EPTHowever, my biggest complaint with the tank is that it deals friendly splash damage. There is no other unit in the game that does this, for any race. Unless you storm yourself (then you deserve it!) then nothing else will splash your own units. And since siege tanks are so incredibly dependent on position and having an army in front of them so they dont die, the friendly splash is unnecessary and extremely unforgiving I think. If it is going to remain in the game, I think that a few other key units should start doing friendly splash as well...
[D] Discussing the Siege Tank - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
However, my biggest complaint with the tank is that it deals friendly splash damage. There is no other unit in the game that does this, for any race. Unless you storm yourself (then you deserve it!) then nothing else will splash your own units. And since siege tanks are so incredibly dependent on position and having an army in front of them so they dont die, the friendly splash is unnecessary and extremely unforgiving I think. If it is going to remain in the game, I think that a few other key units should start doing friendly splash as well... | ||
|
sushichef
Scotland48 Posts
This would make tanks much more viable in TvP and would not affect TvT or TvZ that much. It would also introduce another interesting micro element - you'd want to target beefier units before smaller ones. (Now that I think of it, isn't there an upgrade like that in campaign mode?) | ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
| ||
|
Willzzz
United Kingdom774 Posts
On December 21 2011 23:56 sushichef wrote: I would love to see a new upgrade for tanks which would give them extra damage but ONLY for the primary target. Make it expensive, make it late-game (require fusion core) - I don't care. This would make tanks much more viable in TvP and would not affect TvT or TvZ that much. It would also introduce another interesting micro element - you'd want to target beefier units before smaller ones. (Now that I think of it, isn't there an upgrade like that in campaign mode?) If they did want to make tanks viable vs protosss, then you are right they would have to be very careful not to break TvZ in doing so. I think it's quite a nice idea, it would affect some things in TvZ and some in TvT but not too drastically. Might make TvT a bit too defensive? | ||
|
ZJAT
United States83 Posts
I wouldn't be against a single target shell upgrade, as long as it somehow required Fusion Core, and maybe even had a long research time... But I think the Auto-Bat/Fire-Bot is the best option, mostly cause it is already planned, and it fits the morphinh mech theme that seems prevalent now in Terran. | ||
|
Sprutking
Sweden18 Posts
 .Although that sound alot like bw ^^. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
|
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
On December 21 2011 23:25 Nihonjin wrote: Tanks are good vs P. In High Masters, you see them a lot more since people learn to control/position them better. You need to know how to place them, have back bone army to go along with there unit composition(counter). You cant just mass tanks blindly. Need some tanking units for the tanks (thors), spread tanks around and it will crush protoss units. If they go immortal, get Ghost. Simple as that. But lets face it, more than half of terran players cant micro management that so they go to the easy blindly mass tier 1 units play style. 1. You are not high masters, you are mid diamond. 2. What the fuck, bio is five times more micro intensive than mech - you focus fire with tanks and that's all. 3. Get ghosts, simple as that? Sometimes I get the feeling that people just blindly suggest adding whatever unit that would theoretically do well against another unit. Good luck not falling hopelessly far behind on foodcount if you try to make mech and ghosts at the same time before you're maxed. The tank is in a meh-state right now. It's intended to be the terran food-and-supply effective unit, but outside of TvT it doesn't really have the potential to be truly supply and cost-effective. | ||
|
RyLai
United States477 Posts
On December 21 2011 22:17 frantic.cactus wrote: I have to wonder, one of the main criticisms on the tank in TvP is that it created an army that is "to immobile". Why then is mech considered by many pros's to be FAR superior to bio in the TvT match up. Surly with the insane mobility of bio in dropships immobile mech should be torn apart. There are several things to consider. First, and most importantly, mech is significantly harder to play than bio. How hard is it to spam Marines, Marauders, and Medivacs then move around the map, avoiding tanks, and abusing drops in less protected areas? Then as the mech player, how difficult is it to cover all 3 bases sufficiently, give your opponent the option to take all the bases on the map due to his map control and mobility, and then slow push across the map, knowing a single mistake can cost you half your tanks? Also, if you