|
On June 26 2015 00:26 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 00:13 parkufarku wrote:On June 25 2015 23:51 WrathSCII wrote:On June 25 2015 23:32 parkufarku wrote:On June 25 2015 18:30 WrathSCII wrote:On June 25 2015 17:22 [F_]aths wrote:On June 24 2015 19:37 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
im convinced this is how it should be I agree. While one or two high-ground tanks can make the difference in defending versus a mid-game attack, in the open field you need considerably more tanks to secure and advance your position. This is how I imagine mech: You take some risks with choosing this path and you give up a lot of mobility. But once you are over a threshold, the risk is worth taking. They are good at defending against low HP units like marine drops but not against high HP units like ultralisks / archons... etc. That is why I'm suggesting the single target damage buff. Since when is one unit supposed to be good against everything? We don't see Protoss players be peeved that Immortals are great against Ultralisks but terrible against Lings Who the hell said make it good vs everything?! Do you see me asking for AA within siege tanks? I'm asking to make tanks better vs high HP units like Ultralisks / Archons / Colossus... etc. Their attack speed can be tuned down a bit, their splash radius can be tuned down a bit as it can help reduce tanks power in masses vs low hp army mass. In BW, it needed 6 tanks (12 supply) to 1 shot kill fully upgraded ultralisk. In SC2, you need 9 tanks (27 supply) to 1 shot kill fully upgraded. See the huge supply difference that is needed? That is what I'm trying to address. But that's exactly what you're saying. You want tanks to be good against Ultralisks / Archons, and you realize they don't HAVE to be good against those certain units. You are comparing 2 different games with different stats. In BW, there were no mass marauders that could snipe out Ultras and slow them down. We should advocate that Medivac speed be removed because BW's dropships didn't have speed-boost...according to your logic. 1. My suggestions are not related to BW. They are related to mechs stats and where it lacks. Making tanks similar to BW is not because of nostalgic but because it is needed. 2. Marauders do not snipe out ultralisks in LOTV. 3. Marauders NEVER slow down massive units. I'm talking about how the unit should be performing not balancing the numbers. Terran mech has many ways to deal with massive armies of low HP like Hellion/Hellbat + WM and Tanks support. But they lack the killing ability vs massive HP armies. Thors are too slow, stupid and clunky for the job. And no, redesigning Thors to be Mech Immortal would be complete stupid. That unit just does not fit in mech.
You JUST compared how many hits it took for a BW tank to kill an ultra vs. SC2 tank to kill an ultra, and you're saying your suggestions aren't related to BW? Then DON'T bring in BW comparisons.
Marauders DO snipe out ultralisks, at least in groups thanks to their bonus damage + armor.
I'm sorry that 100 mineral 25 gas 2 supply unit doesn't slow down and make a 300 mineral 200 gas 6 supply unit completely useless. But honestly, do you expect Terrans to have all the benefits?
Terran mech, or any unit, should NEVER be balanced around a mirror matchup. It affects the balance of non-mirror matchups and ruin the game balance.
I'm sorry you don't like Thors, but no one is forcing you to go completely mech. Last time I checked, Terran bio was versatile, and cost efficient and flexibile enough to be used in ALL matchups, early game, mid game, AND late game. No other races have that luxury. But let's complain about such a benefit and demand something else be completely viable. Again, we don't see Toss players complaining Skytoss can't be used in all matchups at all stages of the game.
|
On June 26 2015 01:25 parkufarku wrote:
Stop trying to act like Tanks are not being used. They are used plenty in TvZ, especially in maps where there is a cliff over enemy mineral line and elevation maps.
Really, REALLY!!!?? You can't be seriously expect us to believe that do you? Do you really think tanks are useful outside TvT/ocasional TvZ mech (and only mech)? Do you really wants us to believe they are actually used?
I don't know what to say to you, you live in a fantasy world where siege tanks are good units ok.
