|
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.
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.
I think if they changed tank supply cost, MMM would still be the norm in TvP. It's not that tanks aren't at all effective in the matchup, it's just that they aren't mobile enough - in macro games terran has to pressure the protoss with drops, and dropping tanks to pick off probes and structures just isn't as effective. It's also difficult to do "pokes and prods" at the front with tanks: If a battle is going poorly with MMM, you can often stim or pick up your units with minimal losses. If a battle is going poorly with tanks, it takes too long to unsiege and retreat so you end up losing your whole army.
Also, it would crush my zerg spirits if tanks were 2 supply lol they're just too strong to be the same supply cost as a marauder.
|
On December 22 2011 04:45 Morghaine wrote:
You'd like to see Tanks vs Protoss?
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.
User was warned for this post
|
My thoughts on the siege tank: It's like the siege tank from broodwar, except used less in some matchups, which is just fine.
/rant:
I'm tired of the fixation on mech tvp and it's lack of viability. You don't get to use tanks every game in a single matchup? Well I don't get to use hydras in any games in any matchup. Let the dream die. Please stop making "I want to use mech in TvP" threads that are thinly disguised as analysis. These threads always end in two things: 1) we still don't know how to use tanks in TvP. 2) Tanks should be buffed so we can use them in TvP. Here is the progression:
I spent some time playing around with mech before and after the tank nerf and really wanted to find a stratergy which centered around my favourite unit.
i would definitely like to see strategies arise, that make tanks viable in tvp!
I think it is fine that the tank does make your army less mobile, but this ought to mean that in a head on fight tanks ought to be amazing, which they aren't
Love the tank,it should be improved though
Bam! and now we're teetering on balance discussion, which is a slippery, slippery slope into race-flaming and temp bans. Besides, you're thinking about the game backwards, approaching it as "how can I use this unit to achieve victory" rather than "How can I achieve victory given the units I have access to". Let the tank dream die Jack, let the dream die.
/endrant
|
On December 22 2011 12:01 eternaLx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 04:45 Morghaine wrote:
You'd like to see Tanks vs Protoss?
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.
Implying Hydras are bad vs. everything terran has and are not just getting metgamed by Marine/Tank (both units hydras are bad against naturally)
Implying "sick" splash, which is an opinion I do not think anyone who uses tanks currently shares.
Implying slow pushes, good tank spread, positions, focus firing large targets, are not an excercise in APM and micro.
Implying tanks firing down from the high ground [defending] is something exclusive to tanks, and not things like fungal and colossus.
I'm not going to use the implying garbage against the last point of friendly splash, because honestly that is not an argument, it just is not thinking. Medivacs essentially give marines a large HP pool by healing the ones being hit, so instead of 4 hits from a zealot to kill a shielded marine, it would take many more. Medivacs would literally be completely negated by splash, as if the shielded marine getting healed suddenly takes 15-30 splash damage, it removed 1-2 hits that the unit attacking the marine [zealot in this example] has to hit the marine before it falls. That and it will hit more than 1 allied unit, lowering the number of hits to kill for all units effected.
And as for the above poster, like I said, its less "Why cant we use tanks", than it is "What can we use to give terran a late game, macro alternative to the bio style", which in my opinion can only fall on the tank given the other units available. Its less of a balance thread than I hope it is a how to use tanks to change the late game terran playstyle.
And as for never being able to use hydras, Sttttttttttttttttephano.
|
On December 22 2011 11:46 PaleBlueDot wrote:
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.
You can abuse overkill by doing Zealot Bombs and spreading a couple units ahead of your army to soak more Tank fire than normal.
In SC2, you can't do that. A couple units dropped in a Tank line could devastate it in BW. In SC2, you'll be lucky to get one or two Tanks. The somewhat infamous IT bombs require 3 eggs per Tank. The main reason to spread a couple units ahead of your army for bumrushing a Tank line in SC2 is to negate splash instead of wasting an entire line's volley, since no shots are wasted.
I think if Tanks never had smart-fire AI, there might never have been a need to nerf the damage.
|
A couple thoughts about Tanks in the context of TvP and mech.
First off, Tanks have to balanced for everything. It's very nice that Voidrays destroy Tank/Hellion in more or less absolute fashion, but if that is Protoss's only viable response to Tanks, there is nothing to build against Tank/Marine, which is generally stronger in a straight up fight against everything Protoss builds until Colossi or High Templar. In this regard, you could say that the effectiveness of Marines hold Tanks back. Back in Beta, when Tanks did 60 damage to everything, Tank compositions could totally annihilate anything Protoss fielded on the ground, although the maps did contribute to that problem.
As the OP mentioned, Terran lost a few things (spider mines) that allowed mech to be viable. Keep in mind that Protoss also lost (or took severe blows to) the things that let them fight mech in the endgame, Arbiters and Carriers. Yes, Carriers still exist, and there is a Mothership, but Vortex is not Stasis, and Carriers aren't what they once were.