don't push quickly, enough, he just gets Battlecruisers and kills you with his superior economy. When played properly, mech is absolutely superior due to the simple fact that a full volley from all your tanks kills a third or half his freakin' army! Simply put, you can't engage a properly controlled mech army with bio. That's why, as the bio player, you abuse multi-drops in weak locations, to slow down his economy, force him to multitask, and frustrate him as you take bases to set yourself up for a transition into either sky terran or a ridiculous tank switch (usually sky terran). You engage EVERYWHERE the army isn't. And that's the dynamics behind TvT mech versus bio. If you don't understand why people are choosing to play bio over mech as it is now, then try it for yourself and see what you'd rather play - the style that takes advantage of the single mistake that most players are bound to make, or the style that requires you to play near perfectly but basically rolls over whatever your opponent can throw at you. As for TvP, you also have to take other game mechanics into account. If Terran is on 5-6 bases playing bio, and you demollish half of their army instantly, and they manage to salvage the other half, how are they supposed to rebuild? Unless they replenish a good 50-65 supply worth of bio in 1 round of production (more likely to take 2 or 3 with at least 10-16 Barracks, which is roughly what you'd expect). So that means you have about a 50-75 second window where his army is infinitely weaker than yours (even though in a good 200/200 engagement your mech still wins). Now, consider the same situation as Protoss. No matter what, Protoss will have gateway units as a majority of their army, if they don't just play a 100% gateway setup. If a Protoss loses 50-65 supply, they likely had at least 12 Gateways anyway, especially if you let them get those 5-6 bases (which will actually mean 16 or more). 24 supply is instantly remade, and in another 35 seconds, another 24 supply is remade (less if Chrono Boost is used, which it absolutely will). And with the Warp In function, you don't have a rally point, so remaxes are significantly more organized than if you played Zerg or Terran, where if you sat in the middle of the rally point or near the production facilities, your units will basically be engaging the mech army 1 by 1. Even if you boxed and A-moved every unit that came near, you're still going to have this effect. And a Protoss army doesn't melt like a Terran bio army does. Wooooooooow. If you've played TvT and just watched a bio army just melt, you would know. And that's with like 8-10 tanks, not all that much. I've done like 16-20 Siege Tanks with like 20 Hellions against a Protoss gateway army (notice the ridiculous amounts of splash), and although it was a decisive victory, you can't say it melted nearly as well as a bio army did (and with twice as many tanks as well as having Hellions engage as well and having engaged in the side lane choke of Metalopolis). A Zerg or Terran army would've melted instantly. Protoss units are just straight up beefier. Stalkers have more total HP than Roaches and Marauders, and have basically the same survivability as Tanks (much less damage of course). Zealots are more durable than Marauders and roughly the same as Roaches, but without taking the bonus damage from Siege Tanks for being armored. Then we have Archons.. 310 HP, and no bonus damage taken from tanks.That's 9 Tank shots! O.O The only things more durable against a Tank on the ground would be an Ultralisk with it's insane 500 HP and an Immortal with it's Hardened Shield (which is more or less made to hard counter a Tank, Thor, and Ultralisk). Now, nothing really melts an enemy army like a Protoss army. If your mech army is caught, it dies immediately, and it takes forever to remax (45s for Tanks as opposed to 25-30 for Marines and Marauders). Colossi don't discriminate in how they deal their damage, and Immortals are designed to destroy Tanks. Maybe if Tanks did 70 damage to Armored units, they could work vs Protoss (with primary hard counters being Immortals, Archons, and Zealots due to the lack of damage they take). As it is, for Tanks to take 4 shots to kills a single Stalker (with the relatively weak splash damage they take as shown by the OP), it's retardedly difficult to get Tanks to work efficiently. Run in Charged Zealots from 2 angles, then Blink in Stalkers, and your Tanks are in trouble. With Bio against Protoss, you do relatively similar damage. A Tank does 50 damage every 3 seconds to Armored, and 35 damage to Light. A Marauder does 10 every 1.5 seconds to Light, and 20 every 1.5 seconds to Armored. With Stim, it's 10/20 damage every 1 second. Versus Light, you're short 5 damage per 3 seconds and you're up 10 damage every 3 seconds versus Armored (which is a majority of the Protoss army). But if you do it by supply cost, then it would be 3 Marauders to 2 Siege Tanks. That means its 70/100 damage per 3 seconds versus 30/60 damage per 1.5 seconds (1 with Stim). You'll