|
United States47024 Posts
On June 10 2010 04:25 cryostasis wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't actually think the AI was really improved. Ranged unit target priority works in basically the same way. The only difference is that in SC1, there was a small frame delay in the shot animation and the unit taking damage, and now, tank damage is instant. Projectile-firing units still overkill in SC1-like fashion, so it should be possible to implement tanks in the same way.
Like I said, I don't feel it's necessarily an issue of imbalance, but I at the same time, I feel like a lot of the low-level complaints about tanks might arise in part from the fact that one of the most difficult parts of using them is less harshly punished.
|
Regarding the mothership, I don't think vortex works with sieged tanks.
|
no idea why the got rid of armor types, it is really needed so that units like zlings and marines dont die in one shot to tanks. its ridiculous how u can lose 5 blings or zlings to one tank shot.
i remember some ppl posting that armor types are too confusing lol the armor types in sc1 and wc3 were so intuitive.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 10 2010 04:42 Bluerain wrote:
no idea why the got rid of armor types, it is really needed so that units like zlings and marines dont die in one shot to tanks. its ridiculous how u can lose 5 blings or zlings to one tank shot.
i remember some ppl posting that armor types are too confusing lol the armor types in sc1 and wc3 were so intuitive.
Armor types still exist. It's just that the Tank specifically does not do reduced damage to anything in Siege Mode.
And how are the armor types in Warcraft 3 intuitive? How can the relationship between a "Magic" type damage and any armor type be considered intuitive at all?
|
On June 10 2010 05:00 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 04:42 Bluerain wrote:
no idea why the got rid of armor types, it is really needed so that units like zlings and marines dont die in one shot to tanks. its ridiculous how u can lose 5 blings or zlings to one tank shot.
i remember some ppl posting that armor types are too confusing lol the armor types in sc1 and wc3 were so intuitive. Armor types still exist. It's just that the Tank specifically does not do reduced damage to anything in Siege Mode. And how are the armor types in Warcraft 3 intuitive? How can the relationship between a "Magic" type damage and any armor type be considered intuitive at all?
yea there are armor "names" in sc2 beta but they dont mean anything lol.... they dont mean anything because there arent any attack types. there are just attacks that do bonus damage to certain armor.
for wc3, it is quite intuitive. piercing does extra to unarmored (pointy things should be extra damage to things w/o armor), melee does extra to medium armor (regular armor should guard against arrows/piercing but not a sword/melee), magic does extra to heavy armor (heavy armor should protect vs both normal physical attacks like arrows/swords but not against magic, spells should penetrate a thick heavy armor). seems as logical as u can get for a game.
|
On June 10 2010 04:32 zhul4nder wrote:
Regarding the mothership, I don't think vortex works with sieged tanks.
It vortexes them and they come back unsieged.
|
On June 10 2010 04:32 zhul4nder wrote:
Regarding the mothership, I don't think vortex works with sieged tanks.
It does this was used on me. Not only does it work on sieged tanks but when they come out of the vortex the are unsieged.
Edit: damn you you beat me to it.
|
Yeah I saw it on starcraft scientists channel.
|
On June 10 2010 04:27 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 04:25 cryostasis wrote: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. I don't actually think the AI was really improved. Ranged unit target priority works in basically the same way. The only difference is that in SC1, there was a small frame delay in the shot animation and the unit taking damage, and now, tank damage is instant. Projectile-firing units still overkill in SC1-like fashion, so it should be possible to implement tanks in the same way. Like I said, I don't feel it's necessarily an issue of imbalance, but I at the same time, I feel like a lot of the low-level complaints about tanks might arise in part from the fact that one of the most difficult parts of using them is less harshly punished.
i remember reading tanks dont overkill, and say theres 30 tanks and 1 zealot enters range, the # of tank shots needed to kill it is how many tanks will attack, so that they all dont waste shots.
the ai has been vastly improved
|
On June 10 2010 05:34 DooMDash wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 04:32 zhul4nder wrote:
Regarding the mothership, I don't think vortex works with sieged tanks. It vortexes them and they come back unsieged.
Wow. That is pretty extreme. Take out the Tanks and the rest of the Terran army is Zealot food... Then they spawn in undeployed and you gobble them up too. I wish Zerg had something like that, even from a fragile, expensive, late-game unit.
