|
Straight forward into the issues of Mech:
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
2. Cyclones are very good vs ground but don't have AA anymore in early-mid game.
3. Thors does not have a clear role with Liberator coming to the game.
Discussion of Tanks:
The reason the tanks sucks in small numbers is because how weak their attack vs single target.
The reason the tanks too strong in large numbers is because they don't overkill.
What can be done to fix this issue?
1. Tanks can have the campaign single target damage upgrade in tech lap unlocked with armory or fusion core that affects ONLY single target attack and the splash damage remains the same. This fixes the tanks issue in small numbers.
2. Tanks can use reduction on the attack speed from 2.8 to 3.5 for example or they can be made to overkill. This fixes the tanks issue in large numbers.
Discussion of Cyclones:
In my opinion, Cyclones should be exact the opposite of what they are now. They should be mainly AA and maybe have AG attack that supports mech later. The issue that resulted in making cyclones too good at shutting everything early game is because they have the same attack for air and ground. Thus it was hard to be balanced against one without affecting the other. If it was like the Goliath, missiles for air and gun for ground, they could have been balanced easily.
What can be done to fix the Cyclones?
1. Introduce a different attack mode for the cyclones to separate the AG and AA so it can be easily balanced.
2. Make the Cyclone mainly AA unit as mech should have Hellion/Hellbats + Tanks as AG.
3. Cost fixes to be around 150/100 (for example) along with nerfs to HP (maybe around 140 would be good?).
Discussion of Thors:
Well... This is the hard part for me as I have no idea what thors could do. I hope to hear ideas from you about it.
|
Already having BW tanks with BW stats would help mech alot.
|
|
|
I agree with everything but this are not fixes IMO but a different direction. Blizz want speed speed speed, that's why the Cyclone is an "alternative" anti ground to the Tank. Even the Liberator is an alternative to the siege weapon.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 24 2015 07:58 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Already having BW tanks with BW stats would help mech alot.
You would need to turn off their smart shooting AI. Remember that BW tanks are different than SC2 tanks. SC2 tanks won't all shoot at 1 zergling.
|
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
im convinced this is how it should be
|
On June 24 2015 17:09 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I agree with everything but this are not fixes IMO but a different direction. Blizz want speed speed speed, that's why the Cyclone is an "alternative" anti ground to the Tank. Even the Liberator is an alternative to the siege weapon.
This is stupid. This kind of design that resulted in all this mess. For example, we don't want colossus, thus lets make it useless and introduce a new unit to fill its role. Why not either remove it completely or redesign it completely? Why do we have to end with tons of useless units?
Mech suffers from lack of reliable AA. Cyclone can handle that part, why make it take the tanks role, making tanks useless and leave the AA gap remaining? Seriously how the hell did they come up with this design philosophy.
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
What I mean they suck in small numbers is that they are bad in small numbers is that you cannot afford doing small pushes with them, you are forced to turtle to get large number and go out. What I mean by too strong in large numbers is that they can obliterate armies in 2-3 shot. Thus it is promoting turtling and deathballing.
|
The Medivac pick up on Tanks is something that definitely buffs low number of Tanks vs large number of Tanks.
I think Thors will get some kind of ability along the way, they've tried with the mm Strike Cannons and the Reconstruct ability.
I think anti air is okay atm, with Widow Mine+Thor+Turret->Cyclones late game. That's without incorperating units from non-Factory, it's definitely not Mechs strength, but I think the Anti Air is decent.
|
Why do you think that tanks are too strong in large numbers? They are the ultimate GtG weapon, they are supposed to be strong, that is their whole point of existence! On the other hand, they are immobile (barring the rather silly siege pickup, but you won't be able to have medivacs for every tank, if you have a lot of them), have no AA, can kill eachother when dropped on etc...
The reluctance to have a strong tank, often supported by community whining about imaginary "tank abuse" is the main reason why "mech" struggles to be an interresting way to play Terran in SC2. I for one would support having tanks even stronger than now.
|
When they let you shoot backwards while moving as suggested by David Kim and you can fly them with medivacs... Tanks will be scary awesome in pro-matches.
|
1. I think tanks are quite OK the way they are right now (in HotS). I really don't like the idea of them being lifted and dropped around by Medivacs. It feels just dumb, it does not promonte positioning while promoting APM only. (If you are fast enough, you can, and should, save your tanks from any position.) If they could be lifted but would emerge unsieged, that would be a much better option, in my opinion. That way you could still save them with good micro, but you could not abuse them by attacking with their insane siege range instantly after they are saved.
2. I'm not a fan of the Cyclones, either, because you can build mass Cyclone which is pretty efficient against everything, especially with the AA upgrade. It's true that due to the AA upgrade, Cyclones remain less defining, but I'm fine with it.
3. Liberators and Thors do overlap quite a bit. It seems to me that the Liberator is actually a flying Thor+Siege Tank combo (kind of). Since Thors are mainly built as AA, Liberators seem to be a bit better in that role. I like the concept of the Liberator, but I would love to see some nerfs to it, so Thors will be used as well.
