EPTThe fact that tanks are so bad is a large reason to why mech is not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the tank and added the battle hellion, mech would actually be mech against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a Warhound BH fest.
Why are Tanks so bad in SC2?
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
The fact that tanks are so bad is a large reason to why mech is not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the tank and added the battle hellion, mech would actually be mech against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a Warhound BH fest. | ||
|
ckunkel1
United States181 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Patch 1.1.0 Siege mode damage changed from 50 to 35 (+15 armored). Siege mode upgrade damage changed from +5 to +3 (+2 armored). That's why. | ||
|
lem0ncake
England85 Posts
| ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:26 Buchan wrote: Tanks are supposed to be space controlling units. In an RTS game as fast as SC2 the fact they cannot move and shoot at the same time is a huge detriment. We've all seen how useless tanks are against Protoss after the early game. In TvZ tanks are only good for killing Roaches and Banelings. Since armor upgrades are always ahead of vehicle weapons they do not even 1 shot lings. Tanks become a liability in the late game since they cost 3 supply and are terrible against Ultras and useless against Broodlords. If Terran has 10+ siege tanks spread and sieged in one area (plus a bunch of other units) it should be very difficult for Zerg to break that area with just ground units without having a lot of ultras. But I've seen over and over again where Zerg launches some infested terrans to soak up the first tank blasts and then bring in the ultras and lings and before you know it the zerglings are on top of the tanks and they are splashing on themselves. The fact that tanks are so bad is a large reason to why mech is not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the tank and added the battle hellion, mech would actually be mech against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a Warhound BH fest. Well they used to be stronger but they were nerfed , remember that the game has three races tanks were too strong vs Z so they nerfed them to be manageable by BOTH races Tanks still have some use vs toss | ||
|
PeanutsNJam
United States175 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:26 Buchan wrote:If Terran has 10+ siege tanks spread and sieged in one area (plus a bunch of other units) it should be very difficult for Zerg to break that area with just ground units without having a lot of ultras. But I've seen over and over again where Zerg launches some infested terrans to soak up the first tank blasts and then bring in the ultras and lings and before you know it the zerglings are on top of the tanks and they are splashing on themselves. "Zerg shouldn't be able to break siege lines without ultras." "I have 10+ tanks but zerg beats it with lings, infestors, and ultralisks, with adequte positioning and micro on his part." I don't see the problem. And to think that tanks aren't good against lings or hydras? Or infestors if you target fire? Are you joking? Not to mention for each tank you should have like 12 marines, which are good against everything if spread. Tanks are the last thing you should complain about. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
The fact that hydralisks are so bad is a large reason to why zerg not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the hydralisk and added more armor, dps, movement speed, burrow movement, hydralisks would actually be viable against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a roach fest. | ||
|
FlukyS
Ireland485 Posts
| ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36999 Posts
Tanks sieging up your mineral line, that is such a pain to try to fight. I agree that tanks are much weaker than they were in the BW days but if used properly, they can still be the most damage dealing unit(s) in SC | ||
|
JDub
United States976 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:30 lem0ncake wrote: +2 tanks one shot lings. unsieged tanks are actually quite good against ultras and have higher dps than when they're sieged. yes tanks are not as good as they are in brood war, but they're not as bad as you say they are. they're only bad against protoss because blizzard decided to add 1a units like colossus and immortals which counter siege tanks +1 tanks do 38 damage to unarmored units, which will 1-shot lings regardless of how many armor upgrades they have. | ||
|
RiSkysc2
696 Posts
| ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:26 Buchan wrote: Since armor upgrades are always ahead of vehicle weapons they do not even 1 shot lings. Bullshit. After +1 attack sieged tanks 1-shot lings for the rest of the game. Tanks are good space-defenders even against protoss. They're just difficult to use offensively vs protoss since most protoss units are faster (and have blink and charge). | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:33 SeeKeR wrote: Tanks are not that bad. They're still a ridiculously destructive force to be reckoned with... Tanks sieging up your mineral line, that is such a pain to try to fight. I agree that tanks are much weaker than they were in the BW days but if used properly, they can still be the most damage dealing unit(s) in SC 100% agree tanks used with proper positioning is an excellent unit. | ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
| ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:32 Zandar wrote: Hydralisks are supposed to be high dps units. In an RTS game as fast as SC2 the fact they cannot move fast enough to even be able to shoot anything is a huge detriment. We've all seen how useless hydralisks are against Protoss after the mid game. In ZvT hydralisks are only good for base defense. Since terran upgrades are always ahead of zerg upgrades they do not even 1 shot anything. Hydralisks become a liability in the late game since they cost so much and are terrible against anything. If Terran has 10+ siege tanks spread and sieged in one area (plus a bunch of other units) it should be impossible for Zerg to break that area with just ground units without having a ton of ultras. But I've seen over and over again where terran spreads well to soak up the first baneling blasts and then bring in the marines and marines and marines and marines before you know it everything zerg had is bad. The fact that hydralisks are so bad is a large reason to why zerg not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the hydralisk and added more armor, dps, movement speed, burrow movement, hydralisks would actually be viable against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a roach fest. I agree Hydras are terrible and should be buffed. Glad to see them have a speed upgrade in HoTS. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2829 Posts
