech (sounds like the most recent Day9 Daily =P). After some early harassment with my DTs the game went on. I was feeling good, having had my main and nat, and about to take the gold. He was STILL on 1 base, and was just harassed.
As the game went on I kept harassing him with blink stalkers from behind his nat (Map was blistering sands). He then builtt missile turrets and had tanks sitting around. Finally after 45 MINUTES OF PLAY, I FINALLY DESTROYED HIS NAT AND MAIN. It is just absurd how many units he made off o 2 bases. It was in the hundreds. It was just absurd. I could not believe 1- how annoying siege tanks are and 2- how much efficiency they can get off of 2 bases
Terran is just obnoxious. I honestly think they need to give them a different unit other than tanks. They are just absurd and give terran WAY too much defense. Yet another whine of a non-terran who tries to go with his head through a wall - with some siege tanks behind it - and fails. You WON dude, so why complain about siege tanks being IMBA? Because our only method of stopping terran mech is to go air. So do you complain about not being able to use DTs effectively when the Terran has detectors too? Just curious, because some strategies (like the infantry assault vs. Mech) are SUPPOSED TO not work well against certain other strategies. You completely took what I wrote out of context. I included there that marines will completely counter any kind of air assault on said siege tanks. Not to mention any smart player is going to build a turret or two by their wall of tanks. Also, terrans only need 1-3 bases to amass a huge army, and they have MORE than enough siege tanks to defend that with that many bases. Its really insane just how efficient siege tanks are.
No Marines or turrets will counter Brood Lords and the Broodlings will even make tanks kill each other. You only need 1-2 to do this, so its not a huge deviation from a ground army. The more the terran builds in Marines or air, the less he has as mech units. Vikings are pretty useless against Zerg ... if the Zerg goes about it the right way (see Day[9] daily 131).
On June 08 2010 19:10 lololol wrote:
No, marines won't counter carriers, when he has less resources than you and is investing in a lot of tanks. You would've won that game much faster if you just went carriers, since he was sitting on 2 bases and letting you do whatever you want.
Complaining that you need siege units to effectively overcome a strong defense is pretty silly.
Thank you for agreeing with me and even Protoss has intelligent ways to deal with the Terran mech. What Surrealz doesnt seem to understand is that he should NOT force his way into a sieged Terran position. If the Terran only wants 1-3 bases he should have A LOT more resources, because no map has only 6 bases and the Terran gives up the claim to the rest of his half past the 2-3 he really wants.
Carriers to kill unguarded turrets as one form of harrass is a way to whittle down the resources of the Terran and slowly bleed him to death. A Mothership to call the Carriers back before they die is a nice method to minimize your losses in resources. At the same time you can have DTs, Stalkers, Chargelots and HTs ready to intercept any Terran forces who peek out from under the turtle shell.
There is one really nice saying: "Never bring a sword to a gunfight.", so dont try to complain about being inefficient if you do. If you have to win in 15 minutes its your problem, but against a defensive mech player you will want to make him move and leave his defensive position. Attacking him is "playing his game" and if you lose to that its your own fault.
|
On June 08 2010 16:38 nujgnoy wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that ultras are imbalanced. They do their job of countering terran mech REALLY well. But they are not very great against marauders with similar upgrades and backed up by medivac. This is probably why people have the wrong idea that ultras are trash, because they probably faced more bio than mech in the earlier stages of beta. Right now, siege mode is almost a joke; many times in tank fights it's better to leave them unsieged even when charging because the transform time and the lower dps gives a terrible disadvantage. Yes,a 100 supply's worth of pure roaches and hydralisks that charges at 60 supply's worth of sieged tanks -. -. That's what tanks in siege mode are supposed to be: Incredible long range damage dealer that CANNOT MOVE. Siege sacrifices a TON of mobility for high damage output, but it's just not there right now, shown best in a mech fight vs ultralisks.
Siege mode a joke? Yes of course you dont siege during a battle, but before a battle. Since terran has nothing to spend minerals on, using a lot of scans is a good idea.
On June 08 2010 16:38 nujgnoy wrote:
.
All-in-all, I think TvZ is a pretty balanced matchup as of now, and I remember statistics quoted on TL that TvZ is msot close to being balanced. When I lose, there has never been a time where I thought that zerg was imbalanced. And when I win, I had to work damn hard for it against a formidable opponent, who in many times when I watched the replay did not have the best macro, very few actually able to keep their resource count less than 300 during mid-lategame. And so much proportion of TvZ posts are crying that Terran is imba -. -;
I dont think you realize how difficult zerg macro is.
