| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
PaleBlueDot
United States263 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:26 Morghaine wrote: So oneshotting infestors doesnt ring a bell in your balance departments? I highly doubt the damage buff that people are asking for is anywhere near a +40 damage vs. armored buff (bringing it to 90vs armored) tanks would need to have to one shot an infestor. | ||
|
ThomasHobbes
United States197 Posts
Ultralisks are already terrible enough in the late-game, such that Blizzard is planning a serious buff in HOTS, unless you intend this tank-buff to expire when HOTS is released (then what's the point?), Blizzard is not going to touch tanks. | ||
|
scares
Germany239 Posts
 But a Lategame buff would be interesting, but as i say early game, i find Tanks can be soo strong against nearly all toss compositions (hence 1-1-1 being so strong while a 3 rax marine banshee hellion for example would be much easier to hold off) | ||
|
[17]Purple
United Kingdom3489 Posts
Edit: I'm also unsure how a change like this could affect the early game (if it could have a large impact) or even the TvZ and TvT match-up, though I am only purely considering the change in TvP terms, I would also like to know how this would impact the other match-ups. | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
On December 21 2011 23:11 frantic.cactus wrote: That was likely due the specific architecture of a particular map or situation in a BoX. Straight up, mech is better, but that doesn't mean other styles are automatically obsolete. Mech is ensdorsed by MVP. Because you gain from having an army that can go head on with the protoss. Tanks and Hellions can defend a postition which is something that Bio cannot. (3/3 mech is still terrifying btw, that for one hasn't changed form BW) With the addition of Ghosts and Ravens to support an appropriate amount of Tank/Hellion. The mech army can trade cost efficiently and have greater unit retention than the protoss deathball. That's not true at all. MVP specifically said he though Bio was going to be better because maps keep getting bigger. On December 22 2011 07:45 [17]Purple wrote: I'm wondering if changing the Tank's supply cost down to 2 would affect it in TvP at all. Since this would obviously be a buff to the late game potential of the tanks (more of them being out at one time), and it would also mean that a maxed mech army with around 15 tanks now would be something around 22 tanks if they cost 2 supply. I'm really unsure how this would affect TvP and would like to ask how much of an impact that would have. 2 supply tanks would probably form a problem in TvZ. | ||
|
PaleBlueDot
United States263 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:39 ThomasHobbes wrote: Tanks cannot be buffed because of the TvZ match-up, which no doubt was a significant consideration in why they were nerfed to begin with. Ultralisks are already terrible enough in the late-game, such that Blizzard is planning a serious buff in HOTS, unless you intend this tank-buff to expire when HOTS is released (then what's the point?), Blizzard is not going to touch tanks. I do not understand. "Tanks cannot be buffed because of the TvZ match-up, which no doubt was a significant consideration in why they were nerfed to begin with. " Why not? The tank was nerfed back in beta where I can vividly recall close position mech pushes, and mass roach (being unmicro'd and thrown into tank lines) being the norm. As you can see, the situation has changed a LOT since the nerf. Your statement is vague, what specifics would a tank buff effect in ZvT that you are against? What would it break? Why? "Ultralisks are already terrible enough in the late-game, such that Blizzard is planning a serious buff in HOTS, unless you intend this tank-buff to expire when HOTS is released (then what's the point?), Blizzard is not going to touch tanks." I disagree that ultras are terrible late game. What I would agree on though is that they do get hardcountered particularly hard by its respective counter. The ultralisk has always had problems, but so has many units, so I do not get the comparison. As far as I know, tanks are not a good counter to ultralisks, dealing only 50 damage, and being either unable too or have massively reduced splash due to their size. Ultras carve through tanks, its the support that gets them. I do not understand why the ultra is brought up as a counter to why the tank cannot get some love, not only is it rarely used in favor of broodlords anyway, but the tank is hardly the reason it performs poorly. Why would a tank buff expire when HoTS is released? Why does the ultras new buff not make it fare better against tanks? I just dont see the comparison. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
| ||
|
Klyberess
Sweden345 Posts
| ||
|
mahi29
United States235 Posts
| ||
|
Glockateer
United States254 Posts
| ||
|
hersenen
Belize176 Posts
| ||
|
freetgy
1720 Posts
| ||
|
Mehukannu
Finland421 Posts