| ||
|
xrapture
United States1644 Posts
Vs Zerg tanks are good in the mid game in dealing with the zerg swarm and targeting banelings, but are shit vs Ultralisks and broodlords make them useless. Vs T tanks are good in all aspects and phases of the game, except for super late game air vs air scenarios. | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:33 Nightmarjoo wrote: Bullshit. After +1 attack sieged tanks 1-shot lings for the rest of the game. Tanks are good space-defenders even against protoss. They're just difficult to use offensively vs protoss since most protoss units are faster (and have blink and charge). And 50 damage per hit... | ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:35 Sandermatt wrote: Tanks actually one shot lings, with the first weapon upgrade, no matter how much armor the lings have. Without any armor upgrades on the lings tanks always one shot lings. There is nothing armor upgrades are always ahead therefore tanks cannot one shot. Yeah I messed up, forgot that vehicle weapons give them more than +1. And I'm not just saying buff tanks right now. I'm saying buff them in HoTS. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
Sure the tank was nerfed (in damage and supply aswell as cost I believe?, not sure about that). The fact that SC2 has no vultures and that in general some counters are stronger and more mobile(BLink Stalkers, Collosi, etc). They are not bad though, at all, just less strong comparitivly I suppose? They are still very strong in their own right they make a shitty sound now though  . | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
| ||
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
| ||
|
Steelo_Rivers
United States1968 Posts
| ||
|
Nimix
France1809 Posts
Since armor upgrades are always ahead of vehicle weapons they do not even 1 shot lings. +1 tanks do 38 splash damage to light, which is enough to one shot even +3 armor lings actually. Not that I disagree with your points, but a post that wants to be a demonstration of balance issues should not contain such errors. Tanks are indeed bad against what they can't kill before doing as much splash on your units than your enemy's, but they are still very strong at controlling space (in TvT especially, and still have good use in TvZ, many people forget that unsieged upgraded tanks do tons of dps too). | ||
|
Chocobo
United States1108 Posts
Tanks are fine, and they are perfect for dealing with the marine's only true enemy (the baneling). Sorry, but not every terran unit can be dominant against 90% of the units in the game. They're hard enough to deal with as zerg, if you get more than a couple of them then zerg is very lucky if he breaks even when defending himself against an army with tanks in it. It's only the lategame with broodlords when an actual solid counter to tanks appears. | ||
|
Teutorix
Romania3 Posts
| ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:31 PeanutsNJam wrote: Yeah tanks are good against hydras and infestors but you never see hydras in TvZ."Zerg shouldn't be able to break siege lines without ultras." "I have 10+ tanks but zerg beats it with lings, infestors, and ultralisks, with adequte positioning and micro on his part." I don't see the problem. And to think that tanks aren't good against lings or hydras? Or infestors if you target fire? Are you joking? Not to mention for each tank you should have like 12 marines, which are good against everything if spread. Tanks are the last thing you should complain about. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
| ||
|
bsdaemon
618 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:41 Buchan wrote: Yeah tanks are good against hydras and infestors but you never see hydras in TvZ. you hardly see hydras anywhere :p i kinda laughed at op's comment about tanks and brood lords lol. i think siege tanks are really great and have no complaints about it. it's supposed to be a support unit any way and not as the main damage dealer in the game. | ||
|
WarrickHunt
United Kingdom393 Posts
| ||
|
Kuni
Austria765 Posts
| ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
A - Dustin Browder did not understand what made BW exciting to watch. B - The game was balanced on microscopic horrible maps like Steppes of War In a nutshell, BW's formula was: tanks are ridiculously imba, how can you overcome that to win? DB didn't get this, so he has been on an anti-tank crusade for the last 3 years. What he doesn't understand is that noob players (like me) don't care about imba stuff the other guy has so much as get excited about imba terran stuff. So instead of keeping their strength, Browder nerved them to impotence in almost every way possible. EG: Supply nerf Gas cost nerf General Damage nerf Splash Damage nerf Then he made them better in siege than out so they would be a more shallow unit to use. Then he made Marauders, Thors, Graviton beam, Immortals, and in case that wasn't enough he added Viper abduct, Warhounds, etc. All this in the name of saving Starcraft from tanks because he thinks nobody liked them or found them exciting as a player or spectator. Sad, isn't it? | ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:41 Buchan wrote: Yeah tanks are good against hydras and infestors but you never see hydras in TvZ. Tanks are good against banelings, infestors, roaches, hydras and somewhat support fire against lings/ultrase. | ||
|
WniO
United States2706 Posts
| ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
| ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:46 0neder wrote: To simplify things, tanks are bad because: A - Dustin Browder did not understand what made BW exciting to watch. B - The game was balanced on microscopic horrible maps like Steppes of War In a nutshell, BW's formula was: tanks are ridiculously imba, how can you overcome that to win? DB didn't get this, so he has been on an anti-tank crusade for the last 3 years. What he doesn't understand is that noob players (like me) don't care about imba stuff the other guy has so much as get excited about imba terran stuff. So instead of keeping their strength, Browder nerved them to impotence in almost every way possible. EG: Supply nerf Gas cost nerf General Damage nerf Splash Damage nerf Then he made them better in siege than out so they would be a more shallow unit to use. Then he made Marauders, Thors, Graviton beam, Immortals, and in case that wasn't enough he added Viper abduct, Warhounds, etc. All this in the name of saving Starcraft from tanks because he thinks nobody liked them or found them exciting as a player or spectator. Sad, isn't it? Tanks are used all the time in TvZ and TvT and early game TvP. A unit that is used so often is not underpowered. | ||