For example: make the Liberator require a Tech Lab. And nerf its speed already! Oh and the AG damage. Is it still 85? I get that it is single target, but what other unit hits for 85 damage? Not to mention that it scales very well with upgrades, with +3/+3 it's like 94 or something. I think it is way too much.
|
On June 24 2015 21:58 nottapro wrote:
When they let you shoot backwards while moving as suggested by David Kim and you can fly them with medivacs... Tanks will be scary awesome in pro-matches.
Shooting backward and moving won't do much other than on retreat- Siege tank excells when its sieged, not when it is unsieged.
Being able to drop-pickup with medivac is just plain silly in my opinion though.It goes against the very soul of the unit idea. Maybe being able to pick them up while being sieged is fine but there has to be bigger trade off.
|
I guess I need to make some clarification.
I'm totally against the idea of picking sieged tanks. It is totally stupid as many already said, it goes against the definition of the unit. Beside the only reason they made it so is to promote harass as explained in LOTV beta video, as the worker massacre methods we have in HOTS needed more buffs...
I'm against massing Cyclones and call it mech. Mech is about composition. Not one unit army like the Cyclone was. Cyclone needs to have a defined role. I think the best role it can have is the anti air units (Mainly armored + capital ships) like the goliath was.
Thor is just too clunky and slow, the only reason it was created in the first place is to fulfill Blizzard's fantasy of the super T3 ultimate ground weapon that costs 300/200/6 for all races. Seriously we need to fill missing roles first. Thor is just... I don't know, I don't see a place for thor in the mech army and I'm with its removal though I know it won't happen.
Were BW tanks OP vs single target? Majority of the units in SC2 got heath buff and Tanks got damage nerf. IMO it is too weak vs 1 target hit. I'm all for allowing that upgrade to increase the single target damage WITHOUT affecting the splash.
|
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.
|
On June 24 2015 22:16 Sholip wrote:
1. I think tanks are quite OK the way they are right now (in HotS). I really don't like the idea of them being lifted and dropped around by Medivacs. It feels just dumb
Not only does it feel dumb, it is dumb indeed ! Tanks strength should rely on careful positioning, medivac dropping gets around that far too easily. Fortunately DK and the dev team seem to be aware of the issue and I like the solution they're envisioning (you can rescue a sieged tank in a medivac but he'll be dropped unsieged again).
I'm not a fan of cyclones either. The design and the role of the unit seem unclear, while the profusion of range indicators dots everywhere is plain irritating.
|
On June 24 2015 22:59 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 24 2015 23:54 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
BW tanks were not OP. And protoss could have stasis most of the mech army and engage. Anyway we are not here to discuss BW TvP mech. We are talking about making Tanks hit harder on a single target. That would be much better than trolling with medivac.
What are your ideas about that and the mech design in general and how can it be improved?
|
On June 25 2015 01:00 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Dragoons had a little bit more hitpoints and dealt a little less dps than stalkers, were slower, more expensive, and needed an upgrade to match the range.
Stalkers are cheaper range goons with better mobility. They are literally buffed dragoons.
|
On June 25 2015 01:00 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If they have smart fire, then they aren't BW tanks.
I think you miss the point.
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.
|
On June 25 2015 01:42 WrathSCII wrote:
BW tanks were not OP. And protoss could have stasis most of the mech army and engage. Anyway we are not here to discuss BW TvP mech. We are talking about making Tanks hit harder on a single target. That would be much better than trolling with medivac.
What are your ideas about that and the mech design in general and how can it be improved?
You could make the case that BW tanks were a little OP. Progamers mentioned it, like Bisu, back in the old days. Stork said that Vultures should only come with 1 spider mine. Case in point, Mech TvP 200/200 was overwhelmingly strong. One of the strongest (if not the strongest) BW army belonged to Terran mech.
Even in BW, Siege tanks should have been 3 supply....the fact that they were not was the reason why T army had the famous deathball nickname.
Anyway, we are talking about 2 different games so let me bring back the focus.
I agree that tanks hitting harder on a single target would be a good choice for not having troll-tank-pickup.
But I would only advocate maybe 60~65 damage to single target, and making everything else about the tank the same.
Here's a thing. Terran mech doesn't HAVE to be viable. Terrans are not entitled to have every unit that comes out to be viable and responsive. You don't see Protoss players complaining that they can't Skytoss early/mid/late game for both races. It's silly entitlement that T players have been begging Blizzard for years. I'm actually glad Blizzard doesn't cater to this BS as a Terran player myself.
|
On June 24 2015 22:39 WrathSCII wrote:
I guess I need to make some clarification.
I'm totally against the idea of picking sieged tanks. It is totally stupid as many already said, it goes against the definition of the unit. Beside the only reason they made it so is to promote harass as explained in LOTV beta video, as the worker massacre methods we have in HOTS needed more buffs...
I'm against massing Cyclones and call it mech. Mech is about composition. Not one unit army like the Cyclone was. Cyclone needs to have a defined role. I think the best role it can have is the anti air units (Mainly armored + capital ships) like the goliath was.
Thor is just too clunky and slow, the only reason it was created in the first place is to fulfill Blizzard's fantasy of the super T3 ultimate ground weapon that costs 300/200/6 for all races. Seriously we need to fill missing roles first. Thor is just... I don't know, I don't see a place for thor in the mech army and I'm with its removal though I know it won't happen.