On December 22 2011 07:39 ThomasHobbes wrote: Tanks cannot be buffed because of the TvZ match-up, which no doubt was a significant consideration in why they were nerfed to begin with. Ultralisks are already terrible enough in the late-game, such that Blizzard is planning a serious buff in HOTS, unless you intend this tank-buff to expire when HOTS is released (then what's the point?), Blizzard is not going to touch tanks. Personally, I don't see why blizzard even bothers to buff ultralisk in HotS since it indirectly gets buffed when accompanied by some vipers. Cast some reverse dark swarms and you can be sure the terran is going to have some hard time. | ||
|
Grebliv
Iceland800 Posts
Leaving 10 tanks sieged in a non-terrible position (not at all being picky) versus either a terran or a zerg will guarantee you at least cost effective trading 97% of the time against anything not airborne/burrowed/tricky etc... Against toss that's basically 30 food out the window for like 2 zealots and a few shield damaged immortals. I guess a 200pop pre-sieged tank heavy mech army will beat anything on the ground but you never have to fight a 200pop sieged tank army unless you're in a real hurry to end the game. But... it doesn't hurt to keep trying I guess, I even won a mech tvp today. | ||
|
theboyrmca
27 Posts
bonuses" while were at it | ||
|
PaleBlueDot
United States263 Posts
On December 22 2011 09:25 theboyrmca wrote: lets just buff zlings back to bw levels of dps just cause "it was like that in bw and they only do 5dmg with no bonuses" while were at it I don't know how to respond to posts like this. It is pretty clear you are not wanting to engage in any form of logical debate or strategy talk, only to attempt to debase ideas with smarmy insults that require no thought at all. If you think tanks are fine, say it, explain it, and give reasons. Unless of course you have none. That said, this isnt a "Bring back BW tanks, make this game like BW please" thread, but merely comparing unit roles to the closest approximation I have available, which is my experience with Terran in broodwar. | ||
|
RoboBob
United States798 Posts
I think its pointless to compare BW Tanks to SC2 Tanks. Yes, they've gotten worse in terms of damage and supply. But they've also gained smartfire, faster rate of fire, and better dps in mobile mode. More importantly, I think the main difference between Tanks in the two games is the warpin mechanic. In BW you know where the Gateway units will be coming from, and can siege your Tanks appropiately. But in SC2, the Protoss can warpin via a proxy pylon anytime, anywhere, so walking around unsieged is a much riskier. Thats why Tanks work in SC2 TvZ and TvT, but not TvP. But I don't think theres anything Blizzard can do to fix that. Its stupid to nerf warpin because of one unit. Adjusting tank stats such as damage, supply, time to siege, etc might fix it for TvP, but unbalance it for TvZ and TvT. But thats okay; we don't need Tanks to fill the same role as in BW because we have Marauders instead. Its best to let BW be BW, and SC2 to be SC2. | ||
|
unix04
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
Tropical Bob
United States127 Posts
On December 21 2011 22:29 Sm3agol wrote: I am still a major proponent of removing all "instant attack" animations(marine, tank, immortal...are there any more?) because smart fire is just leagues better than any micro a player can do most of the time, and makes things like actually spreading your tank fire out much more efficient, and enables tank/marine/etc damage to be bumped up even more, since really good micro will be required to maximize the damage output. Tanks don't have anywhere near the overkill as they did in BW. Making it so that a Tank line doesn't need to be watched so that all your Tanks unload on only a few units and waste an immense amount of damage. If Tanks were to get any buff, they'd need to remove smart-fire AI for them. Not that any unit should have it anyway. As far as any sort of viablity in TvP goes, that's just a result of Protoss being designed around countering the Tank. It almost feels like it was all done intentionally to avoid more Mech TvP like in BW. | ||
|
PaleBlueDot
United States263 Posts
On December 22 2011 09:48 RoboBob wrote: I think Tanks are fine the way they are now. Yeah they aren't very useful in TvP, but every race has units like that. Hydras in TvZ, Carriers in in TvP. I think its pointless to compare BW Tanks to SC2 Tanks. Yes, they've gotten worse in terms of damage and supply. But they've also gained smartfire, faster rate of fire, and better dps in mobile mode. More importantly, I think the main difference between Tanks in the two games is the warpin mechanic. In BW you know where the Gateway units will be coming from, and can siege your Tanks appropiately. But in SC2, the Protoss can warpin via a proxy pylon anytime, anywhere, so walking around unsieged is a much riskier. Thats why Tanks work in SC2 TvZ and TvT, but not TvP. But I don't think theres