|
PeanutsNJam
United States175 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:46 Grumbels wrote: Who cares that they one-shot lings. The splash is more relevant and in small numbers tanks do not provide adequate defense against zerglings. They're honestly still widely used and have their place in every match-up, but I wish they were a little bit stronger, just because I enjoy position-based tactics. You know what does provide adequate defense against absolutely anything zerg? Marines. Split marines. So no, if you have 20 tanks, you can't beat broodlords. Make more marines. | ||
|
GhandiEAGLE
United States20754 Posts
| ||
|
Esportsfanatic
Luxembourg17 Posts
| ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:45 Kuni wrote: Is that you avilo, on a smurf account? Bahaha, no probably not, avilo is more of a raven guy | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:41 Buchan wrote: Yeah tanks are good against hydras and infestors but you never see hydras in TvZ. *HOTS Speculation* There might come a day when zergs actually do use hydras in TvZ in heart of the swarm with the speed upgrades. All balance talk of HOTS being superfluous aside, I do suspect in HOTS they will have to do some tweaking with the siege tank given the sheer number of units seemingly designed to have an answer to tank lines, from viper pulls, to tempests, to charging ultras, to anti-mech missile barrages from war hounds it seems everyone will have a go to answer. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
It costs 25 more gas per Siege Tank. And Siege Tanks do 20 less damage to Armored than in Brood War. | ||
|
Imzoo
132 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:32 Zandar wrote: Hydralisks are supposed to be high dps units. In an RTS game as fast as SC2 the fact they cannot move fast enough to even be able to shoot anything is a huge detriment. We've all seen how useless hydralisks are against Protoss after the mid game. In ZvT hydralisks are only good for base defense. Since terran upgrades are always ahead of zerg upgrades they do not even 1 shot anything. Hydralisks become a liability in the late game since they cost so much and are terrible against anything. If Terran has 10+ siege tanks spread and sieged in one area (plus a bunch of other units) it should be impossible for Zerg to break that area with just ground units without having a ton of ultras. But I've seen over and over again where terran spreads well to soak up the first baneling blasts and then bring in the marines and marines and marines and marines before you know it everything zerg had is bad. The fact that hydralisks are so bad is a large reason to why zerg not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the hydralisk and added more armor, dps, movement speed, burrow movement, hydralisks would actually be viable against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a roach fest. "The fact that hydralisks are so bad is a large reason to why zerg not viable versus Protoss" Are you serious? i need your dope | ||
|
PeanutsNJam
United States175 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:50 dabom88 wrote: Compared to the Brood War Tank: It costs 25 more gas per Siege Tank. And Siege Tanks do 20 less damage to Armored than in Brood War. Because siege tank *nerf* aside, everything else about sc2 is exactly the same as sc1. | ||
|
Imzoo
132 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:49 PeanutsNJam wrote: You know what does provide adequate defense against absolutely anything zerg? Marines. Split marines. So no, if you have 20 tanks, you can't beat broodlords. Make more marines. And get fungal until my marins have the heavenmarins upgrade. | ||
|
Fluid
Canada136 Posts
This. If i remember correctly, they put this nerf because siege tanks used to rape hydra armies, which were all the rage back then. (people thought hydras were good!) Now that the zergs realized how imba infestors and brood lords are, they never touch hydras anymore. Hence what we have is a shitty ranged unit that is incredibly bad vs the modern zerg armies (mass ling/infestor into bl). And the same thing happened with toss, they realized zealots are incredibly op late game with all their upgrades (given 5 min sooner than the terran, thx blizz). The balance team probably forgot the reasons for most of their nerfs/buffs and can only see "Balance" one meta-game at a time. Once someone figures out something that "breaks the balance", they'll nerf another thing to stop the crying, even though it could just take a month of play to figure out new strategies (but that might lose us players and we don't want that). | ||
|
Aquila-
516 Posts
| ||
|
kyllinghest
Norway1607 Posts
I think the best way to use them in tvz is to stay safe while teching towards that beastly air fleet, moving out witch tanks on big maps is incredibly hard! | ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:53 Fluid wrote: This. If i remember correctly, they put this nerf because siege tanks used to rape hydra armies, which were all the rage back then. (people thought hydras were good!) Now that the zergs realized how imba infestors and brood lords are, they never touch hydras anymore. Hence what we have is a shitty ranged unit that is incredibly bad vs the modern zerg armies (mass ling/infestor into bl). And the same thing happened with toss, they realized zealots are incredibly op late game with all their upgrades (given 5 min sooner than the terran, thx blizz). The balance team probably forgot the reasons for most of their nerfs/buffs and can only see "Balance" one meta-game at a time. Once someone figures out something that "breaks the balance", they'll nerf another thing to stop the crying, even though it could just take a month of play to figure out new strategies (but that might lose us players and we don't want that). It was because that 10:30 second tank push you would lose most of your ling army with 3 tank blasts and then you had to fight marine on Muta it wasn't cause of Hydras. | ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:49 GhandiEAGLE wrote: "oh no someone is trying to discuss the game in the SC2 forum rather than the drama BAN THEM AND CLOSE THE THREAD"Someone close this thread... please X.X You guys realize that I think the game is balanced right? This was just supposed to be about why the tank doesn't fill the role it's supposed too. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:51 PeanutsNJam wrote: Because siege tank *nerf* aside, everything else about sc2 is exactly the same as sc1. You're right in that some stuff changed from BW to SC2, but I think the Siege Tank is the only unit that carried over from BW whose cost was actually changed. Zerglings still cost 50 for 2, Marines still cost 50, Zealots cost 100, etc. | ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:53 Aquila- wrote: That reminds me of that one GSL game on entombed where the terran had a contain with tanks and bunkers and the protoss just amoved his chargelots into that, crushed it and won the game. The point of tanks are that you can create an area where the opponent cannot attack, thus allowing you to control the space. Protoss is not supposed to attack into 5+ already sieged tanks and come out ahead, instead attack where the tanks are not. But sadly the opposite is the case, tanks are absolutely trash against everything except stalkers and sentries, and as mentioned even not that great against zerg. The only matchup where they are strong and also annoying is TvT... They are better vs Armored , so the protoss making units that are beefy with shield ( zealots) to break the contain makes sense . Tanks shouldn't be able to smash everything but t3 ground units. | ||
|
prOpSnuffe
Sweden241 Posts
 | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
As for the siege mode, you need to focus fire with the tanks to maximize their damage and suddenly they become really strong heh. They need alot of training. I mean when mech got popular zergs thought they could drop roaches ontop ... and it even worked because pro terrans actually sieged against this. While the keep everything unsieged and stay under the overlords cleans the roache before they can do anything. But i do hope the siege mode gets some kind of buff, like special ammunition (3 shots for example that have a special effect on the ground for some time, CREEP CLEANING for example!). | ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:49 Esportsfanatic wrote: And like why the fuck can´t Broodlords shoot with Ultralisks? Because ultralisks cannot shot up and they could still be killed by vikings. | ||
|
System42
172 Posts
| ||
|
RUFinalBoss
United States266 Posts
| ||
|
coolcor
520 Posts
beta patch 15 Siege Mode damage decreased from 60 to 50. Glad blizzard had all those small beta maps to lead to changes like this. But how do the people claiming blizzard hates tanks explain these changes? Patch 8 (version 0.10.0.14803) Build time decreased from 50 seconds to 45 seconds. [hide]Patch 11 (version 0.13.0.15250) Life increased from 150 to 160. Siege Mode splash damage now originates from the center of the target, rather than the impact location near the unit in order to maintain more reliable splash damage. | ||
|
Fluid
Canada136 Posts
It was because that 10:30 second tank push you would lose most of your ling army with 3 tank blasts and then you had to fight marine on Muta it wasn't cause of Hydras. No, think even more back than that, back to the beta. Back when people thought sc2 was going to be like sc1, and zergs used brood war strategies : lings,mutas, hydras. They also used pure roach once they saw how many they could make but that was nerfed too. | ||
|
Taku
Canada2036 Posts
| ||
|
LimeNade
United States2125 Posts
| ||
|
stormssc
Poland125 Posts
| ||
|
Moosegills
United States558 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:26 Buchan wrote: Tanks are supposed to be space controlling units. In an RTS game as fast as SC2 the fact they cannot move and shoot at the same time is a huge detriment. We've all seen how useless tanks are against Protoss after the early game. In TvZ tanks become a liability in the late game since they cost 3 supply and are terrible against Ultras and useless against Broodlords. The fact that tanks are so bad is a large reason to why mech is not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the tank and added the battle hellion, mech would actually be mech against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a Warhound BH fest. All this post really says is I hate the way tanks are designed because they cannon move and shoot at the same time and I hate that broodlords counter them and they aren't good vs protoss. Just because you can't blindly mass tanks in every situation vs every race doesn't make them bad. This is just a balance QQ | ||
|
tedster
984 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:32 Zandar wrote: Hydralisks are supposed to be high dps units. In an RTS game as fast as SC2 the fact they cannot move fast enough to even be able to shoot anything is a huge detriment. We've all seen how useless hydralisks are against Protoss after the mid game. In ZvT hydralisks are only good for base defense. Since terran upgrades are always ahead of zerg upgrades they do not even 1 shot anything. Hydralisks become a liability in the late game since they cost so much and are terrible against anything. If Terran has 10+ siege tanks spread and sieged in one area (plus a bunch of other units) it should be impossible for Zerg to break that area with just ground units without having a ton of ultras. But I've seen over and over again where terran spreads well to soak up the first baneling blasts and then bring in the marines and marines and marines and marines before you know it everything zerg had is bad. The fact that hydralisks are so bad is a large reason to why zerg not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the hydralisk and added more armor, dps, movement speed, burrow movement, hydralisks would actually be viable against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a roach fest. Sweet strawman bro | ||
|
Aquila-
516 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:58 System42 wrote: LOL Tanks are really good I don't know what your talking about but youre obviously really dumb notice how no pro players have said one bad thing about hem they are still used in like every game as terran your probably 12 and in silver league for saying such a stupid thing please don't make another thread. Yea I forgot how every standard TvP involves tanks... | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:49 Esportsfanatic wrote: And like why the fuck can´t Broodlords shoot with Ultralisks? Because they're called Brood Lords, not Ultra Lords. | ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