Were BW tanks OP vs single target? Majority of the units in SC2 got heath buff and Tanks got damage nerf. IMO it is too weak vs 1 target hit. I'm all for allowing that upgrade to increase the single target damage WITHOUT affecting the splash.
I'd love to see the thor replaced, I pretty much never mech because its so the slowest most boring turtly experience you ever have.
|
On June 25 2015 04:29 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 01:42 WrathSCII wrote:
BW tanks were not OP. And protoss could have stasis most of the mech army and engage. Anyway we are not here to discuss BW TvP mech. We are talking about making Tanks hit harder on a single target. That would be much better than trolling with medivac.
What are your ideas about that and the mech design in general and how can it be improved? You could make the case that BW tanks were a little OP. Progamers mentioned it, like Bisu, back in the old days. Stork said that Vultures should only come with 1 spider mine. Case in point, Mech TvP 200/200 was overwhelmingly strong. One of the strongest (if not the strongest) BW army belonged to Terran mech. Even in BW, Siege tanks should have been 3 supply....the fact that they were not was the reason why T army had the famous deathball nickname. Anyway, we are talking about 2 different games so let me bring back the focus. I agree that tanks hitting harder on a single target would be a good choice for not having troll-tank-pickup. But I would only advocate maybe 60~65 damage to single target, and making everything else about the tank the same. Here's a thing. Terran mech doesn't HAVE to be viable. Terrans are not entitled to have every unit that comes out to be viable and responsive. You don't see Protoss players complaining that they can't Skytoss early/mid/late game for both races. It's silly entitlement that T players have been begging Blizzard for years. I'm actually glad Blizzard doesn't cater to this BS as a Terran player myself.
Yes but Protoss/Zerg races work differently than Terran unit compositions go-you don't see mix of both much out there. Its mostly strictly one sided as productions are rigid.
Protoss is designed to work with "power" tier 3 units while zerg has flexible structure. Bio and Mech are two different compositions and right now only Bio is "viable" against protoss and thats all you see.
Its not like you see mech pop out once every 4-5 games. You never see it other than maybe 4-5 games in entire TvP in prolevel.
|
On June 25 2015 04:29 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 01:42 WrathSCII wrote:
BW tanks were not OP. And protoss could have stasis most of the mech army and engage. Anyway we are not here to discuss BW TvP mech. We are talking about making Tanks hit harder on a single target. That would be much better than trolling with medivac.
What are your ideas about that and the mech design in general and how can it be improved? You could make the case that BW tanks were a little OP. Progamers mentioned it, like Bisu, back in the old days. Stork said that Vultures should only come with 1 spider mine. Case in point, Mech TvP 200/200 was overwhelmingly strong. One of the strongest (if not the strongest) BW army belonged to Terran mech. Even in BW, Siege tanks should have been 3 supply....the fact that they were not was the reason why T army had the famous deathball nickname. Anyway, we are talking about 2 different games so let me bring back the focus. I agree that tanks hitting harder on a single target would be a good choice for not having troll-tank-pickup. But I would only advocate maybe 60~65 damage to single target, and making everything else about the tank the same. Here's a thing. Terran mech doesn't HAVE to be viable. Terrans are not entitled to have every unit that comes out to be viable and responsive. You don't see Protoss players complaining that they can't Skytoss early/mid/late game for both races. It's silly entitlement that T players have been begging Blizzard for years. I'm actually glad Blizzard doesn't cater to this BS as a Terran player myself.
Here's the thing. Bio was not really viable in BW, but mech was. So a lot of BW fans want the dominant mech--but to hide it they say they also don't mind Bio, which is a lie since they wouldn't be complaining about mech if bio was actually "fine"
|
On June 25 2015 04:36 TMagpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 04:29 parkufarku wrote:On June 25 2015 01:42 WrathSCII wrote:
BW tanks were not OP. And protoss could have stasis most of the mech army and engage. Anyway we are not here to discuss BW TvP mech. We are talking about making Tanks hit harder on a single target. That would be much better than trolling with medivac.
What are your ideas about that and the mech design in general and how can it be improved? You could make the case that BW tanks were a little OP. Progamers mentioned it, like Bisu, back in the old days. Stork said that Vultures should only come with 1 spider mine. Case in point, Mech TvP 200/200 was overwhelmingly strong. One of the strongest (if not the strongest) BW army belonged to Terran mech. Even in BW, Siege tanks should have been 3 supply....the fact that they were not was the reason why T army had the famous deathball nickname. Anyway, we are talking about 2 different games so let me bring back the focus. I agree that tanks hitting harder on a single target would be a good choice for not having troll-tank-pickup. But I would only advocate maybe 60~65 damage to single target, and making everything else about the tank the same. Here's a thing. Terran mech doesn't HAVE to be viable. Terrans are not entitled to have every unit that comes out to be viable and responsive. You don't see Protoss players complaining that they can't Skytoss early/mid/late game for both races. It's silly entitlement that T players have been begging Blizzard for years. I'm actually glad Blizzard doesn't cater to this BS as a Terran player myself. Here's the thing. Bio was not really viable in BW, but mech was. So a lot of BW fans want the dominant mech--but to hide it they say they also don't mind Bio, which is a lie since they wouldn't be complaining about mech if bio was actually "fine"
There's nothing wrong with Bio at the moment. Actually, Bio is amazing, incredibly versatile, early game-accessible, and very cost effective - only downside is that it's more micro-intensive than mech, which is ok with professional gamers.