ALWAYS engage with Stim, so you'll be up 20 damage per 3 seconds against Light and up a ridiculous 80 damage against Armored. Even with the damage that splash does (Protoss units don't clump up nearly as well as Terran units, or even Zerg units), you have the advantage of mobility in the army. You can kite Zealots all day, basically engaging only a portion of the army, then engage the Stalkers (which Marauders DEMOLISH). With Tanks, you take on the entire army at once, or else suffer dealing significantly reduced damage. Bio is simply vastly easier to play. Protoss and Terran basically switched their positions from Brood War. Protoss gets the deathball and Terran uses a bunch of mobile, low-tier units with support. But Protoss doesn't have to slow push, and instead just drops Force Fields... | ||
|
whoopingchow
United States293 Posts
On December 22 2011 01:44 RyLai wrote: ... With Bio against Protoss, you do relatively similar damage. A Tank does 50 damage every 3 seconds to Armored, and 35 damage to Light. A Marauder does 10 every 1.5 seconds to Light, and 20 every 1.5 seconds to Armored. With Stim, it's 10/20 damage every 1 second. Versus Light, you're short 5 damage per 3 seconds and you're up 10 damage every 3 seconds versus Armored (which is a majority of the Protoss army). But if you do it by supply cost, then it would be 3 Marauders to 2 Siege Tanks. That means its 70/100 damage per 3 seconds versus 30/60 damage per 1.5 seconds (1 with Stim). You'll ALWAYS engage with Stim, so you'll be up 20 damage per 3 seconds against Light and up a ridiculous 80 damage against Armored. Even with the damage that splash does (Protoss units don't clump up nearly as well as Terran units, or even Zerg units), you have the advantage of mobility in the army. You can kite Zealots all day, basically engaging only a portion of the army, then engage the Stalkers (which Marauders DEMOLISH). With Tanks, you take on the entire army at once, or else suffer dealing significantly reduced damage. Bio is simply vastly easier to play. Protoss and Terran basically switched their positions from Brood War. Protoss gets the deathball and Terran uses a bunch of mobile, low-tier units with support. But Protoss doesn't have to slow push, and instead just drops Force Fields... That's the biggest part, I think, of why bio has remained so viable. Marauders and marines become insanely cost effective, and ghosts are essential in the match up. If you're dumping your gas in ghosts, you shouldn't have any resources to get tanks. Tanks are essential for controlling space, so if you get a good contain up, it's still nearly impossible for Protoss to break out of, but with the warp mechanic, an unscounted pylon could spell a flanking disaster for your tanks. Without the mobility that bio provides, you risk the chance that a round of charge zealots is going to come in and decimate your entire tank line. | ||
|
rumblen
United States14 Posts
Siege tanks reward good planning and punish bad planning more than most units in the game. Your example of an unscouted pylon is a perfect example. If you just throw tanks into an area and siege them, you will run into problems. You have to scout surrounding areas so they don't get flanked. Real militarys have to scout an area before they bring in tanks. So should you. Tips that were given to me: 1) If your tanks need to move forward, move a raven or two up and pre-turret the area. They last for a few minutes and act to absorb charges and damage. With the proper upgrades, they last a long time and can tank surprisingly well. 2) Bring SCVs with your tanks. Take advantage of the fact that you can repair them. If an area is especially dangerous, build a bunker as well as your raven turrets. When the bunker is ready, move your tanks forward. 3) Use defensive PFs. Your army is slow so you need defenses at your bases. Proper use of missile turrets and PFs strongly discourage drop play. This allows your tank force to be going the right direction: toward your enemy. 4) Harass. You want to encourage them to keep forces at their bases. Effective drops go a long way. If you have enough gas, ravens do amazing harass with the proper upgrades (which you'll want anyway). If they are concentrating on defense, they are not concentrating on offense. Keep them busy! 5) Don't use tanks unless you have the APM to handle them properly. You will be constantly scouting, harassing, dropping and keeping pressure on them while your tanks slowly push forward. Without that pressure, they can just use their superior mobility to wreck your bases while your tanks slowly move their way forward. 