Still, though. 400/400 and it gets owned by Vikings. 
|
On June 10 2010 10:50 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 04:27 TheYango wrote:On June 10 2010 04:25 cryostasis wrote: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. I don't actually think the AI was really improved. Ranged unit target priority works in basically the same way. The only difference is that in SC1, there was a small frame delay in the shot animation and the unit taking damage, and now, tank damage is instant. Projectile-firing units still overkill in SC1-like fashion, so it should be possible to implement tanks in the same way. Like I said, I don't feel it's necessarily an issue of imbalance, but I at the same time, I feel like a lot of the low-level complaints about tanks might arise in part from the fact that one of the most difficult parts of using them is less harshly punished. i remember reading tanks dont overkill, and say theres 30 tanks and 1 zealot enters range, the # of tank shots needed to kill it is how many tanks will attack, so that they all dont waste shots. the ai has been vastly improved
Yeah exactly. Call it whatever you want. Changed animations, improved AI, it doesn't really matter. The fact is the tanks do not waste their shots while in siege mode. This we can all agree on.
|
On June 10 2010 05:11 Bluerain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 05:00 TheYango wrote:On June 10 2010 04:42 Bluerain wrote:
no idea why the got rid of armor types, it is really needed so that units like zlings and marines dont die in one shot to tanks. its ridiculous how u can lose 5 blings or zlings to one tank shot.
i remember some ppl posting that armor types are too confusing lol the armor types in sc1 and wc3 were so intuitive. Armor types still exist. It's just that the Tank specifically does not do reduced damage to anything in Siege Mode. And how are the armor types in Warcraft 3 intuitive? How can the relationship between a "Magic" type damage and any armor type be considered intuitive at all? yea there are armor "names" in sc2 beta but they dont mean anything lol.... they dont mean anything because there arent any attack types. there are just attacks that do bonus damage to certain armor. for wc3, it is quite intuitive. piercing does extra to unarmored (pointy things should be extra damage to things w/o armor), melee does extra to medium armor (regular armor should guard against arrows/piercing but not a sword/melee), magic does extra to heavy armor (heavy armor should protect vs both normal physical attacks like arrows/swords but not against magic, spells should penetrate a thick heavy armor). seems as logical as u can get for a game.
You do realize the WC3 system is LESS versatile right? You can achieve the EXACT SAME effect in SC2 if oyu wanted, so literally NOTHING was lost going from WC3->SC2. BW's armor system was downright bizarre for anyone who was new to the game.
I admit SC2's system is not the most elegant, but it actually is the best if used right (ie. Blizzard is not using it right.)
|
On June 10 2010 04:05 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 02:20 hejakev wrote: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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
you should be embarrassed
|
Tanks were somewhat imba, but with the nerf now I'm not so sure, 50 damage doesnt install kill a marine alone, but then a lone thank is never great anyway
|
On June 10 2010 22:56 proFits wrote:
Tanks were somewhat imba, but with the nerf now I'm not so sure, 50 damage doesnt install kill a marine alone, but then a lone thank is never great anyway
Tanks were NOT imbalanced, but rather there were a lot of units which were inappropriate to be used against them. As a 3-food-unit it seems acceptable to be able to acquire this ability.
After watching several replays - such as those listed as proof of terran mech being imbalanced by Raelcun in his own thread, but also several terran matches shown by Day[9] (dailies 131 and 133) - I have come to the conclusion that the opponents either have no plan how to counter the terran mech tactic in all its versions OR they simply make mistakes in their own execution. Sheth vs QXC are two nice examples of the first and MoMan vs LzGamer is an example of the second.
Sheth simply has no real plan as to what to do and he admits it more or less at the end of the LT map and MoMan loses because he does NOT spread the creep and is unable to defend his third / fourth base efficiently and runs out of resources. If he hadnt done that he probably would have won, because his harrassment and assault tactics were very solid and efficient.
Most of the times the non-Terran loses he gives up on air and the Terran has free reign of the skies with Vikings and Ravens. If you dont do that you have a chance of winning, but trying to go with the head through the wall is a failure in strategy.
|
On June 11 2010 03:39 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2010 22:56 proFits wrote:
Tanks were somewhat imba, but with the nerf now I'm not so sure, 50 damage doesnt install kill a marine alone, but then a lone thank is never great anyway Tanks were NOT imbalanced, but rather there were a lot of units which were inappropriate to be used against them. As a 3-food-unit it seems acceptable to be able to acquire this ability. After watching several replays - such as those listed as proof of terran mech being imbalanced by Raelcun in his own thread, but also several terran matches shown by Day[9] (dailies 131 and 133) - I have come to the conclusion that the opponents either have no plan how to counter the terran mech tactic in all its versions OR they simply make mistakes in their own execution. Sheth vs QXC are two nice examples of the first and MoMan vs LzGamer is an example of the second. Sheth simply has no real plan as to what to do and he admits it more or less at the end of the LT map and MoMan loses because he does NOT spread the creep and is unable to defend his third / fourth base efficiently and runs out of resources. If he hadnt done that he probably would have won, because his harrassment and assault tactics were very solid and efficient. Most of the times the non-Terran loses he gives up on air and the Terran has free reign of the skies with Vikings and Ravens. If you dont do that you have a chance of winning, but trying to go with the head through the wall is a failure in strategy.