In BW, Bio was not viable against Toss but Mech was.
In SC2, Mech is not viable against Toss but Bio is.
I don't see the problem here. Besides, units like tanks, hellions, thors are still able to be mixed and used in the main army in TvZ / TvP. It's not like Terrans have a unit like the useless scout.
|
Do we really have to discuss this? Every unit in the game should have role. Mech must be viable. Mech and bio and considered most of the times different races. As for me I don't mind bio, but I mind seeing Marines 24/7 vs everything and every phase of the game and the stupid people of the "look how cool I split". As a mecher, I want to see games involving TvP mech, TvZ mech (Non-turtle a move in the end).
Seriously why other races have to tech except for Terrans mass rax + reactor and mass marines and call it late game? Why Terran units scale down the more you tech?
Anyway lets end this and keep the discussion related about how to improve mech. I really don't want this thread to get lost in a bio vs mech discussion. Please. Lets keep it related to the OP.
|
On June 24 2015 07:03 WrathSCII wrote:
Straight forward into the issues of Mech:
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
2. Cyclones are very good vs ground but don't have AA anymore in early-mid game.
3. Thors does not have a clear role with Liberator coming to the game.
Discussion of Tanks:
The reason the tanks sucks in small numbers is because how weak their attack vs single target.
The reason the tanks too strong in large numbers is because they don't overkill.
What can be done to fix this issue?
1. Tanks can have the campaign single target damage upgrade in tech lap unlocked with armory or fusion core that affects ONLY single target attack and the splash damage remains the same. This fixes the tanks issue in small numbers.
2. Tanks can use reduction on the attack speed from 2.8 to 3.5 for example or they can be made to overkill. This fixes the tanks issue in large numbers.
Discussion of Cyclones:
In my opinion, Cyclones should be exact the opposite of what they are now. They should be mainly AA and maybe have AG attack that supports mech later. The issue that resulted in making cyclones too good at shutting everything early game is because they have the same attack for air and ground. Thus it was hard to be balanced against one without affecting the other. If it was like the Goliath, missiles for air and gun for ground, they could have been balanced easily.
What can be done to fix the Cyclones?
1. Introduce a different attack mode for the cyclones to separate the AG and AA so it can be easily balanced.
2. Make the Cyclone mainly AA unit as mech should have Hellion/Hellbats + Tanks as AG.
3. Cost fixes to be around 150/100 (for example) along with nerfs to HP (maybe around 140 would be good?).
Discussion of Thors:
Well... This is the hard part for me as I have no idea what thors could do. I hope to hear ideas from you about it.
100% agree about the sentiment that cyclones should mainly be AA and get their anti-ground attack later on (the reverse of what it is now in beta).
Mech has no AA unit that is a consistent auto-attacker. Thors are not a reliable auto-attacker, neither are widow mines.
The reason mech is so difficult is because of that reason alone. In SC1, mech had the goliath which was an auto-attacker with a strong anti-air and long ranged attack.
IT would be interesting if blizzard tested reversing the current version of the cyclone - AA only at start of game, able to be upgraded at fusion core with the anti-ground attack.
As for tanks, they always will suck because they're 3 supply instead of 2 so it's impossible to hold space with them in a meaningful manner. And as long as the immortal exists (cough 8 armor ultra) mech will always be frustrating to play versus Protoss.
|
The problem is that the Thor is not the Goliath. If only there were a more mobile anit-light GtA mech unit ... maybe like a wardog or something.
|
Have anyone tried TVZ mech or TVP mech in lotv? I don't think they are viable at all. Viper is op and Protoss just have too many solutions. Cyclones really suck.
|
Tanks can move in siege mode - Sgt.Hammer
|
On June 25 2015 04:14 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +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.
On June 25 2015 11:25 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2015 07:03 WrathSCII wrote:
Straight forward into the issues of Mech:
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
2. Cyclones are very good vs ground but don't have AA anymore in early-mid game.
3. Thors does not have a clear role with Liberator coming to the game.
Discussion of Tanks:
The reason the tanks sucks in small numbers is because how weak their attack vs single target.
The reason the tanks too strong in large numbers is because they don't overkill.
What can be done to fix this issue?
1. Tanks can have the campaign single target damage upgrade in tech lap unlocked with armory or fusion core that affects ONLY single target attack and the splash damage remains the same. This fixes the tanks issue in small numbers.
2. Tanks can use reduction on the attack speed from 2.8 to 3.5 for example or they can be made to overkill. This fixes the tanks issue in large numbers.
Discussion of Cyclones:
In my opinion, Cyclones should be exact the opposite of what they are now. They should be mainly AA and maybe have AG attack that supports mech later. The issue that resulted in making cyclones too good at shutting everything early game is because they have the same attack for air and ground. Thus it was hard to be balanced against one without affecting the other. If it was like the Goliath, missiles for air and gun for ground, they could have been balanced easily.