But its true that they are not as iconic as they were in brood war. In fact nothing in starcraft 2 is iconic aside from the ultralisk. No I dont think the collossus is iconic, its a shitty unit. | ||
|
Moosegills
United States558 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:32 Zandar wrote: Hydralisks are supposed to be high dps units. In an RTS game as fast as SC2 the fact they cannot move fast enough to even be able to shoot anything is a huge detriment. We've all seen how useless hydralisks are against Protoss after the mid game. In ZvT hydralisks are only good for base defense. Since terran upgrades are always ahead of zerg upgrades they do not even 1 shot anything. Hydralisks become a liability in the late game since they cost so much and are terrible against anything. If Terran has 10+ siege tanks spread and sieged in one area (plus a bunch of other units) it should be impossible for Zerg to break that area with just ground units without having a ton of ultras. But I've seen over and over again where terran spreads well to soak up the first baneling blasts and then bring in the marines and marines and marines and marines before you know it everything zerg had is bad. The fact that hydralisks are so bad is a large reason to why zerg not viable versus Protoss. If they just buffed the hydralisk and added more armor, dps, movement speed, burrow movement, hydralisks would actually be viable against Toss in HoTS instead of what will likely be the 1a roach fest. LOL this post.. wp sir :D | ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
Tanks are still very good when used correctly. If you have the right number of stim MMM in front of them, they can be effective even against protoss. Tanks in defensive positions on the high ground shred Protoss units. Comparing them to Colossi is not fair for several reasons. First of all, Colo are significantly more expensive, and the upgrade costs twice as much. Secondly, Vikings can fly over an entire ground army and attack the Colossus head on. This is different than with tanks, where the Terran's bio ball is physically standing between your units and the tanks. Versus Zerg, tanks are amazing. I don't know what SC2 games you have been watching. Same with TvT. | ||
|
[Azn]Nada
United States275 Posts
Everytime I see this, I want to punch my monitor. Gone are the hilariously amazing BW days of 70 Damage Siege tanks that cost 2 supply; now they do HALF the damage, shitty as fuck upgrades, cost 3 supply, and 25 more gas. And on the Blizzard site, it still says SC2 tanks are more expensive but "all the greeeaaattttt development the Dominion has done makes the tank worth it" what the FUCK did they spend all the time upgrading the tanks to do? Deal less damage, get countered by more units, and have more resource cost? It's simply rediculous. Legit, Dustin balder probably got shot in the face with one when he was a kid. I'm really amazed when terrans try to pull out tanks; other than TvT, their only current legitamate use is vs. banelings. In HOTS, think about what counters them: zerglings, swarm hosts (induces constant friendly-fire), vipers with abduct and dark swarm, mutalisks, broodlords, etc. More than HALF THE ZERG ARSENAL IS BUILT TO COUNTER TANKS. Protoss have immortals and zealots (which is why tanks are pretty useless in PvT in the first place), and now we get to see the 22 range tempest make tanks look like little shits. Tanks are simply retarded atm. useless + retarded | ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
I'm not even nearly good enough at Sc2 to even begin to analyze what's missing or whatever, but the fact that the sound of sieging tanks doesn't make Protoss players piss their pants makes me sad. | ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:00 Fluid wrote: No, think even more back than that, back to the beta. Back when people thought sc2 was going to be like sc1, and zergs used brood war strategies : lings,mutas, hydras. They also used pure roach once they saw how many they could make but that was nerfed too. I did play in the beta and I remember , but still I think it was mostly cause tanks basically 1 or 2 hit most of Z's ground units except for roachs which made it near impossible to actually engage a terran. | ||
|
nakam
Sweden245 Posts
| ||
|
setzer
United States3284 Posts
| ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:04 dabom88 wrote: Because they're called Brood Lords, not Ultra Lords. We need a "Greatest Spire" that will allow you to morph Brood Lords into Ultra Lords ;-) . | ||
|
[Azn]Nada
United States275 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:08 DinoMight wrote: Saying tanks are bad because a unit that is designed precisely to counter them counters them is pretty silly IMO. Tanks are still very good when used correctly. If you have the right number of stim MMM in front of them, they can be effective even against protoss. Tanks in defensive positions on the high ground shred Protoss units. Comparing them to Colossi is not fair for several reasons. First of all, Colo are significantly more expensive, and the upgrade costs twice as much. Secondly, Vikings can fly over an entire ground army and attack the Colossus head on. This is different then with tanks, where the Terran's bio ball is physically standing between your units and the tanks. Tanks would be AMAZING if "a unit" was designed to counter them. The problem is, 50% of the zerg units directly counter them (other than banelings, everything is cost-effective against tanks) and protoss have zealots, immortals, and tempests, all of which are designed to rape tanks. It's rediculous | ||
|
Fluid
Canada136 Posts