The reason why this MU is imba is that zerg has to play really well in order to counter the terran. The terran decides how the game is played out. Does he make a timing push with a few siege tanks/thors + hellions or MMM. The zerg then has to defend really well by splitting up his forces and microing really well while injecting larva and macroing, and getting a good combination between drones and units. This might be easy for players like TLO and Sen, but for most other players this is extremely difficult, and they will on most maps lose to terran players of equal skill lvl.
|
I've been playing Terran exclusively in the last 2 weeks and I really don't think mech is op unless either the terran player is very good or the other player is very bad. I'd say Zerg can have a really hard time vs it but not so much P or T who have a ton of weapons against it.
|
On June 08 2010 23:06 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 16:38 nujgnoy wrote:
Now, I'm not saying that ultras are imbalanced. They do their job of countering terran mech REALLY well. But they are not very great against marauders with similar upgrades and backed up by medivac. This is probably why people have the wrong idea that ultras are trash, because they probably faced more bio than mech in the earlier stages of beta. Right now, siege mode is almost a joke; many times in tank fights it's better to leave them unsieged even when charging because the transform time and the lower dps gives a terrible disadvantage. Yes,a 100 supply's worth of pure roaches and hydralisks that charges at 60 supply's worth of sieged tanks -. -. That's what tanks in siege mode are supposed to be: Incredible long range damage dealer that CANNOT MOVE. Siege sacrifices a TON of mobility for high damage output, but it's just not there right now, shown best in a mech fight vs ultralisks.
Siege mode a joke? Yes of course you dont siege during a battle, but before a battle. Since terran has nothing to spend minerals on, using a lot of scans is a good idea. Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 16:38 nujgnoy wrote:
.
All-in-all, I think TvZ is a pretty balanced matchup as of now, and I remember statistics quoted on TL that TvZ is msot close to being balanced. When I lose, there has never been a time where I thought that zerg was imbalanced. And when I win, I had to work damn hard for it against a formidable opponent, who in many times when I watched the replay did not have the best macro, very few actually able to keep their resource count less than 300 during mid-lategame. And so much proportion of TvZ posts are crying that Terran is imba -. -; I dont think you realize how difficult zerg macro is. The reason why this MU is imba is that zerg has to play really well in order to counter the terran. The terran decides how the game is played out. Does he make a timing push with a few siege tanks/thors + hellions or MMM. The zerg then has to defend really well by splitting up his forces and microing really well while injecting larva and macroing, and getting a good combination between drones and units. This might be easy for players like TLO and Sen, but for most other players this is extremely difficult, and they will on most maps lose to terran players of equal skill lvl.
Trust me, when it goes lategame, try ultralisks vs mech. If you play decently you'll be on a good standing.
This really isn't about how difficult zerg macro is. But no one party has complete dictation of the game. The reason why terran seems to have the dictation of the game is that most zergs FE, which forces the terran to do something, either counter expand or harass/gain advantage and make a timing push. That's the nature of the MU. Why do you think terran has to be aggressive and try to make those timing pushes? If a T doesn't the zerg can pump drones and in a few cycles worker count will be 70 to 40. I understand it's not easy to scout a walled off terran, but remember zerg can make buildings anywhere with spawn creep with lair, and periodic single scans won't cover the entire base, so difficulty in scouting goes both ways once it reaches late stages of the midgame. Once it reaches lair, you have ways to scout terran with OL, OS, Changeling, mutalisk etc. And if some things easy for good players and hard for most players, the latter should learn the game until they become easy as well.
Finding out what your opponent does is a key in every matchup. In TvP, if a terran techs or fast expands (does that sound familiar to zergs?) the protoss can respond by teching or counter expanding. If the protoss decides to tech, terran has to find out whether it's robo, stargate, or templar and respond accordingly. Scans are not as useful since protoss can build buildings anywhere, and they are the best race in terms of spreading buildings around thanks to warpgates. So after countless games I learned to scout effectively and the little details that I need to pay attention to.
EDIT: Just to add, most zergs' lair comes EXTREMELY fast, and then the terran has to constantly scan/scout to try to find out the opponent's plan: mutas, hdyraroach, doubling, etc. And then with the 3rd going up, the t also has to find out if the Z is going mass lair ground (pure lair mass ground unlikely), broodlords, ultralisks, or masss mutas. And if a T gets caught by mass mutas unprepared, it will mean that his army will be wiped out. Keeping a significant number of thors is a actually a double edged blade b/c tanks are much more cost efficient for any other ground units (maybe except ultralisk) and they can do a lot of damage once neural parasited.
|
Simple fix = not making tanks "smart-fire" anymore, because that is what really made tanks able to be beaten in BW, you could run afew units in front to absorb tank fire THEN run your army in.. in SC2, only 1 tank will fire on your distraction units, then the rest of your units take the brunt of the tank fire, which means tanks in large numbers are literally unbeatable by ground units, add in thors who do insane GtA dmg, you got an unbeatable force.