What can be done to fix the Cyclones?
1. Introduce a different attack mode for the cyclones to separate the AG and AA so it can be easily balanced.
2. Make the Cyclone mainly AA unit as mech should have Hellion/Hellbats + Tanks as AG.
3. Cost fixes to be around 150/100 (for example) along with nerfs to HP (maybe around 140 would be good?).
Discussion of Thors:
Well... This is the hard part for me as I have no idea what thors could do. I hope to hear ideas from you about it.
100% agree about the sentiment that cyclones should mainly be AA and get their anti-ground attack later on (the reverse of what it is now in beta). Mech has no AA unit that is a consistent auto-attacker. Thors are not a reliable auto-attacker, neither are widow mines. The reason mech is so difficult is because of that reason alone. In SC1, mech had the goliath which was an auto-attacker with a strong anti-air and long ranged attack. IT would be interesting if blizzard tested reversing the current version of the cyclone - AA only at start of game, able to be upgraded at fusion core with the anti-ground attack.
This is actually pretty solid reasoning. Retool them so that their locking-on aspect is tied to either the same upgrade that enables ground attacking or the upgrade that gives them their ridiculous range. That way they serve as AA support in the mid-game, and once upgraded, become useful for taking down high-priority targets, as Blizz hoped for them. Granted, they hoped that they'd be used for that in the early game, but locking-on is really not an appropriate spell for the way that Cyclones were being used early on in the beta.
|
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. Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 11:25 avilo wrote:On June 24 2015 07:03 WrathSCII wrote:
Straight forward into the issues of Mech:
1. Tanks are weak in small numbers and too strong in large numbers.
2. Cyclones are very good vs ground but don't have AA anymore in early-mid game.
3. Thors does not have a clear role with Liberator coming to the game.
Discussion of Tanks:
The reason the tanks sucks in small numbers is because how weak their attack vs single target.
The reason the tanks too strong in large numbers is because they don't overkill.
What can be done to fix this issue?
1. Tanks can have the campaign single target damage upgrade in tech lap unlocked with armory or fusion core that affects ONLY single target attack and the splash damage remains the same. This fixes the tanks issue in small numbers.
2. Tanks can use reduction on the attack speed from 2.8 to 3.5 for example or they can be made to overkill. This fixes the tanks issue in large numbers.
Discussion of Cyclones:
In my opinion, Cyclones should be exact the opposite of what they are now. They should be mainly AA and maybe have AG attack that supports mech later. The issue that resulted in making cyclones too good at shutting everything early game is because they have the same attack for air and ground. Thus it was hard to be balanced against one without affecting the other. If it was like the Goliath, missiles for air and gun for ground, they could have been balanced easily.
What can be done to fix the Cyclones?
1. Introduce a different attack mode for the cyclones to separate the AG and AA so it can be easily balanced.
2. Make the Cyclone mainly AA unit as mech should have Hellion/Hellbats + Tanks as AG.
3. Cost fixes to be around 150/100 (for example) along with nerfs to HP (maybe around 140 would be good?).
Discussion of Thors:
Well... This is the hard part for me as I have no idea what thors could do. I hope to hear ideas from you about it.
100% agree about the sentiment that cyclones should mainly be AA and get their anti-ground attack later on (the reverse of what it is now in beta). Mech has no AA unit that is a consistent auto-attacker. Thors are not a reliable auto-attacker, neither are widow mines. The reason mech is so difficult is because of that reason alone. In SC1, mech had the goliath which was an auto-attacker with a strong anti-air and long ranged attack. IT would be interesting if blizzard tested reversing the current version of the cyclone - AA only at start of game, able to be upgraded at fusion core with the anti-ground attack. This is actually pretty solid reasoning. Retool them so that their locking-on aspect is tied to either the same upgrade that enables ground attacking or the upgrade that gives them their ridiculous range. That way they serve as AA support in the mid-game, and once upgraded, become useful for taking down high-priority targets, as Blizz hoped for them. Granted, they hoped that they'd be used for that in the early game, but locking-on is really not an appropriate spell for the way that Cyclones were being used early on in the beta.
I like it because it would give the cyclone a purpose. It would counter early T2 air play (muta/banshee/Oracle). The current cyclone exists solely to punish 1 gate expands where the protoss walks out on the map with a small number of blinkless stalkers. It looks like a mobile missile tower (AA only) anyways.
|
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.
|
On June 25 2015 17:22 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 25 2015 18:30 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On June 25 2015 23:32 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 25 2015 23:51 WrathSCII wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Immortals don't need to siege, don't have a minimum range, and don't do friendly splash. They also have hardened shields.
In return for these disadvantages, the tank is supposed to give you ground superiority when positioned properly. If it doesn't, then what's the point? No one is going to build immobile 150/125/3 units as glorified baneling killers if they don't have to, which is why you never see the tank in non-mirrors outside of odd timings in TvP and the (very) occasional mech game in TvZ.