On June 25 2015 15:13 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 04:14 Lexender wrote:On June 25 2015 01:00 parkufarku wrote:On June 24 2015 23:54 WrathSCII wrote:On June 24 2015 22:59 parkufarku wrote:On June 24 2015 07:58 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Already having BW tanks with BW stats would help mech alot. No thank you. There is a good reason why BW tanks are not back here. It would completely destroy the balance of the game. Please explain. 2 Supply Siege Tanks that have smart fire and 70+ damage? At least BW had dragoons which were much tankier than Stalkers. Even in BW, Protoss army had a hard time engaging a T mech army head on 200/200, and had to resort to all kinds of spells and tricks (zealot bombs, storm, etc.) These tanks on the weaker SC2 gateway army would just wreak havoc. Storms are weaker too in SC2. However I agree, since Blizz won't take away the smart fire ever, BW tanks may not be the best solution, though we do need stronger tanks somehow. That is excessive pessimism. Blizzard has shown they are willing to (slowly) look at small engine and under-the-hood unit stats to adjust and make changes based on solid community arguments, as they did with scan range changes, and have specifically announced plans to deal with the prioritization of spreading before initiating attack commands for aerial units, and plans to deal with turret tracking.
I'm pessimis because even tough they are willing to make changes they don't, if ther ever do that would be greath, but I doubt it.
However I think there are solutions, I think you can have some overkill by increasing the damage point of siege tanks, so they fire in units that have already died, I'm not sure if it Works but I know some units with high damage point do overkill a Little
On June 26 2015 01:31 parkufarku wrote:
I'm sorry you don't like Thors, but no one is forcing you to go completely mech. Last time I checked, Terran bio was versatile, and cost efficient and flexibile enough to be used in ALL matchups, early game, mid game, AND late game. No other races have that luxury. But let's complain about such a benefit and demand something else be completely viable. Again, we don't see Toss players complaining Skytoss can't be used in all matchups at all stages of the game.
If you are coming here just to say you don't want mech to be viable, then don't come here at all, seriously, you just dont want terrans to be able to mech becuase YOU dont like mech, then thats your problem, but mech has always been a big part of the game, you are the only one QQ-ing here about mech.
|
On June 26 2015 00:26 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 00:13 parkufarku wrote:On June 25 2015 23:51 WrathSCII wrote:On June 25 2015 23:32 parkufarku wrote:On June 25 2015 18:30 WrathSCII wrote:On June 25 2015 17:22 [F_]aths wrote:On June 24 2015 19:37 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
im convinced this is how it should be I agree. While one or two high-ground tanks can make the difference in defending versus a mid-game attack, in the open field you need considerably more tanks to secure and advance your position. This is how I imagine mech: You take some risks with choosing this path and you give up a lot of mobility. But once you are over a threshold, the risk is worth taking. They are good at defending against low HP units like marine drops but not against high HP units like ultralisks / archons... etc. That is why I'm suggesting the single target damage buff. Since when is one unit supposed to be good against everything? We don't see Protoss players be peeved that Immortals are great against Ultralisks but terrible against Lings Who the hell said make it good vs everything?! Do you see me asking for AA within siege tanks? I'm asking to make tanks better vs high HP units like Ultralisks / Archons / Colossus... etc. Their attack speed can be tuned down a bit, their splash radius can be tuned down a bit as it can help reduce tanks power in masses vs low hp army mass. In BW, it needed 6 tanks (12 supply) to 1 shot kill fully upgraded ultralisk. In SC2, you need 9 tanks (27 supply) to 1 shot kill fully upgraded. See the huge supply difference that is needed? That is what I'm trying to address. But that's exactly what you're saying. You want tanks to be good against Ultralisks / Archons, and you realize they don't HAVE to be good against those certain units. You are comparing 2 different games with different stats. In BW, there were no mass marauders that could snipe out Ultras and slow them down. We should advocate that Medivac speed be removed because BW's dropships didn't have speed-boost...according to your logic. 1. My suggestions are not related to BW. They are related to mechs stats and where it lacks. Making tanks similar to BW is not because of nostalgic but because it is needed. 2. Marauders do not snipe out ultralisks in LOTV. 3. Marauders NEVER slow down massive units. I'm talking about how the unit should be performing not balancing the numbers. Terran mech has many ways to deal with massive armies of low HP like Hellion/Hellbat + WM and Tanks support. But they lack the killing ability vs massive HP armies. Thors are too slow, stupid and clunky for the job. And no, redesigning Thors to be Mech Immortal would be complete stupid. That unit just does not fit in mech.
First off--Thor fits what the majority of the world imagines "mech" or "mechanized army" means as can be seen in animes, mangas, sci-fi, etc...
BW Mech is really "artillery" based play and is only really loved by World War One enthusiasts and military historians.