I did play in the beta and I remember , but still I think it was mostly cause tanks basically 1 or 2 hit most of Z's ground units except for roachs which made it near impossible to actually engage a terran. Yeah well that's how tanks were in brood war and the other races dealt with it just fine. I have to agree with the other posters who said that the size of the early maps made tanks way too strong vs zerg (which is true I remember steppes of war tank pushes on the side of the natural). It might be time for tanks to get a damage boost. Oh yeah, and probably the "unit crumpling" that exists in sc2 was probably another reason for that nerf. But i think it's fair to say that if the terrans can split their marines to avoid banes, then zerg should split their army to avoid all their stuff dying in a big blob of goo. | ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:11 [Azn]Nada wrote: Tanks would be AMAZING if "a unit" was designed to counter them. The problem is, 50% of the zerg units directly counter them (other than banelings, everything is cost-effective against tanks) and protoss have zealots, immortals, and tempests, all of which are designed to rape tanks. It's rediculous Tanks are cost effective against much that zerg has, they are the reason (and marauders) that mass roach does not work. | ||
|
[Azn]Nada
United States275 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:10 Sandermatt wrote: We need a "Greatest Spire" that will allow you to morph Brood Lords into Ultra Lords ;-) . LOL I would pay money if someone made a mod to do this. Make the Greatest spire 500/500, and ultra lords evolve from broodlords (then it'd be like chameleon-->charizard). That would be epic. | ||
|
Skwid1g
United States953 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:08 [Azn]Nada wrote: Everytime I see this, I want to punch my monitor. Gone are the hilariously amazing BW days of 70 Damage Siege tanks that cost 2 supply; now they do HALF the damage, shitty as fuck upgrades, cost 3 supply, and 25 more gas. And on the Blizzard site, it still says SC2 tanks are more expensive but "all the greeeaaattttt development the Dominion has done makes the tank worth it" what the FUCK did they spend all the time upgrading the tanks to do? Deal less damage, get countered by more units, and have more resource cost? It's simply rediculous. Legit, Dustin balder probably got shot in the face with one when he was a kid. I'm really amazed when terrans try to pull out tanks; other than TvT, their only current legitamate use is vs. banelings. In HOTS, think about what counters them: zerglings, swarm hosts (induces constant friendly-fire), vipers with abduct and dark swarm, mutalisks, broodlords, etc. More than HALF THE ZERG ARSENAL IS BUILT TO COUNTER TANKS. Protoss have immortals and zealots (which is why tanks are pretty useless in PvT in the first place), and now we get to see the 22 range tempest make tanks look like little shits. Tanks are simply retarded atm. useless + retarded Except top-tier Terrans use them all the time in TvZ. They are nowhere near useless or retarded when positioned properly in TvZ or TvT. This might change in HotS, but in WoL they're fine in every match-up besides TvP. Honestly, the fact that the vulture doesn't exist is a bigger nerf to the seige tank than any nerfs they've received since Beta. | ||
|
[Azn]Nada
United States275 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:12 Sandermatt wrote: Tanks are cost effective against much that zerg has, they are the reason (and marauders) that mass roach does not work. Tanks will split with roaches 50/50 for cost if it was just pure tank vs. roach. But even then, you have to consider generally speaking, you are gonna have ~1 tank for every 4-5 roaches he has, at which point its not even close. Mass roach is a viable strat, its just that infestor ling is SO much more effective theres no point. | ||
|
ThePlayer33
Australia2378 Posts
| ||
|
DashedHopes
Canada414 Posts
| ||
|
densha
United States797 Posts
| ||
|
DreamTheaterFan
Canada52 Posts
Making the tank more powerful would help break the SC2 deathball style and make every match up involving terrans more dynamic and exciting. I know this is just a matter of preference, but I kind of fear HOTS for this exact reason: it's heading more and more into being a 200 army slaughterfest «it's over in 1 second» with those new anti tank units. I dont know what kind of buff they should receive, as every small change can drastically change the game balance O_o. | ||
|
-Switch-
Canada506 Posts
| ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:19 densha wrote: Because hydras are getting buffed in HoTS. Same with reapers. How does a thread like this survive on TL for so long? Why doesn't someone just go make a thread about how hydras suck now? I'm not just saying buff tanks to 70 damage tomorrow and everything will be good. Obviously that would be dumb but in HoTS the balance is being somewhat reset and like others have said tanks we're mainly balanced on small maps like steppes of war where everyone was using old BW zerg strats like hydras in TvZ. Honestly if nothing else I want the tank buffed so Blizzard can nerf the Warhound so mech will be more like mech in HoTS instead of 1a. I think Protoss players would rather see stronger tanks than some fast walking mech a move marauder. | ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:22 -Switch- wrote: They aren't?? lol Depends on viewpoint I guess, but if you think siege tanks are full of rapage in Sc2, go back and play BW and you'll find a whole new world of imba. ;D | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
Considering their cons they should be abit stronger tbh | ||
|
yawnoC
United States3704 Posts
| ||
|
TirramirooO
Portugal102 Posts
Not hard to get there :| | ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:12 Fluid wrote: Yeah well that's how tanks were in brood war and the other races dealt with it just fine. I have to agree with the other posters who said that the size of the early maps made tanks way too strong vs zerg (which is true I remember steppes of war tank pushes on the side of the natural). It might be time for tanks to get a damage boost. Oh yeah, and probably the "unit crumpling" that exists in sc2 was probably another reason for that nerf. But i think it's fair to say that if the terrans can split their marines to avoid banes, then zerg should split their army to avoid all their stuff dying in a big blob of goo. Absolutely! I agree , the Dball effect is what causes AOE in sc2 to be so devastating | ||
|
danbel1005
United States1319 Posts