In LoTV the Liberator has usurped the tank's role as a hard zone-control unit, while the tankivac is supposed be a...mini-reaver I guess? Someone on reddit called it a micro cannon which is as good a description as any.
While I can't say this is the most elegant state of affairs, it isn't terrible either. It certainly produces entertaining gameplay.
|
On June 26 2015 00:13 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 26 2015 00:17 Athenau wrote:
Immortals don't need to siege, don't have a minimum range, and don't do friendly splash. They also have hardened shields.
In return for these disadvantages, the tank is supposed to give you ground superiority when positioned properly. If it doesn't, then what's the point? No one is going to build immobile 150/125/3 units as glorified baneling killers if they don't have to, which is why you never see the tank in non-mirrors outside of odd timings in TvP and the (very) occasional mech game in TvZ.
In LoTV the Liberator has usurped the tank's role as a hard zone-control unit, while the tankivac is supposed be a...mini-reaver I guess? Someone on reddit called it a micro cannon which is as good a description as any.
While I can't say this is the most elegant state of affairs, it isn't terrible either. It certainly produces entertaining gameplay.
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.
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.
So Liberator does the same thing, except its in the air: so what? Tanks came before Liberators, if you are gonna fix anything, change liberators to serve a different function instead of changing an old unit.
|
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.
|
Bisutopia19299 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
|
If i wanted to assume the good, i'd say that the Liberator's anti ground role is to give Bio a siege option that has better mobility then a Tank and can keep up with the bio army.
If i were to assume the bad, i'd say it's the second band aid to make mech functional, after the can do everything Cyclone.
No matter what, i like the unit for it's anti air because i fucking hate the supply heavy, expensive, slow building Thor as the only anti Muta option for mech. How this piss of crap survived til this day in SC2 i can't understand..then again, we still have the Colossus to.
|
Sadly... They are testing weaker version of tanks now just to keep it balanced for the sake of the siege tank drop. Like the tanks were not weak enough already. Like we see them in matches other than TvT or TvZ mech that usually ends with Raven Thor Hellbat...
In brood war you could have send 6-8 Tanks with 10 vaulters to destroy a Protoss expand and die after doing a fine trade or return without much loses. In StarCraft II, you can't even hope to send 12 Tanks with 12 Hellbats alone and expect to accomplish anything.
I started to think they gave up on Mech as LOTV is focused on action pack and mobility. They will focus on bio and drop mech since it is about positional play.
|
Sadly... They are testing weaker version of tanks now just to keep it balanced for the sake of the siege tank drop. Like the tanks were not weak enough already. Like we see them in matches other than TvT or TvZ mech that usually ends with Raven Thor Hellbat...
No they aren't. They're testing a weaker version of the tank drop, not weaker tanks. And they haven't even decided if the current version is too strong.
|
On June 30 2015 07:22 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +
Sadly... They are testing weaker version of tanks now just to keep it balanced for the sake of the siege tank drop. Like the tanks were not weak enough already. Like we see them in matches other than TvT or TvZ mech that usually ends with Raven Thor Hellbat...
No they aren't. They're testing a weaker version of the tank drop, not weaker tanks. And they haven't even decided if the current version is too strong.
I believe they are working on either delay before siege tank can fire or just plain unsieged tank when it drops.
|
Huh I've been thinking about this
Why not buff the tank damage but make you require researching siege mode upgrade in LotV? Maybe lower the cooldown of attack in turn
Right now, tank suffers from critical number syndrome where it is only good when it hits critical number and behind a large amount of buffer. Its more of a supporting unit than the main because of its cooldown dps and splash that makes it infinitely better when it is allowed to shoot for long peroid of time- so in a deathball.
|
I don't think what makes tanks poor in low numbers is that their damage is insufficient. When defending your base against an early rush even one or two siege tanks are hugely benefitial. What makes tanks not great in small numbers is that they have barely any more hp than a Hellbat (which can be healed by Medivac) which in conjunction with their minimum range makes them overly vulnerable to getting swarmed and instagibbed by light units.
Given that tanks are already excellent in good numbers I see no way that the community or Blizzard would accept buffing their damage and reducing the cooldown. Giving them a bit more hp though in return for reduced splash damage sounds like a win win as then they'll also do less damage to your own front line units.
|
I also have an idea about banshees:
- Banshees are no longer light armor (no attribute).
Has no effect in TvZ,
barely affects TvT, (In LotV we have liberators and Cyclones)
makes Banshees far more viable in TvP (Phoenixes would not hardcounter them).
- Increase starport build time by 10s.
-Decrease banshee build time to 45s.
- This keeps 1-1-1 openers as strong as they are; banshees hit almost at the same timing (5s earlier on paper, on practice it should be around 3s)
- makes mine drops/Hellion- Hellbat drops/MMM timings hit 10s later.
- The time reduction on production makes banshees a more core unit since it can be produced as fast as tanks.
|
On July 02 2015 20:10 JCoto wrote:
I also have an idea about banshees:
- Banshees are no longer light armor (no attribute).
Has no effect in TvZ,
barely affects TvT,
makes Banshees far more viable in TvP (Phoenixes would not hardcounter them).
- Increase starport build time by 10s.