There is no reason why the Thor cannot be made to fit this role--or any other unit really.
For example, I'm loving this movement Blizz is going with the dual role mech units in the Siege Tank, Liberator, Viking, and Hellbat. It would be great if the Thor was made to fit this paradigm as well. Force it to have to shift between mobile GtG or an immobile GtA unit.
OR
It would be great if Ravens were redesigned to cover the holes of mech. For example, a buffed autoturrets that last longer but take longer to setup so that they're designed to "prep" a battlefield/retreat path or guard a weak flank. High hitpoints, high dps, but takes like 15-20 seconds to actually get up and running. Or maybe instead of point defense drone on the Raven it can be moved to a different unit/building (I'd prefer building personally) and then give the Raven something more crowd control oriented as opposed to a weak Dark Swarm.
OR
It would be great if Banshees had an anti-armor upgrade at say the Fusion Core to give mech OR bio an anti-ultralisk unit. So on and so forth.
And on and on. The Siege Tank doesn't have to be the one buffed. However, there's also no reason *why* the siege tank should not be buffed against single targets either. There are many ways to answer the Ultralisk vs Mech question--the real first step is to prove that the Ultralisk is a problem in the matchup, and then make suggestions after consensus is reached.
|
Yes, they are used occasionally. Some units are used more often than other units because they are more versatile. What's wrong with that? You want tanks to be versatile as marines? No thanks, might as give tanks the ability to fly and shoot nukes. Now, I'm not saying tanks are a great unit. But by no means are they a terrible unit. Hydras are not as commonly used as roaches and probably rated lower than them but it's okay for a race to have units that are used more & more effective than some of their other units. Not every unit has to be freaking excellent.
|
Whats your problem with mech anyway? Seriously I'm not seeing counter argument, all I see is: "it doesn't have to be used, deal with it, mech is stupid, bio is better".
I say increase single target damage may make tanks perform better, you say "might as give the ability tanks able to fly and shoot nukes" SERIOUSLY WTF?! HOW THE HELL YOU JUMPED FROM SINGLE TARGET DAMAGE BUFF TO THIS CRAP?!
@TMagpie
Thank you for contributing to this thread in a constructive manner unlike someone else. I'm interested in your suggestions. But about the thor, before any change to it, there are some changes to be made to remove it's slugishness feeling. After that it can be made to fit whatever role necessary. My issue is not with Ultralisks in itself, but rather with high HP units armies in general.
|
We don't see Protoss players be peeved that Immortals are great against Ultralisks but terrible against Lings
Let's QQ that a unit that costs 100 more minerals and 1 more supply doesn't need to siege, because it has a totally different function. Immortals are specialized units designed to fight out armored units, while Tanks serve a different function, of controlling a land territory with its scary splash. A Zerg is gonna be more hesistant to move its 30 lings toward Marines enforced by a few tanks than Zealots with a few Immortals. DIFFERENT FUNCTION DIFFERENT UNITS. Apples to Oranges.
So you can't compare and say stupid stuff like "dont do friendly splash, hardened shields." Immortals don't even do splash period. I'm sure Toss players would gladly take friendly splash if their Immortals can do splash to begin with.
Makes an analogy comparing the immortal to tank...then claims that comparing the two is stupid.
Also claims that marauders slow ultras
In BW, there were no mass marauders that could snipe out Ultras and slow them down.
Then pretends that people were actually asking for concussive shells to slow ultras:
I'm sorry that 100 mineral 25 gas 2 supply unit doesn't slow down and make a 300 mineral 200 gas 6 supply unit completely useless. But honestly, do you expect Terrans to have all the benefits?
And finally, you claim that tanks are regularly used in the matchup when the vast majority of games are bio/mine/thor as would be obvious to anyone who's actually watched any Starcraft for the past six months.
It's clear that responding to you is a tremendous waste of time. If you can't be bothered to read or fact-check your posts, then why should anyone else?
|
I think tank w/ WoL campaign upgrade replacing liberator is fine idea. Liberator is clunky to use and its primary usage in A2A is weak-and it should be because it has utilty. Getting rid of its A2G and buffing its A2A would make more sense in all honesty. That way there isn't overlap with tank- Especially since tank is niche in whole.
Cyclone is too generalist and I think lock-on should stay primarily to air targets.