Furthermore, on that subject, Protoss lost Zealot bombs on tank formations, a primary weapon in dealing with early Tank pushes. Turrets kill Warp Prisms much more effectively than Turrets killed Shuttles, or Prisms unload slower in the comparison. And, of course, Marines. Marines shut down every air approach to Tanks very effectively.
Also in consideration is Protoss unit balance against bio. Kiting allows bio to achieve far higher cost effectiveness than numbers indicate they should have, and Tanks can't kite. Gateway units have to be strong enough to compete with bio until Colossi/HT at the least. Buff tanks or nerf Gateway units to allow Tanks to slaughter Gateway in the fashion they did in Broodwar, and again, Tank/Marine can become too strong to be reasonable.
TL;DR
Tanks don't exist in a vacuum. Marine/Tank is inherently stronger in straight up fights than Tank/Hellion until Protoss have Colossi and/or High Templar, so buffing Tanks or nerfing Gateway units to allow Tank/Hellion to fight as mech used to in BW up to through the early midgame will make Tank/Marine arguably too strong in that same stretch.
As a side note, the Missile Turret is the primary anti-air of BW mech style PvT. Turrets cost 25% more in SC2, and although they are stronger than their BW predecessors, they have the same coverage, so for the same minerals invested in Turrets, BW Terrans get 25% more area covered with detection and AA.
|
On December 22 2011 12:20 Kyadytim wrote:
As a side note, the Missile Turret is the primary anti-air of BW mech style PvT. Turrets cost 25% more in SC2, and although they are stronger than their BW predecessors, they have the same coverage, so for the same minerals invested in Turrets, BW Terrans get 25% more area covered with detection and AA.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nLmCZ.png)
He also gets to absorb damage, be instumental in actually moving out against really anything air related late game, and being pretty cheap to boot.
I gotta take a break from watching this thread, too many points and counterpoints make you tired :/
|
On December 22 2011 07:49 PaleBlueDot wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Have you looked at race winrates? TvZ has been Terran favored for the past year, and when some form of racial balance is starting to form, you want to buff tanks? It's inane to discuss a tank buff and exclusively analyse its effect on TvP, it will effect TvZ, and that must also be part of the discussion.
On Roaches being thrown into siege lines -> Are you serious? I'm not interested in discussing whatever tactics were employed at the games release, but throwing roaches into sieged tanks is moronic when the Terran has good tank spread and units (hellions / thors) to distract the roaches and deal secondary damage. Zerg anti-mech compositions are effectively reduced to roach heavy styles, and roaches are countered by two of the units present in a mech army. Increasing tank damage against roaches will make what is already a dangerous and difficult composition to deal with even harder.
Ultralisks are already challenged in the late-game. Blizzard agrees on this, and is planning a substantial buff for them as a result. Increasing tank damage, however marginal, is not conducive towards making Ultralisks more effective, but rather works against that by making them less effective against a unit they're supposed to counter.
TLDR - Zerg is already challenged against Terran, Tanks were nerfed for a reason, and no buff will come because Blizzard will not risk upsetting a balance that is already in serious doubt.
|
I can't believe how cheap tanks were in SC1 (price). They are no 3 food but are they actually that much more effective than the 2 food tanks were in BW, at least for TvZ and TvT? (since in TvP they aren't used much). The only reason why I'd think Blizzard would make them 3 food is if they're stronger. In big numbers they are (or at least used to) since splash is more effective in SC2, but with the bigger and bigger maps, the effectiveness of the tank has decreased, unfortunately.
Though, they did take 5 more seconds to build. (were BW seconds faster than SC2 seconds?)
|
On December 22 2011 12:34 ThomasHobbes wrote:
Have you looked at race winrates? TvZ has been Terran favored for the past year, and when some form of racial balance is starting to form, you want to buff tanks? It's inane to discuss a tank buff and exclusively analyse its effect on TvP, it will effect TvZ, and that must also be part of the discussion.
On Roaches being thrown into siege lines -> Are you serious? I'm not interested in discussing whatever tactics were employed at the games release, but throwing roaches into sieged tanks is moronic when the Terran has good tank spread and units (hellions / thors) to distract the roaches and deal secondary damage. Zerg anti-mech compositions are effectively reduced to roach heavy styles, and roaches are countered by two of the units present in a mech army. Increasing tank damage against roaches will make what is already a dangerous and difficult composition to deal with even harder.
Ultralisks are already challenged in the late-game. Blizzard agrees on this, and is planning a substantial buff for them as a result. Increasing tank damage, however marginal, is not conducive towards making Ultralisks more effective, but rather works against that by making them less effective against a unit they're supposed to counter.