-Decrease banshee build time to 45s.
- This keeps 1-1-1 openers as strong as they are; banshees hit almost at the same timing (5s earlier on paper, on practice it should be around 3s)
- makes mine drops/Hellion- Hellbat drops/MMM timings hit 10s later.
- The time reduction on production makes banshees a more core unit since it can be produced as fast as tanks.
Air weapon/armor are separated in lotv though
|
On July 02 2015 20:13 jinjin5000 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 20:10 JCoto wrote:
I also have an idea about banshees:
- Banshees are no longer light armor (no attribute).
Has no effect in TvZ,
barely affects TvT,
makes Banshees far more viable in TvP (Phoenixes would not hardcounter them).
- Increase starport build time by 10s.
-Decrease banshee build time to 45s.
- This keeps 1-1-1 openers as strong as they are; banshees hit almost at the same timing (5s earlier on paper, on practice it should be around 3s)
- makes mine drops/Hellion- Hellbat drops/MMM timings hit 10s later.
- The time reduction on production makes banshees a more core unit since it can be produced as fast as tanks. Air weapon/armor are separated in lotv though
The fact that they are separed doesn't change that Banshees and/or their productive strength can be improved to fit more a core role.
Sadly, Banshees in SC2 have been mostly played as harrassers/base snipers, but they have a very decent DPS and they could fit a very strong position if their production were more viable.
One of the issues of Mech is that production is relatively slow (tech lab units) and facilities are expensive, compared to the macroboosted Zerg/Protoss/Terran bio production.
I also think it is worth testing to have banshees less hardcountered by Phoenixes with the light attribute removed. Phoenixes move way faster than Banshees and also shoot while moving, so utility-wise, Phoenixes already counter Banshees. The bonus damage from +light simply makes Banshees x2 weaker vs Phoenixes. It's redundant countering.
|
Since we are now discussing Mech fixes not just from the point of view of mech directly but also units that interact with mech I have another unit in mind that I suspect could use some adjustment.
Recall how now that Swarm Hosts have been nerfed now the Colossus is less seen in PvZ, this is a good example of how units affect each other and how units can be relatively buffed or nerfed by adjusting related units. Another example would be how a nerf to Marauders could be considered a buff to Ultralisks.
There is one unit whose current use in mech armies strikes me as imbalanced. The Raven. It's not that there is any obvious stat or ability it has that jumps out as being suspect, the thing that makes me wonder about its current form is purely the amount of them we see made. When I see a late game mech army consisting of 4 Thors, 4 siege tanks and 30 Ravens the sheer number of them alone makes me suspect that something is out of kilter.
Its interaction with Infestors also seems really undesirable. One of the most pointless looking engagements in SCII from a spectator perspective is seeing a blob of Infestors spewing infested Terrans and another blob of Ravens culling the infested Terrans by spamming Auto Turrets. One of the GSL or WCS matches had this recently, it went on for a good 10-15 minutes and was just completely pointless, the caster (I think it was Rotterdamn) described it as 'sweeping up leaves on a windy day' (meaning a completely pointless task).
I don't have a nice well though-out solution to propose though. Amongst the nebulous thoughts running around in my brain I have a niggling envy of how many disable/crowd control casters Zerg (and to some extent Protoss) have, and how little recourse Terran has to having key units like Thors and BC abducted into the Zerg army.
So one idea I have would be that I'd like the Terran to get back the Defensive Matrix ability. A castable ability that puts a temporary shield buffer on any single unit. Imo replacing the Raven Auto Turret ability with Defensive Matrix would be a decent improvement for the following reasons:
- The Terran would now have a chance to try and rescue abducted units.
- It's a more skill based mechanic.
- It shouldn't promote Raven spam to the extent that Auto Turret does since the ability has utility in more specific circumstances instead of being just free buffer and dps.
- Removal of free late game spammable buffer units gives late game Zerg more potential to smash a maxed mech army through brute force. Currently late game Zerg vs mech/Ravens are just smashing themselves against a brick wall.
- Less buffer from Raven Auto Turret spam means Terran would have to use more tanks/Thors/Marauders (which is how it should be).
- It synergises nicely with the case for a Siege Tank hp buff in conjunction with a splash damage reduction.
- It at least goes in the right direction when it comes to addressing the issue of Terran being more spammy than Zerg in SCII. Consider how atm Zerg might build half a dozen Vipers whereas Terran might build 30 Ravens, when if anything this should be the other way around.
|
On June 30 2015 05:17 Sapphire.lux wrote:
If i wanted to assume the good, i'd say that the Liberator's anti ground role is to give Bio a siege option that has better mobility then a Tank and can keep up with the bio army.
If i were to assume the bad, i'd say it's the second band aid to make mech functional, after the can do everything Cyclone.
No matter what, i like the unit for it's anti air because i fucking hate the supply heavy, expensive, slow building Thor as the only anti Muta option for mech. How this piss of crap survived til this day in SC2 i can't understand..then again, we still have the Colossus to.