Fusion core requirement so it comes in lategame would be the best I feel.
|
Since tanks can be pickedu p by medivac now, I would rather wait a while before seeing any change to the actual tank. The possibilities this new mobility brings are so huge that it far outweigh things like number stat tweaks. Marines on their own do little damage, it's just their mobility and numbers which make them strong; they can quickly run in and out of situation, kite, a damage buff would be a massive change on such units.
Now tanks somehow benefit of those attributes too; they are no longer as susceptible to being caught out of position or with late unsiege when the army is retreating already. A single tankivac can seriously hurt a huge flock of ground units out on the map, even hydra can't close-up easily, you might argue it's argue and micro intensive but for pro-gamers it's an easy walk in the park.
Just having tankivacs in the game should put on hold any stats change on the tank itself until we see pro-gamers using it in a stabilized meta.
But it will never happen during the Beta because all those whiny pros and streamers can only think about complaining about the flaws they see and instantly go back to HoTs, instead of continuing to play to generate relevant data for the devs.
So now people playing beta are the silver-plat or low diamond and that's the only thing the devs get to look at for stats. and then pro will come complaining again that things are not balanced etc. Of course if you just have data from the casual players, you won't get the best changes.
Maybe if they took their job more seriously they would understand that them playing beta on a regular basis, even if it sucks and is completely imbalanced, is what will secure the best feedback: GM-pro STATISTICS. Devs don't need their fucking opinion, pro players are far from game designers, they are just fast handed strategic individuals and that is just good at producing interesting data for game designers.
|
On June 26 2015 05:08 jinjin5000 wrote:
I think tank w/ WoL campaign upgrade replacing liberator is fine idea. Liberator is clunky to use and its primary usage in A2A is weak-and it should be because it has utilty. Getting rid of its A2G and buffing its A2A would make more sense in all honesty. That way there isn't overlap with tank- Especially since tank is niche in whole.
Cyclone is too generalist and I think lock-on should stay primarily to air targets.
Fusion core requirement so it comes in lategame would be the best I feel.
I've been thinking really deeply about this--but one thing I really miss from BW's air superiority dynamics was the "dual" style design. And what I mean by that, is that all 3 races had access to 2 anti-air tactics to give all races access to both single target anti-air and area of effect anti-air.
This is what I mean by that:
Protoss: Scout, Corsair
Terran: Valkery, Goliath
Zerg: Scourge, Devourer
Notice how the two units actually complement each other very very well. By leaning on two complementary designs they could create more specialized anti-air units with neither having to be capable of covering all the bases. And by each having strengths and weaknesses, they would encourage a more dynamic composition than simply raw numbers.
PROTOSS
Scouts are strong, fast, and with its rapid 28 damage a shot would make quick work of any small packs of air units. Corsairs on the other hand were zerglings of the sky with their rapid splash attack quickly rending apart enemy clumps of units. In a sense, the design of Protoss Air-Superiority units was the benchmark that defined the entire dynamic in BW. In an air fight versus protoss you never wanted small packs of units, because scouts killed them, nor did you want tight clumps of units, because corsairs killed them. By being forced to spread out your units while making sure that the outer edges were not prone to getting sniped by scouts, it would create the same tug of war that MMM vs Ling/Bane has in SC2.
TERRAN
The goliath was the most cost effective anti-air unit in the game. Low supply, low cost, and fast production meant that he was the "spam" unit of the anti-air world. And being a ground unit meant that he could very easily win any air superiority fights mainly because most air units were crap versus ground units. But the fact that he did not fly was a huge detriment from the Goliath becoming the actual defacto face of anti-air. To put it in perspective--goliath versus carrier play was an actual talent that both players had to master. Neither side could outright win since the mobility of the carrier allowed it to always be at an advantage during combat, but the low cost of the goliath meant that the carrier was always hiding in terrain during engagements. As such, Goliaths usually needed the use of scans or other air units to cover its weakness. The valkery was a specialized weapon for the air fight. The gun boat was slow, not very maneuverable, and was prone to misfiring. But since the best way to beat an army of goliaths was to clump up your army to increase the Damage-per-Area ratio of your attack, the Valkery became a fantastic 1-3 of unit to punish tight clumps of air units that are trying to take advantage of the spread out nature of Goliaths/Marines. As such, Terran air-superiority strategies usually involved a mixed arms composition of ground troops supported by small numbers of specialized air fighters to compensate for lack of visibility, maneuverability, and flexibility.