6) You'll need to expand aggressively. Using PFs and missile turrets as a mineral dump and get that gas! I am not a good enough player to use tanks. I started Terran and switched to Protoss when I got frustrated with them. | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On December 21 2011 22:32 frantic.cactus wrote: I disagree, mech IS considered far superior by the top top Korean terrans. I don't care about the majority, just the likes of MVP, Bomber etc. Also tanks in a head on engagement in the right composition can beat a 200/200 Protoss army head on. The drawbacks I always hear are, "too immobile" or "urgh, I make one mistake and I lose." Interview with mvp(That i cannot find but will once i shower, so like edit it in in -15 minutes), MVP said he doesn't think mech will continue to be viable. That's all, don't make assumptions. MVP likes extremely solid play. Bio isnt that. On topic: tanks are soooo good vs zerg any sort of buff to the siege tank is really impossible. If you want it tovbe viable vs toss it has to be a transition, map specific, both of those, or some genius new composition. Vs. zerg, ive started laddering and every game i play vs terran on lost temple is: 15 hatch 8 hellions come! Defend 8 hellions, all dead. Make 10 more drones then only lings while building bane nest. More hellions coming! Stay in base with lings to defend hellions Oh wait, he has some marines and siege tanks! You were supposed to leave your lings on thr other side for a flank, noob. Now you lose. I dont really mind opness at lower levels, i think its good that siege tanks promote such thought intensive play as always being ready for a flank. But, I also think they need to stay where they are as a unit. | ||
|
Mahtasooma
Germany475 Posts
What about... me liking to see Hydras against... oh wait. A unit with range 13 with sick splash without really needing micro, single handedly defending an expo in the midgame from the high ground looks fine to me. Friendly splash is only really relevant when there are absolutely no medivacs due to combat shields. | ||
|
prom1se
Canada35 Posts
* MVP does not agree with Artosis in regards to mech play (http://www.quanticgaming.com/articles/News/StarCraft-2/29/Meet-the-Team-Jung-MVP-Jong-Hyun/). * Archons also do radial splash damage. | ||
|
Huggerz
Great Britain919 Posts
And please, please please please, stop posting your opinion as if its an unequivocal fact | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
The thing with TvP is that there are tons of units and abilities that are specifically beneficial towards closing the distance really fast. In Broodwar ( yes I' ll be that guy ) speedlots and dragoons had to actually run to hell and back just to get into a good position to engage without getting obliterated. The walking took time. The only thing that closed the distance fast was bulldog drops ( dropping zealots onto tanks with a shuttle ) but this was especially fragile against anti air. Now imagine Blink Stalkers and Chargelots, that' s basically dropping right into the range of the tanks without them having to walk through the hell of a tank barrage. Especially Zealots, that already are the tankiest units mineralwise, hurt the tank dynamic with their passive charge ability. There is no dynamic there, just 'I get into range and my zealot will think for itself and already run in without any decision on my part' . Another factor that helps into making the tank a piece of misery in TvP is the exact hard counter, the Immortal. It' basically shuts down damage from tanks while dealing 50 damage a shot to them. The hardened shield ability again is a passive bonus that already does all the work for you without any micro at all. All these passive perks that Protoss has are just boring compared to for example, Blink. If Charge wasn't an autocast ability it would already be far more interresting decisionwise. And if they nerfed the Immortals hardened shields to deflect up to 20 instead of 10 passively, and give it an active ability to reduce the damage to 5 for 0.5 seconds on a 2 second cooldown would already massively increase the fun in microing Protoss when moving through a tank like and increase the watchability. It isn't so much as the Tank being bad against Protoss. Its about the Protoss race being designed to plow through tank lines unit for unit bar the Sentry and unblink Stalkers. | ||
|
Mahtasooma
Germany475 Posts
Just let these few points sink in: 1. Can you imagine any composition where the addition of 1-2 tanks would not greatly improve the army composition? 2. Terran has 12 units to choose from, yet chooses to go marine / tank / medivac in like 90% of the games against Zerg. So either all 9 units are really really bad or tanks are just really good. This leads to 3. It is very likely that because of 2., buffing the tank in ANY way against P will result in the tank being OP against Zerg. Which is already debatable if you don't happen to have gosu micro pro skills with mutas. makes sense? Saying the tank is no good against P is like saying water doesn't help against hunger. It's like the Hydra. It is very debatable if it's of any use against P, but it surely is of no use against T. Do you hear any Zerg complain about that? no? might be because we're busy whining about it being of any use at all. And by the way, we have 9 units to choose from. | ||
|
Andreas
Norway214 Posts