Do not get in a game and make tanks and hope for the best...keep practicing/playing. Have fun. | ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:25 TirramirooO wrote: I play zerg and believe me that the most anoying unit in the all game is tanks, but i understant why people complain in TvP. Not hard to get there :| Not gonna lie though, id much prefer to deal with tanks then a colossus. | ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:26 danbel1005 wrote: I'm a +1000 point Masters Terran. Well Buchan, after reading you're post it is safe for me to say that you dont know what you're talking about. I would recommend more practice so you can get use to the ways this specific unit works, try different scenarios, do some more research (openings/build orders) so you can understand when and why to make tanks and stuff. Do not get in a game and make tanks and hope for the best...keep practicing/playing. Have fun. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:24 yawnoC wrote: I really wish Smart AI firing wasn't in the game for some reason... So we can get 70dmg back plz! It makes me sad that 7 tanks can't 1 shot a Collosus. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
-) one of the two units in TvT around which you can build a strategy (the other one being the marine) -) basically being played in every TvZ -) not part of the standard TvP, but one of the main ingridients in one of the best TvP rushes (1-1-1) Seems like a unit that is being used a ton, but I'm sure it sucks pretty hard if you say so... \thread, this is nothing but a balance whine --> Designated Balance Discussion Thread | ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
I miss the days of 60-damage siege tanks on Steppes of War. | ||
|
SilSol
Sweden2744 Posts
| ||
|
pileopoop
Canada317 Posts
| ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:32 Big J wrote: Yes tanks are good in TvT, yes tanks are good against zerg until late game, yes tanks are basically never used in TvP since no one 1-1-1's anymore. Hm... so tanks are: -) one of the two units in TvT around which you can build a strategy (the other one being the marine) -) basically being played in every TvZ -) not part of the standard TvP, but one of the main ingridients in one of the best TvP rushes (1-1-1) Seems like a unit that is being used a ton, but I'm sure it sucks pretty hard if you say so... \thread, this is nothing but a balance whine --> Designated Balance Discussion Thread My post has nothing to do with balance whining and I've said multiple times that I think the game is balanced well right now. | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
I will say they're not all that useful vs protoss, but there are even still Code S players that use them from time to time in PvT, and they are great in TvT and ZvT. Especially ZvT with proper focus firing, they just demonlish any mid-game aggression. Also props to Zandar for his re-writing of the OP with Hydras  | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:36 Buchan wrote: Yes tanks are good in TvT, yes tanks are good against zerg until late game, yes tanks are basically never used in TvP since no one 1-1-1's anymore. My post has nothing to do with balance whining and I've said multiple times that I think the game is balanced well right now. well, if it is not about balance, then it is a design suggestion. Those belong to Designated Balance Discussion Thread Or do you want to just hear the reasons why some people think tanks are bad? (what they aren't. they are just not Broodwar "mass this unit to win" like) | ||
|
NoGasfOu
United States1117 Posts
| ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:37 Big J wrote: Do you even read your own post? "well, if it is not about balance [...] those belong to: Designated Balance Discussion Thread" well, if it is not about balance, then it is a design suggestion. Those belong to Designated Balance Discussion Thread Or do you want to just hear the reasons why some people think tanks are bad? what | ||
|
kochanfe
Micronesia1338 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:39 Buchan wrote: Do you even read your own post? "well, if it is not about balance [...] those belong to: Designated Balance Discussion Thread" what Yeah, cutting the part that says why it should be there is really clever... lol. Design suggestions belong in the DBDT | ||
|
Buchan
Canada184 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:41 Big J wrote: So the only threads allowed on the SC2 forum are drama threads? We're not allowed to actually talk about the game?Yeah, cutting the part that says why it should be there is really clever... lol. Design suggestions belong in the DBDT | ||
|
forsooth
United States3648 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:56 ShakAttaK wrote: They are better vs Armored , so the protoss making units that are beefy with shield ( zealots) to break the contain makes sense . Tanks shouldn't be able to smash everything but t3 ground units. Of course they should, that was what made them so fun in BW. A siege line was practically impossible to fight head on with any ground army, forcing players to get more creative in their engagements and abuse the near total immobility of tanks. If I siege up 15 tanks in a decent position, any trade should be horrifyingly cost-inefficient for whoever attacks into it. But every Protoss unit except sentries and stalkers is amazingly effective against tanks. | ||
|
EggYsc2
620 Posts
then you must not be very good yourself. The game is balanced 98-99% and tanks are not part of the problem | ||
|
Elvin
149 Posts
| ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:43 Buchan wrote: So the only threads allowed on the SC2 forum are drama threads? We're not allowed to actually talk about the game? No people should discuss tactics, news, tournaments, or info about progamers. You've made a horrible OP that seems like whine to me. You say tanks are horrible in TvP yet Byun got far last GSL by using tank+marine against protoss. He kinda defeated himself against Seed by not controlling his army well enough. Also you suggest some changes but never go into details nor do you explain your points, i'm guessing this thread won't live long. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
blizzard doesn't understand good micro. see colossus, fungal, ff, battle hellion, warhound, tempest, etc. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
immobile army > mobile army in terms of cost efficiency In SC2 it's changed to micro-intensive, spell-caster intensive army > non-micro non-spellcaster army in terms of cost efficiency. Dustin Browder and David Kim have pretty much stated they want the latter to be the dominant philosophy for SC2. Their core belief is that audiences like to watch micro-intensive spell-caster intensive fights more than positional fights. Arguing otherwise with them is like arguing a evolution with a creationist--it's unproductive because their beliefs are built on not logic but faith. The only response we can really do would be to boycott purchases of HotS. Sad, but true. | ||
|
Kanaz
Denmark658 Posts