anything Blizzard can do to fix that. Its stupid to nerf warpin because of one unit. Adjusting tank stats such as damage, supply, time to siege, etc might fix it for TvP, but unbalance it for TvZ and TvT. But thats okay; we don't need Tanks to fill the same role as in BW because we have Marauders instead. Its best to let BW be BW, and SC2 to be SC2. I feel you are wrong, and here is why. I think the BW --> SC2 comparison is important, as many units retain their role after being moved over. Ex: Mutas: Still a harass unit, bad in straight engagements Zerglings: the exact same Stalkers: Weaker dragoon but with blink. Retains role of mobile ranged firepower Zealot: Meat shield, good DPS if can get in range. ...and many others. The changing of the tank from backbone of the lategame terran army into what it is now, a support unit, directly influences Terrans lack of a reliable macro style lategame, as nothing has stepped in to take its place in SC2. In addition to this, I do not believe the warp-in mechanic is that serious of an issue. The added mobility definitely hurts, but its not the fact that gate units can more easily flank you now, but that lack of "power" that siege tanks have in a straight fight. If you mass a bunch of tanks, you expect your range and [previously] strong damage and splash to see you through the fight, but if that is no longer the case, and they fight at a subpar level to a MMM Ghost army, then you are essentially putting yourself at the mercy of the significant weaknesses of going mech for absolutely no gain. It used to be, even in beta, that if you sieged up a position and were attacked, that unless something went terribly wrong, it would be at very minimum an even or perhaps a favorable exchange. Now you can be presieged, units in decent position with an even army, and get absolutely rolled for no other reason than lack of power. The drawbacks of no early game presence, no mobility [or being at a huge disadvantage while being mobile], and the significant pain that comes from your army being whiped [remax slowly, bad unless at critical numbers ect...] are not worth it. It may be more prudent to think of this not as discussing the tank exactly, to discussing late game with the focus on the unit that I believe has the largest potiental to deliver a solid late game macro-style to Terran which currently does not have one. As for these points: Smartfire Smartfire was a big increase to tank DPS in the realy beta, where overkill would have actually been a problem. In TvP, there essentially is no overkill now, considering the size and robustness of their units. Looking at the Siege Tank vs. 10 Stalkers in the radial splash section I believe provides a good example of this, with ~5 stalkers taking damage out of 10 [grouped as close as possible], and only one taking the full 50 damage. In BW, if 10 dragoons ran into a line of 5 tanks, the first 4 goons would melt into blue-goo instantly, with many of the others taking splash. In SC2, if 10 stalkers run into a line of 5 tanks, youll get 1 kill with a bunch of [randomly spread] injured stalkers. Thats just not the kind of power I think something with those drawbacks can have, which is why I think smartfire was "overhyped" at the start. Faster Rate of Fire This is most noticeable in mobile form, which as I will explain later, might as well have note even been changed. In Siege Mode the tanks fire once every 3 seconds, and while I am not sure of the exact cooldown rate in BW, it is really almost inconsequential. The main point here is that the damage loss is a much larger hit than faster fire rate. Think of it this way: If the average amount of hitpoints of units in SC2 has increased, how is the tank supposed to stay competative losing 20 damage against armored? (I think the 70 vs. 50 damage is really an eye opener. It has been so long that I actually forgot the original BW tank had 70 damage instead of 60. Raelly bring it into perspective. a 70 damage to 50 damage drop is essentially losing one colossus attack every time [which is compounded by the 3 sec attack cooldown]). Mobile Tank Mode I'm going to put this as plainly as I possibly can. If tanks are fighting in mobile mode in a situation other than either: A) Youre winning in a glorious fashion, A-moving your much larger army across the map. or B)Extremely early aggression, timing attacks, or all-ins. Even then Siege is still preferred. Then they are still WILDLY cost ineffective. I cannot stress that enough. It is Siege Mode or don't make the unit [excluding of course the situations above]. The best example I can come up with to stress this is having a bunch of gateways, with no intention of using warpgate tech. One is vastly inferior to the other. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Barracks vs Mini
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs EffOrt
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Maestros of the Game
Clem vs Reynor
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