Just make it like BW, so tank fire can be juked, and its all ok.
|
On June 09 2010 00:50 Skyze wrote:
Simple fix = not making tanks "smart-fire" anymore, because that is what really made tanks able to be beaten in BW, you could run afew units in front to absorb tank fire THEN run your army in.. in SC2, only 1 tank will fire on your distraction units, then the rest of your units take the brunt of the tank fire, which means tanks in large numbers are literally unbeatable by ground units, add in thors who do insane GtA dmg, you got an unbeatable force.
Just make it like BW, so tank fire can be juked, and its all ok.
Why fix something that isn't broken? Mech is not broken. Are you suggesting the only strategy a lategame zerg should need to employ to beat a sieged mech terran is to throw a few lings ahead of his army so that he can 1a to victory? For 150 minerals, 125 vespene and 3 supply, I would hope my tanks are as smart as they are.
What's hilarious to me is how quickly people forget that in SC1, zerg didn't have a great answer to a grouping of siege tanks with bio support until hive-tech either. They could delay the push with lurkers and muta harass, but until the defiler was out, attack moving lair tech zerg ground forces into a tank line would be just as suicidal as it is now in SC2, and that's the way it's supposed to be. For their cost, the AI of siege tanks is fine. The solution is to not let the terran get 20 siege tanks and if he does, then you should have had ample opportunity to go broodlord/corruptor to win.
|
Since I've had some time off from sc now and I've been thinking about this more here are my thoughts:
We don't know for sure if mech is broken. What if mech isn't broken? I've been jumping to conclusions too hastily with sc2 and it's only hindering my growth as a player. If I started playing bw now and I didn't know better I would say things like defilers and dark swarm are imba. We can't hope to have the game figured out in a few months and there were a lot of patches coming out that changed zerg every other week. I still wish blizzard didn't try to balance the game at the lower levels since it doesn't make any sense but whatever. They just need to work on battle.net 2.0 and if they had chat channels, lan, server reliability, and got rid of separated regions I would be all for sc2.
Even though I don't think mech is imba and only might be I'm still switching to terran and toss when the game is launched. Zerg isn't as fun for me to play anymore and it feels like I'd have to spend 100x the amount of time on zerg as I would on protoss to be at the same level. In sc1 sure mech was super strong and it was still hard to deal with on certain maps, but I at least knew what I had to do and I felt like if I played well (dark swarm ftw) I would win. Zerg's lack of the same game changing hive tech in sc2 is disappointing. Infestors, ultras, and bl's aren't as fun to use as defilers, lurkers and guardians. Frenzy and corruption make me feel like I'm playing magic. I hate magic.
|
Just as a suggestion for zerg vs terran mech (i dont play zerg, protoss is my main), but after a little thinking i was wondering if you could use corrupters, mutas, and infestors against the thor/viking/tank combo.
This is how i see it, you send in corrupters first to use corruption on tanks and act as cannon fodder to thors+vikings, and then these are closely followed by frenzied mutalisks that target the corrupted tanks. Then follow this up with some combination of ground units lings/ultras or ling/roach.
The only reason I suggest frenzied mutas, is so that even if a large number of them die with increased dps from corruption+frenzy they might still be able to kill enough tanks
However it would seem like this kind of unit composition seems impossible to have all at once in sufficient numbers as zerg. So maybe you could start off with the corrupters and frenzied mutas and then quickly send in a stream of lings and pump some more from your hatchs?
Lastly i see this being used in a late game situation (some what obvious) where the zerg player has a higher number of bases
This is strictly theorycrafting and i am in no way saying this is the viable counter against terran mech (seeing as i dont even play zerg) just wondering what others think of it.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 09 2010 06:51 cryostasis wrote:
Why fix something that isn't broken? Mech is not broken. Are you suggesting the only strategy a lategame zerg should need to employ to beat a sieged mech terran is to throw a few lings ahead of his army so that he can 1a to victory? For 150 minerals, 125 vespene and 3 supply, I would hope my tanks are as smart as they are.
Personally, I don't think it's an issue of balance, but an issue of allowing sloppy play. Without overkill, you don't need to stagger/spread out your tanks because they won't overkill the first unit and splash damage from zealot/ling bombs won't be that high. It lets bad players get away with having their siege tanks in a big ball, which should not be a viable way to play, period. If you have crappy tank positioning, you should get punished harshly for it.