I think Blizzard doesn't want mech to be viable as-is, right now the core mech army is very weak in the LotV enviroment compared to the bio army, however both Factory units and starport units are still strong, this added with the Split upgrades makes me think that Blizzard doesn't want traditional mech to be viable option, but rather to mech bio-mech or bio-air hybrids to be the go to compositions, units like the liberator and the tank drop make more sense for a bio composition, also this would fit with Blizzards desire to make everything FASTER FASTER FASTER as people has pointed before, not to mention there hasn't been any comments on positional play from Blizzard.
As a mech player this saddens me, but I guess mech just doesn't fits into Blizzards view of how LotV should be played.
|
Am I the only one who thought this was another match fixing incident? Maybe it's just the wheather...
|
On June 29 2015 23:39 Hider 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? 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.
yea the ag attack looks really strong but good players can just out maneuver you and while you are spending all your time trying to siege up at the right spots they are getting ready to flank you. Really sucks open map they only really work if you can pin down your opponent in some kind of corner of the map or there natural
|
Why Blizzard thinks of mech as Cyclone? Mech was not that great in HotS. They added Cyclones and people stared to mech. Then they nerfed them and mech becomes bad. Factory has 6 units but at the end Cyclone changes makes mech from bad to good and from good to bad. Isn't bad that 1 unit changes the status of a play style and the other 5 units are irrelevant? Yet that unit at the same time fails to cover the main weakness that mech has which is the lack of powerful mobile factory AA that comes without teching as hard as you tech for thors? Like Goliath was maybe?
I'm really scared for the way Blizzard going with mech.
|
If blizzard's goal is to give the player the ability to choose going bio, mech, or sky terran there needs to be tier 2 anti air. Blizzard stated their main motivation for removing the cyclone's anti air was to allow players to harass in the early game without risking losing their drop to cyclone lock on. Removing the cyclone's anti air forces the Terran to invest in marines or vikings. The mech player will almost always choose the latter as the star port is required for the cyclone upgrade. Early vikings shuts down early game harass just as much, if not more than cyclones. A player that is cognoscente of their drop ship will maneuver it away from cyclones before it gets in range; just like they would against vikings. Consider vikings have the mobility to give chase. Other Mech players can attest that since the cyclone change it has forced a more turtle style of mech in all three match ups.
There are so many passionate people in this community that want nothing more than to see this game reach every inch of its potential. Take a look back at the start of the beta. Blizzard was making bold moves. Each patch made the game more fun and intricate. All of a sudden the shallow skill ceiling we suffered through with HOTS grew exponentially. This happened in such a short period of time thanks to rapid unique patches. These changes were less about numbers and more about what a player could do mechanically. It reminded us of a game we played that was balanced because of an "attacker vs. defender" dynamic. A phenomenon that exists in few other games. The broad stroke changes we enjoyed early on are starting to turn into specific changes to specific units. The plus or minus five second bunker build time is the way HOTS was balanced. This is NOT a healthy or long lasting way to give stability to a strategy game.
TL writers explain the DH is an example of a solution to the three base cap. It rewards zergs for out expanding against a turtle player. It allows a more swarm style of play earlier on. Less drones are required which frees up food for low tier high volume armies. Protoss players may adopt a similar style against mech players. Unfortunately the proposed economy changes were never realized. "We may have decided internally that the economy change will not go through." This does not qualify as adequate or objective play testing. The so called fan made Liberator is not a healthy addition to this game. Another point and click flyer is the last thing the community wanted. We need to get away from point and click auto casters. Hard counters are for Heath Stone. This community is different. It wants balance through mechanics, a skyscraper tall skill ceiling, and balance through attack/defender dynamics. It is time to stop polishing that statue and break out the chisel.
|
|
|
So Blizzard is making Cyclones have 2 types of attacks to make it easier to balance them. Good.
Cyclones are being made mainly AG and have weaker AA... Not good.
Nothing on Tanks or Thors... Not good.
I guess the only thing we can do is wait... Maybe those will get addressed after putting Cyclone changes online.
|
Cyclones are bit too good atm. After you handle the air opponent has, cyclone is more than enough to handle any th ing after it is good no matter the situation.
|
I agree with most of the concerns. The iconic mech unit that should be the core of mech strats should be the tank, not the cyclone. The cyclone is far too versatile, once the upgrades are researched there is no downside to keep producing cyclones. Their AG should be far weaker and the lock on thing is just retarded, not to mention the ludicrous amount of dots it produces on the screen (watched avilo screen yesterday, he played a mass cyclones vs mass cyclones TvT, the amount of dots on screen was just ridiculous).
I'm a bit more cautious on the liberator that is indeed interesting, though its AG DPS feels a bit too high.
|
I posted this in the liberator thread but I think it better fits here.
I would like to try out the following changes to mech:
Swap supply of liberator and tank.
Increase siege and unsiege time of the liberator. It is about space control, so you should get punished for controlling the wrong space.
Give tank back its old damage.
Tanks picked up by medivacs get dropped unsieged.
Swap health of cyclone and tank.
Nerf the cyclone ground attack by changing it to something ok-ish similar to the viking ground attack.
Give cyclone AA at armory tech.
Remove bio tag from hellbats.
Now you have mech centered around a strong tank with helpful utility units that help your composition but should not be massed unless in certain situations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dORF46X.png)