ZERG
The Scourge and the Devourer are purely support units, and are purely there to maximize the Zerg's general air unit--the Mutalisk. The Scourge acted as a way to whittle down superior air units while the Devourer acted as both a tank for the mutalisk as well as a damage buff to their glaive wurms. Pure Scourge are pointless due to their low hitpoints making them easy to pick off while pure Devourer is useless because their slow attack speed makes their DPS atrocious. This means that being able to control mutalisk movement becomes the benchmark of strong air play in Zerg. Mutalisk can tank for scourge using their fast movement to take the initial shots with enough velocity to escape. Mutalisk can do the reverse with devourers, allowing devourers to stay in the front lines with mutalisks charging forward to fire a shot and then retreating back behind the devourers in order to maximize effective hitpoints.
It was this dynamic differentiation through paired unit dynamics that gave each race a different flavor of anti-air without forcing the players to spam specific units (except the Goliath). But why would they do it? Why would each race care?
Queen, Overlords
Dropships, Science Vessels
Shuttles, Arbiters
All three races were given low cost generalist air units that they needed to protect. Being able to fight these spellcasters gave an impetus to win the air war. Not just that, but these spell casters were better off not clumped up with the main army, but spread out over the map. As such, it was important to have ways to protect them that could maneuver around the map like they could.
Ravens are too slow, Colossus walk, and Mothership Cores are standing over the deathballs. There aren't really many units that you want to hunt down in SC2, and even if you did you don't have the units to hunt down with. There are is no scourge, or corsair, or wraith, there is no units for which to chase after and to chase with. Without those units--there is no reason to win the air war since there's no reason to fight over the air at all.
|
Agree with pretty much entire OP.
Medivac dropping pre-sieged tanks is a shit idea, hopefully it won't go through.
At 3 supply it would be nice if tanks were a bit tankier and better unsieged vs single targets (making them better in small numbers), however since they are already awesome in large numbers then nerfing their splash damage a bit seems a reasonable tradeoff, though it would be nice to see them track while on the move too.
Current Cyclone is meh since it doesn't address any actual Terran mech issue. If we aren't going to get the Golioth then make the Cylone assume that AA role since current mech AA is terribad. (and the earlier poster is correct, it does look like a mobile AA turret already).
Thor has same issue as BC. Too easily abducted or disabled by Zerg spellcaster units. Give BC castable shield matrix ability that it can cast on itself or other units, then BC/Thor combo becomes more useful.
Liberator as a concept is vile. The whole idea of units that magically transform from one thing into something completely different should have no place in what's supposed to be a combat RTS. Unfortunately while Zerg is replete with effective spellcaster support units, and Protoss has a nice balance of spellcaster and micro units, Blizzard's vision for Terran seems to be to pack their unit lineup with this sad uninspired transforming gimmick.
@TMagpie That's a really interesting review of the state of BW air play. I haven't played enough BW or SCII to make an authoritative contribution to the comparison, but it does resonate with my impression of SCII so far in that it seems to have more units that have so little utility that they are hardly used at all, giving the sense that the unit lineup is not nearly so well honed and does not promote the same kinds of rich interplay and depth as was present in SC/BW. It concerns me that if LOTV comes out with a new economy model that forces rapid expansion there will be even fewer strategic options available and SCII depth will diminish still further and gameplay will becomes even more repetitive than it is already.
|
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit?
|
On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit?
I played it a bit when it was just released, and I really didn't like that it had a long siege/unsiege duration. First off, it was actually difficult to know which Liberators were sieged and which weren't (in larger battles this can be hard to see when you have multiple Liberators).
If your army is fighting both Roaches and Mutalisks, and you are sieged up to deal with Roaches, but then Mutalisks attacks you, you can't react by unsieging and start attacking the mutalisks. As a consequence it becomes a prebattle positional unit only, which honestly overlaps too much with the siege tank. I think it would be a ton more fun if you had to actively manage siege/unsiege during engagements.
Secondly, its AA-attack also suffers from the 0.167 damage point and its basically amovish.
Thirdly, the long siege duration makes it especially ackward to use on a unit that only can attack once enemy units are inside the circle. The Siege Tank feels a bit more natural since it can attack everything within 2 and 13 range. It would make a trillion time more sense if it could siege instantly (and unsiege would take 4 seconds), vice versa or perhaps both siege/unsige were much faster.