For properly positioned siege lines, slightly less optimal siege tank AI barely makes a difference. You shouldn't have all your tanks blowing their shots on the same unit if they're spread out and staggered, because they will enter firing range for each tank at different times. What worse AI does is punish bad players for playing badly, and gives zerg/protoss a chance to do good push-breaking with bombs, and catching the Terran player unsieged. As is, there's not enough downside to sloppy positioning.
On June 09 2010 06:51 cryostasis wrote:
What's hilarious to me is how quickly people forget that in SC1, zerg didn't have a great answer to a grouping of siege tanks with bio support until hive-tech either. They could delay the push with lurkers and muta harass, but until the defiler was out, attack moving lair tech zerg ground forces into a tank line would be just as suicidal as it is now in SC2, and that's the way it's supposed to be. For their cost, the AI of siege tanks is fine. The solution is to not let the terran get 20 siege tanks and if he does, then you should have had ample opportunity to go broodlord/corruptor to win.
Lair play with a large base advantage did just fine against mech. For a long time, the strategy advocated was "don't get cute with hive, just get a lot of lair tech 'stuff'".
|
On June 08 2010 13:10 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 13:04 cursor wrote:Blizzard:...and some sort of math I don't understand that factors in player skill... That's really vague... but yeah, it's more than just us making sure the matchmaker is working.  Seriously? How do I get this guys job? I don't get what you are on about. Any PR person in a big company has usually broad but quite shallow knowledge about things going on in the company. You can't expect a community manager to instantly know all facts in detail. You wouldn't either.
Then they should get someone else. Literally any of us here on TeamLiquid would have a better comprehension of Blizzard's technical inner-workings, given the opportunity. As a rep, this person should have an infinitely better understanding of the ONLY FEATURE BNET 2.0 OFFERS OVER 1.0.
|
On June 02 2010 20:07 Umpteen wrote:
From what I've read, the biggest difference is that tanks no longer overkill, so:
a) it's harder (impossible?) to exploit the slow seiged firing rate. Send in a zergling and only one tank will fire.
b) Spreading units out is less effective, because tanks will auto-target a broad spread of units instead of the closest.
I never played BW competitively, so if I'm wrong about this, I apologise.
EDIT: typo.
Why should you expect to use SC1 tactics. This is a new game. Be creative.
|
On June 10 2010 02:20 hejakev wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2010 13:10 nam nam wrote:On June 08 2010 13:04 cursor wrote:Blizzard:...and some sort of math I don't understand that factors in player skill... That's really vague... but yeah, it's more than just us making sure the matchmaker is working. Seriously? How do I get this guys job? I don't get what you are on about. Any PR person in a big company has usually broad but quite shallow knowledge about things going on in the company. You can't expect a community manager to instantly know all facts in detail. You wouldn't either. Then they should get someone else. Literally any of us here on TeamLiquid would have a better comprehension of Blizzard's technical inner-workings, given the opportunity. As a rep, this person should have an infinitely better understanding of the ONLY FEATURE BNET 2.0 OFFERS OVER 1.0.
...
srsly?
go.
Where ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/c/9/dc9a6f0ad70b86ed17cfd64cfa37b922.png)
and ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/5/e/c5e734efd10fa149568386835828074c.png)
Explain this equation to me. hint: It something you should know being such a knowledgeable player and all that.
|
On June 10 2010 01:26 TheYango wrote:
For properly positioned siege lines, slightly less optimal siege tank AI barely makes a difference. You shouldn't have all your tanks blowing their shots on the same unit if they're spread out and staggered, because they will enter firing range for each tank at different times. What worse AI does is punish bad players for playing badly, and gives zerg/protoss a chance to do good push-breaking with bombs, and catching the Terran player unsieged. As is, there's not enough downside to sloppy positioning.
The difference in SC2 is that tanks are noticeably more resource intensive relative to their SC1 counterparts. I don't think that the improvement in AI was some act of laziness on Blizzard's part. Of course you could argue that they should have basically just ported the SC1 siege tank to the new game to preserve the importance of strategic staggering of tanks . I won't really disagree with that, but making the game "easier" for terran players in one instance does not automatically indicate imbalance with respect to a match versus zerg or protoss in SC2. The game is just way too young for us to make that assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/0/3/b0366725c224ee55eab6e2371dc6a0ef.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/6/a/96a818972fe2bc94e9b3e0e6115ba232.png)