Sure the zerg players make mistakes. But it is extremely difficult to avoid mistakes as zerg compared to play mech as terran. At the top lvl play, zerg vs Terran is probably balanced. But at gold-medium diamond, this MU is extremely difficult for zerg, because they cant micro and macro perfectly through the whole game.
|
On June 11 2010 03:47 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2010 03:39 Rabiator wrote:On June 10 2010 22:56 proFits wrote:
Tanks were somewhat imba, but with the nerf now I'm not so sure, 50 damage doesnt install kill a marine alone, but then a lone thank is never great anyway Tanks were NOT imbalanced, but rather there were a lot of units which were inappropriate to be used against them. As a 3-food-unit it seems acceptable to be able to acquire this ability. After watching several replays - such as those listed as proof of terran mech being imbalanced by Raelcun in his own thread, but also several terran matches shown by Day[9] (dailies 131 and 133) - I have come to the conclusion that the opponents either have no plan how to counter the terran mech tactic in all its versions OR they simply make mistakes in their own execution. Sheth vs QXC are two nice examples of the first and MoMan vs LzGamer is an example of the second. Sheth simply has no real plan as to what to do and he admits it more or less at the end of the LT map and MoMan loses because he does NOT spread the creep and is unable to defend his third / fourth base efficiently and runs out of resources. If he hadnt done that he probably would have won, because his harrassment and assault tactics were very solid and efficient. Most of the times the non-Terran loses he gives up on air and the Terran has free reign of the skies with Vikings and Ravens. If you dont do that you have a chance of winning, but trying to go with the head through the wall is a failure in strategy. Sure the zerg players make mistakes. But it is extremely difficult to avoid mistakes as zerg compared to play mech as terran. At the top lvl play, zerg vs Terran is probably balanced. But at gold-medium diamond, this MU is extremely difficult for zerg, because they cant micro and macro perfectly through the whole game.
I don't understand this idea that Zerg has to play perfectly against Terran to win in this matchup. Zerg just has play the matchup properly and not engage the tanks head on. I'm sick of Zerg players that probably go 3 base mass roach/hydra with no harass or drops complaining that there is no easy way to beat Terran mech. The answer is muta harass into broodlord/corruptor OR hive-tech melee with infestor support. Look at how TLO used ultras to beat Jinro on one of Day[9]'s latest dailies, and that was pre-nerf with siege tanks doing the base damage of 60. It can be done. If he counters with mass marauders, switch back to air. Simple. Terran can't have enough gas to do everything if you keep him on 4 geysers.
Pretty soon this won't be "playing perfectly" against Terran, it will just be "how you play against Terran" in SC2 as Zerg.
|
On June 02 2010 20:22 slowmanrunning wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2010 20:17 Jibba wrote:
Drops are possible, but I think terran players are overstating how easy they are to accomplish. If the T player has a big ball army, then yeah, but if they're also being good about scouting and keeping units separate, then it's hard to find an opening that'll cause enough damage.
I think right now the number 1 problem are the maps people play on. Metalopolis and LT are the best maps for ZvT and even those have some features that are easily exploitable by T. Blizzard's maps suck, people need to start playing real maps in order to judge this kind of balance. Unfortunately though blizzard maps are the ones we're going to be playing while laddering, so that isn't really a valid argument. Hopefully after the game comes out, and some more professionally made maps come out, in HotS they take lessons from the maps people make. All in all though I think blizz's sc2 maps are quite good (some of them), if you look at the blizzard bw maps they tend to be weird, mechanic broke, and race favoring (expo with 4 mineral patches anyone?) Many maps lacked naturals, which they honestly should have thought would be anti zerg considering their hatcheries are cheaper than nexus/cc.
Dont forget the original Hunters, were 7 bases had x mineral patches, and 1 base had y minerals. Haha.
|
Watch this five game series between QXC and Sheth. If you want to save time, just watch Game 2, 4, and 5. If you still think the game is balanced...lol.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/7347080
|
[QUOTE]On June 11 2010 03:39 Rabiator wrote:
[QUOTE]On June 10 2010 22:56 proFits wrote:
After watching several replays - such as those listed as proof of terran mech being imbalanced by [url=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=129070]Raelcun in his own thread[/url], but also several terran matches shown by Day[9] (dailies 131 and 133) - I have come to the conclusion that the opponents either have no plan how to counter the terran mech tactic in all its versions OR they simply make mistakes in their own execution. Sheth vs QXC are two nice examples of the first [/QUOTE]
There was nothing Sheth could have done. And the argument that he should have gone all-in earlier is ridiculous. no single army composition should be unbeatable...especially something as simple to create as mass siege tanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)