TLDR - Zerg is already challenged against Terran, Tanks were nerfed for a reason, and no buff will come because Blizzard will not risk upsetting a balance that is already in serious doubt.
So let me get this straight.
You feel that because tanks just might actually make ZvT harder, that one matchup should be damned to stagnation? How noble. The goal here is to discuss why tanks are performing poorly TvP, and how it may be fixed, be that by strategy, damage increase, or unit comp. You seem to have your head fixated on an increase in tank damage making your life harder, and therefor want nothing to do with it.
"Have you looked at race winrates? TvZ has been Terran favored for the past year, and when some form of racial balance is starting to form, you want to buff tanks?"
Winrates are ineffectual for you personally (as you will never be Code S, which is where they are focused, at the top), but also have a lot of other factors that people like to ignore. Cheese counts as a win still, which means when MKP excutes flawless marine micro to end a TvZ in the early portion of the game, that increase in winrate should most definitely be used as proof that tanks are fine. Makes sense. Want a higher personal winrate? Cheese every game. Want a balanced game? We must think beyond that.
"On Roaches being thrown into siege lines -> Are you serious? I'm not interested in discussing whatever tactics were employed at the games release, but throwing roaches into sieged tanks is moronic when the Terran has good tank spread and units (hellions / thors) to distract the roaches and deal secondary damage. Zerg anti-mech compositions are effectively reduced to roach heavy styles, and roaches are countered by two of the units present in a mech army. Increasing tank damage against roaches will make what is already a dangerous and difficult composition to deal with even harder."
Not interested in comparing tactics that at the time was the entire basis for the nerf? Bad policy.
How often do you see pure mech vs. Z at the top level. Not so much. It isnt exactly as daunting as mech vs. P, but there is a reason why it isnt used as much as bio. You seem to not understand the matchup really well if you think you can only go roach vs. mech. Until thors hit absolutely large numbers, 5-6, mutas will ROLL them while magic boxed, enjoy killing a 150 supply army with nothing but mutas. Situations come up where tech switches and different units are used to destroy mech balls really well [ex. First engagement all the hellions are killed off, so you remax on zerglings], stuff like that.
You are seeing this the wrong way. We arent saying "Lets buff tanks, regardless what it does to other matchups", we are saying "Lets test the idea, and see how it works in relation with the other matchups". How do you absolutely know a damage buff will wreck the matchup again? Do you have a secret PTR server? Because I would like to test it myself. No one wants imbalance. Tanks seem weak and ineffectual PvT, while in my eyes carrying the key to a macro lategame terran in their arms, so I ask if there is a way to bring them up to speed while keeping the game balanced. Work with me here, not against me.
"Ultralisks are already challenged in the late-game. Blizzard agrees on this, and is planning a substantial buff for them as a result. Increasing tank damage, however marginal, is not conducive towards making Ultralisks more effective, but rather works against that by making them less effective against a unit they're supposed to counter. "
Are Ultralisks challenged in the late-game? Yes I agree they are. But the game does not revolve around the Ultralisk. There is no evidence that tanks getting an increase in damage will absolutely shut down all ultra play, not even in theorycraft. They counter tanks just fine as it is, and are getting a buff to help them cope with the massive bioballs that you can lose 4-5 ultras to just approaching. These are seperate cases, there is no reason we cant have ultras getting better and tanks getting better at all. You can have the cake and eat it too.
" TLDR - Zerg is already challenged against Terran, Tanks were nerfed for a reason. "
TLDR - If you yourself state that the winrates have nearly balanced out, then there is no reason not to revaluate the situation to help better the other matchups as well. Tanks were nerfed in what was essentially the stone ages of SC2, back when absolutely nothing was developed, and as such I believe it was premature.
"and no buff will come because Blizzard will not risk upsetting a balance that is already in serious doubt"
See I know you are joking when you say this while referencing the new units and abilities that will come out untested [in beta of course] by anyone other than blizzard staff.
|
Oh yeah btw. Great analysis, and I didn't know about the splash differences between baneling/ultra/tank o.o
Thanks for that 
|
Your post sums it up pretty well. There was a lot of discussion about this like a year ago. Tanks are absolutely terrible against Protoss because of how many Protoss units counter them. Also, things like zealot shields counting as non-armored (I believe zealots in BW took full damage to shields, not half?) compounds the problem.
Versus Zerg tanks are much better, but they definitely do not come near the raw "power" of tanks in BW that you noted (the power that made walking into a large sieged up Terran army usually a very bad idea unless you did micro-intensive things to mitigate it, like zealot bombs, arbiter freeze, etc). I can live with that though, they do well versus lings/blings, ok versus roaches, the only complaint with tanks in TvZ is that they take too long to kill ultras but whatever.
TvT they're obviously important, but I think I actually like the fact that you have to go half bio half tanks, it makes things a bit more interesting and active.