On December 22 2011 05:32 Morghaine wrote: OK so let's get to it from a logical state of view. Just let these few points sink in: 1. Can you imagine any composition where the addition of 1-2 tanks would not greatly improve the army composition? 2. Terran has 12 units to choose from, yet chooses to go marine / tank / medivac in like 90% of the games against Zerg. So either all 9 units are really really bad or tanks are just really good. This leads to 3. It is very likely that because of 2., buffing the tank in ANY way against P will result in the tank being OP against Zerg. makes sense? Saying the tank is no good against P is like saying water doesn't help against hunger. It's like the Hydra. It is very debatable if it's of any use against P, but it surely is of no use against T. Do you hear any Zerg complain about that? no? might be because we're busy whining about it being of any use at all. And by the way, we have 9 units to choose from. 1. Getting just 2 siege tanks is about the worst you could do in a TvP. Sure, they add damage, but that's 400 minerals and 350 gas you've spent on the tanks + siege mode that could've been spent on upgrades or medivacs. In this context, I would much rather have the upgrades or medivacs. 2. The reason people go tank/marine is not because tanks are really good, it's because marines are really good once you reduce the number of banelings and infestors - and that's the tank's role. Similarly, in TvP marines are also really good, so we get Marauders to soak damage, Vikings to shoot down Colossi and Ghosts to prevent storm so that the marines can do their job. Whether a tank buff would break TvZ depends entirely on the buff. If the buff was doing 2x damage to the tank's primary target but leaving the rest as is, the only big effect is it would make ultralisks less viable, but they already are, so no big deal. | ||
|
PaleBlueDot
United States263 Posts
On December 22 2011 05:32 Morghaine wrote: OK so let's get to it from a logical state of view. Just let these few points sink in: 1. Can you imagine any composition where the addition of 1-2 tanks would not greatly improve the army composition? 2. Terran has 12 units to choose from, yet chooses to go marine / tank / medivac in like 90% of the games against Zerg. So either all 9 units are really really bad or tanks are just really good. This leads to 3. It is very likely that because of 2., buffing the tank in ANY way against P will result in the tank being OP against Zerg. Which is already debatable if you don't happen to have gosu micro pro skills with mutas. makes sense? Saying the tank is no good against P is like saying water doesn't help against hunger. It's like the Hydra. It is very debatable if it's of any use against P, but it surely is of no use against T. Do you hear any Zerg complain about that? no? might be because we're busy whining about it being of any use at all. And by the way, we have 9 units to choose from. 1) Any composition that needs to hold up well in a 200 vs. 200 food fight would not benefit from the addition of 1-2 tanks unless it was already tank heavy. Most people have already said tanks require a critical mass to be effective at actual damage dealing, while small numbers of tanks are used mainly for range and poke against things like spines. Adding 8-10 tanks would be good. Adding 1-2, is most likely actually detrimental. 2) This is a very poort statement. The reason tanks are chosen vs. zerg is not that it is "superior" to the other terran units, but that it has a utility that no other terran unit has, 13 range. Quite frankly it is the only unit that can snipe banelings before they can kill your marines. Sure you can micro against smaller numbers of banelings, but against sweeping waves of the buggers, no amount of micro will help, you need to thin their ranks, something that tanks can do vs. low hp banelings (who cannot be just casually made in the numbers that zerglings can to mitigate this, due to cost.) It is a balancing act. Marines > zergling / muta, baneling > marines, tank > baneling, zergling / muta > tank. 3) I just want to note here that a buff to tank armored damage, if you'll notice, effects absolutely nothing in this strategy until much later, when [and if] Ultras or infestors are made [as opposed to the usual broodlords]. So your main point here is that the tank should not get help because the hydra has not been helped? That is nonsensical to me. "Dont fix your race, till you fix mine", or so it sounds. As for the hydra, if I am not mistaken, not only does [I want to say Stephano, may be wrong] use them in ZvP to great effect, but its also getting a buff in HoTS [of questionable effectiveness]. As for ZvT hydras, I do not feel they are bad units, I just think you are getting metagamed. Hydras are great against air, marauders, thors ect.... but not tanks and marines....the current metagame choice. * Disclaimer: I am not a zerg, so I dont know specifics on a lot of this hydra nonsense, but I felt I had to say something. * | ||
|
Mahtasooma
Germany475 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
| ||