Actually I was kinda hyped for this unit as it seemed like it could change how terran would play, but after having played with it, I don't feel like touching it again.
|
Bisutopia19156 Posts
On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit?
Agreed. I have a ton of fun playing with the liberator. It has been a huge help with mech pushes. The OP mentions the Thor not having a clear role and I agree. Thor might need some tweaking so it's usefulness is more easily identifiable. Liberators + hellbat and tank pushes are extremely fun versus zerg.
|
On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit?
Well at the very least don't you think it's incredibly unimaginative? Terran already has a transforming siege unit, (siege tank). It also has another transforming unit that even transitions between air and ground attack (Viking). Plus another unit that transforms between a car and a man with a flamethrower (Hellbat).
How does its design make any sense? The primary advantage of flying units is mobility, so from a military design perspective how is a flying unit that can attack units on the ground but has to be completely stationary to do so even remotely useful? Also, it can attack units but not buildings (as if SCII didn't have enough artificial special case mechanics already).
It's not just unimaginative, but in the context of a sci-fi RTS it is (like too many other SCII units and mechanics) downright incoherent. Balance is all well and good, but the game should also be immersive as a sci-fi RTS, unfortunately it's accruing so many arbitrary, gimmicky and downright silly mechanics that it's reaching the point where you might as well replace the spaceship and tank models with little wizards, warriors and dragons, because only in that context will any of it make any sense.
|
On June 29 2015 23:53 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit? Agreed. I have a ton of fun playing with the liberator. It has been a huge help with mech pushes. The OP mentions the Thor not having a clear role and I agree. Thor might need some tweaking so it's usefulness is more easily identifiable. Liberators + hellbat and tank pushes are extremely fun versus zerg.
Liberator is probably the "best" unit Terran got over the course of SC2, even if it's just a sort-of Valkyrie (exactly what many players including me were missing), so far I'm loving it, but tech lab restriction should be implemented  .
Cyclone in it's current state is a complete obsolete unit IMO, it's way too versatile against the majority of things other races have on ground, has way too much HP and overall has a poor design, if it was a cheaper AA-unit, it would be a great addition, but as it is right now it's just another Warhound light with no clear role to fit in.
Thor really should be that kind of unit you have to spend a lot of resources for, which pays for itself due to it's durability and versatility (like they tried with BC warp).
How about removing the Thor from the regular game but instead give the Planetary Fortress (or whatever building you prefer, make Armory/Fusion Core mandatory) an option to "call down a Thor" (restrictions could be a CD, unit limitation to 1, limited unit duration, has to stay in certain proximity to PF to just be used as defensive tool, really whatever you can come up with to limit it's potential power), which would be super strong but also fairly hard to tech into.
I know Blizzard tried to experiment with Thors as hero units during HotS beta, but currently Thors really are just a waste of supply, I really never build them anymore as there are better units to get the job done and are more reliable in doing so.
|
On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit?
Because siege tank should do the job instead yet it doesn't so blizzard put in a new unit to fill that same role siege tank failed to fill in
Instead of buffing the tank, we get medivac pick up that would prevent it from getting any real buff to solve this problem in addition to liberator patching this problem
|
On June 30 2015 03:07 jinjin5000 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit? Because siege tank should do the job instead yet it doesn't so blizzard put in a new unit to fill that same role siege tank failed to fill in Instead of buffing the tank, we get medivac pick up that would prevent it from getting any real buff to solve this problem in addition to liberator patching this problem
Why does it have to be the tank if the Liberator could do it?
Are you attached to the graphic or the nostalgia?
If we are looking to fill gaps in the game, we shouldn't be stuck on names and graphic sprites.
|
On June 30 2015 03:27 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 03:07 jinjin5000 wrote:On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit? Because siege tank should do the job instead yet it doesn't so blizzard put in a new unit to fill that same role siege tank failed to fill in Instead of buffing the tank, we get medivac pick up that would prevent it from getting any real buff to solve this problem in addition to liberator patching this problem Why does it have to be the tank if the Liberator could do it? Are you attached to the graphic or the nostalgia? If we are looking to fill gaps in the game, we shouldn't be stuck on names and graphic sprites.
Siege Tank is probably one of the most iconic units in the game, I certainly would miss it in a game named StarCraft.