For those who don't know what smart attack is, it's basicly the AI doing so they wont overkill on units, etc. 10 tanks shooting the same ling. That would require good tank lines, nicely spread out, and probably make it somehow usefull in TvP again. | ||
|
Ireniicus
United Kingdom374 Posts
| ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:52 Shady Sands wrote: The key thing here is that in BW it went like this: immobile army > mobile army in terms of cost efficiency In SC2 it's changed to micro-intensive, spell-caster intensive army > non-micro non-spellcaster army in terms of cost efficiency. Dustin Browder and David Kim have pretty much stated they want the latter to be the dominant philosophy for SC2. Their core belief is that audiences like to watch micro-intensive spell-caster intensive fights more than positional fights. Arguing otherwise with them is like arguing a evolution with a creationist--it's unproductive because their beliefs are built on not logic but faith. The only response we can really do would be to boycott purchases of HotS. Sad, but true. i wouldnt call spells micro intensive. unit micro is intensive, ie. shttle reaver, shuttle templar, lurker defiler. putting down spells alone is boring as fck. imo blizzard design team has ill-tasteful view on good kind of micro. their idea of micro involves spells. | ||
|
System42
172 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:03 Aquila- wrote: Yea I forgot how every standard TvP involves tanks... talking about tvz ur also dumb if u did not understand that | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On August 25 2012 06:52 Shady Sands wrote: The key thing here is that in BW it went like this: immobile army > mobile army in terms of cost efficiency In SC2 it's changed to micro-intensive, spell-caster intensive army > non-micro non-spellcaster army in terms of cost efficiency. Dustin Browder and David Kim have pretty much stated they want the latter to be the dominant philosophy for SC2. Their core belief is that audiences like to watch micro-intensive spell-caster intensive fights more than positional fights. Arguing otherwise with them is like arguing a evolution with a creationist--it's unproductive because their beliefs are built on not logic but faith. The only response we can really do would be to boycott purchases of HotS. Sad, but true. Differing opinions on what makes good gameplay ≠ differing opinions where one is evidence based and one is faith based. Try again. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
It isn't really wrong that the tank has a realatively small yet potent use in the game, but most people who know Terran in BW have come to love the positional play and creativity that tanks create in large numbers. The siege tank was so iconic and powerful that the current SC2 version feels flimsy in comparision, it feels kinda wrong that the tank has become support whereas the marine has taken it's place as the go to unit. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
| ||
|
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
God I should wake up before posting. | ||
|
Prog455
Denmark970 Posts
On August 25 2012 05:48 Sandermatt wrote: Tanks are used all the time in TvZ and TvT and early game TvP. A unit that is used so often is not underpowered. I am fairly sure that Queens were used in every match-up prior to the range buff, and they were buffed nevertheless. I really do agree that Tanks should get a damage buff in order to promote positional play, or atleast some kind of buff against Zealots. While i agree that Tanks should not necessarily dominate every ground unit in the game, i don't think that it is unreasonable to ask for Tanks to deal with light melee units! | ||
|
MyLastSerenade
Germany710 Posts
good times | ||
|
Mr Showtime
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
such treads why not "why are marines/zealots" so bad in sc2 ... tanks are nice i not wanna play tvz without them ......its just metal missing in tvp because there are no mines, try sc1 tank play vs protoss without mines you cant | ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
| ||
|
Elvin
149 Posts
On August 25 2012 07:03 Mr Showtime wrote: They're not. They're probably one of the most balanced units. Stop whining. Whenever I see "this unit is one of the most balanced units" I have to laugh. By most balanced you probably mean that you have no complains about the unit which would make sense as tank is little to no threat at any MU. You never go "OMMGHFGA HE HAS SO MANY SIEGE TANKS WHAT AM I GONNA DO?" or "WHOA I SHOULD NOT HAVE STEPPED INTO THAT SIEGE LINE, GOT WRECKED HARD" and do you fucking know why? Because it never happens. | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
vZ : Usually, with mech, bad tank numbers,and with biomech they're basically used like marauders (A move, siege at the last second..). We see really few people actually being careful with their tanks (especially with positionning), and really few people trying to get the right tanks count for the situation . . . vP : with bio style, tanks are used since long in early game to defend versus protoss early attacks. They're deadly versus sentry, denying mass forcefields on bunker push ,and they allows to fight early colossus pushs without commiting to "useless" vikings. But why aren't tanks used after that? actually, some players are able to use biomech tank based army later in the game (i think for example of Servyoa). The fact is that most players try to use their tanks with offensive style,and thats the problem. Tanks are stupidly good in a defensive position, with walls/units to defend them, and with uppgrades, and when we see people complaining about bio/tank in TvP, it's often because they try to use unuppgraded tanks in midgame...in offense. Actually, a turtle biomech style, going for a 3/3 marauder/ghost + 3/0 tanks is insanely powerful (and safe) versus protoss on some maps. And with mech, it's often because people thinks that mech TvP is making 50 tanks and sieging them middle map, and then saying it's a bad unit because a pure immortal army killed them.. tldr : Tanks is a good unit if used well, and an horrible one when badly used. A little buff would be great to allows them to be used in more situations (or to have some bw-like actions, by allowing little numbers of tanks to be truly effective at holding areas versus a bigger army) | ||
|
Corvette
United States433 Posts
| ||
|
Arghnews
United Kingdom169 Posts
| ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
| ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
| ||