That said I don't really see a problem with these two units slightly overlapping, as the Liberator's ground damage can be (should be) toned down quite a bit or the Siege Tank could be buffed a bit more (and that sieged pick-up thing removed), on top of that the again-split upgrades force you to commit to one tech path way heavier early on, which potentially creates room to have a wider variety of unit compositions throughout the game.
In combination with Medivacs Siege Tanks gain additional value as harrassing option (even without being sieged up beforehand), something which can't be done really well (and early) with Liberators, whereas Liberators certainly excel in leap-frogging.
Both units have unique aspects and don't rule each other out, but can coexist!
|
On June 30 2015 04:29 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 03:27 TMagpie wrote:On June 30 2015 03:07 jinjin5000 wrote:On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit? Because siege tank should do the job instead yet it doesn't so blizzard put in a new unit to fill that same role siege tank failed to fill in Instead of buffing the tank, we get medivac pick up that would prevent it from getting any real buff to solve this problem in addition to liberator patching this problem Why does it have to be the tank if the Liberator could do it? Are you attached to the graphic or the nostalgia? If we are looking to fill gaps in the game, we shouldn't be stuck on names and graphic sprites. Siege Tank is probably one of the most iconic units in the game, I certainly would miss it in a game named StarCraft. That said I don't really see a problem with these two units slightly overlapping, as the Liberator's ground damage can be (should be) toned down quite a bit or the Siege Tank could be buffed a bit more (and that sieged pick-up thing removed), on top of that the again-split upgrades force you to commit to one tech path way heavier early on, which potentially creates room to have a wider variety of unit compositions throughout the game. In combination with Medivacs Siege Tanks gain additional value as harrassing option (even without being sieged up beforehand), something which can't be done really well (and early) with Liberators, whereas Liberators certainly excel in leap-frogging. Both units have unique aspects and don't rule each other out, but can coexist!
I never said they should be mutually exclusive. I just think comments such as "but that should be the Siege Tank's job" is riddled with nostalgia in place of logic since it shouldn't matter which unit takes up what role. If Siege Tanks become the reavers of SC2 with medivac drops while Liberators become the Siege Tanks of SC2 with strong positional play--then so be it.
|
On June 30 2015 04:39 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2015 04:29 Creager wrote:On June 30 2015 03:27 TMagpie wrote:On June 30 2015 03:07 jinjin5000 wrote:On June 29 2015 23:28 Athenau wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Liberator. It's a zone control unit that actually does what it's supposed to do, in an interesting way (target ground). Its AA attack is well balanced (along the lines of the old Corsair and Valkyrie).
What, exactly, is wrong with the unit? Because siege tank should do the job instead yet it doesn't so blizzard put in a new unit to fill that same role siege tank failed to fill in Instead of buffing the tank, we get medivac pick up that would prevent it from getting any real buff to solve this problem in addition to liberator patching this problem Why does it have to be the tank if the Liberator could do it? Are you attached to the graphic or the nostalgia? If we are looking to fill gaps in the game, we shouldn't be stuck on names and graphic sprites. Siege Tank is probably one of the most iconic units in the game, I certainly would miss it in a game named StarCraft. That said I don't really see a problem with these two units slightly overlapping, as the Liberator's ground damage can be (should be) toned down quite a bit or the Siege Tank could be buffed a bit more (and that sieged pick-up thing removed), on top of that the again-split upgrades force you to commit to one tech path way heavier early on, which potentially creates room to have a wider variety of unit compositions throughout the game. In combination with Medivacs Siege Tanks gain additional value as harrassing option (even without being sieged up beforehand), something which can't be done really well (and early) with Liberators, whereas Liberators certainly excel in leap-frogging. Both units have unique aspects and don't rule each other out, but can coexist! I never said they should be mutually exclusive. I just think comments such as "but that should be the Siege Tank's job" is riddled with nostalgia in place of logic since it shouldn't matter which unit takes up what role. If Siege Tanks become the reavers of SC2 with medivac drops while Liberators become the Siege Tanks of SC2 with strong positional play--then so be it.
I agree, still I think these kind of comments express the fear of adding just another thing to the game as band-aid solution (MSC) instead of trying to fix problems in a more "thorough" manner, which, however, isn't exactly the case for the Liberator imo.
Just getting more and more stuff while having less long-term versatility due to poor unit-design is something I personally am afraid of to a little extend for this last expansion, so I think I see where those people are coming from
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