So overall, the problem once again falls with Protoss design, just as so many things wrong with SC2 (like Colossus). Protoss counters tanks way too hard, and when you add in zealots being able to charge, taking half damage on shields, and tanks only having 50 instead of 70 damage versus armored make them terrible in everything except a timing attack.
|
On December 22 2011 11:56 TangSC wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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. I think if they changed tank supply cost, MMM would still be the norm in TvP. It's not that tanks aren't at all effective in the matchup, it's just that they aren't mobile enough - in macro games terran has to pressure the protoss with drops, and dropping tanks to pick off probes and structures just isn't as effective. It's also difficult to do "pokes and prods" at the front with tanks: If a battle is going poorly with MMM, you can often stim or pick up your units with minimal losses. If a battle is going poorly with tanks, it takes too long to unsiege and retreat so you end up losing your whole army. Also, it would crush my zerg spirits if tanks were 2 supply lol they're just too strong to be the same supply cost as a marauder.
Well thing is, it's easy to balance something for one match up. We can all think of ways to fix it like that (without making it too complex, since blizzard wants to keep things simple). The problem is balancing them for all 3 matchups (or at least, for 2, the third isn't as important; the strategic balance might be lower, but it will still be "balanced" since it's a mirror).
2 food would help them late game, especially since you can get more later and spread them out more to help vs Protoss' mobility. But the other problem that would need to be solved is tanks in the early game. It depends on the map but a Terran can die easily early game with siege tanks instead of marauders. What makes it even harder is that 1-1-1 compositions like marine tank banshee, with a push, is really hard to stop as Protoss.
On December 22 2011 14:22 Scila wrote:
Your post sums it up pretty well. There was a lot of discussion about this like a year ago. Tanks are absolutely terrible against Protoss because of how many Protoss units counter them. Also, things like zealot shields counting as non-armored (I believe zealots in BW took full damage to shields, not half?) compounds the problem.
Versus Zerg tanks are much better, but they definitely do not come near the raw "power" of tanks in BW that you noted (the power that made walking into a large sieged up Terran army usually a very bad idea unless you did micro-intensive things to mitigate it, like zealot bombs, arbiter freeze, etc). I can live with that though, they do well versus lings/blings, ok versus roaches, the only complaint with tanks in TvZ is that they take too long to kill ultras but whatever.
TvT they're obviously important, but I think I actually like the fact that you have to go half bio half tanks, it makes things a bit more interesting and active.
So overall, the problem once again falls with Protoss design, just as so many things wrong with SC2 (like Colossus). Protoss counters tanks way too hard, and when you add in zealots being able to charge, taking half damage on shields, and tanks only having 50 instead of 70 damage versus armored make them terrible in everything except a timing attack.
Wow, forgot about that. I wonder why they changed it? (The shields). I would like if a Q&A session out there bothers to ask blizz/david about these kinds of things, rather than the current problems, since they might stem from these "base" changes (or the root).
Also, didn't think of this but you're right. Tanks were even better in BW, and it was even harder to micro with Zerg against them. So a buff to the tank might not kill TvZ after all. In a way, it would make Tanks counter Ultras even more, and make BLs counter tanks even more, forcing them to unsiege. So the tank isn't better in all aspects. (Btw I disagree with you, tanks may take a while to kill Ultralisks but they still do soft counter them, and even more so when you mech and/or have a lot of tanks).
I think it would be cool to see Tanks "counter" Colossi and HTs. They already outrange them and do well in large numbers, but that's only in large numbers. They're too weak in small numbers.
|
I think people are looking at this wrong. Forget the BW siege tank; the Starcraft 2 siege tank now fits in a completely different role. It is not a very good army unit in Starcraft 2. If I had to compare it to a unit from another race, I'd suggest the Protoss sentry. Consider:
Similarities:
-Relatively immobile, defensive units
-Expensive (particularly gas heavy)
-Space-controlling units (forcefields & tank range)
-Often see use in early all-ins (1-1-1, MC-style sentry heavy gateway aggression)
-Require other units to defend them (sentries because of lack of DPS, tanks for anti-air and dealing with speedlings and chargelots)
-Each race's best counter to banelings and other high DPS melee units (zealots and speedlings). This is their primary role.
If you just think of the tank as Terran's version of the sentry, it's quite clear that it's a properly tuned unit. It is situationally useful (more so against some races than others), but never as the backbone army unit. It helps defend during tech-tree transitions. You'll often want at least a few, but rarely want too many.
As a followup, it's worth looking at why the BW-style mech approach is so much less effective in Starcraft 2. There are two separate components: changes to the tank itself and changes to other units that affect the tank.
Changes to the tank:
The Starcraft 2 siege tank does relatively less DPS as compared to its BW counterpart. It also costs more gas and three supply instead of two, which limits the effectiveness of massing up tanks. Its range is extended slightly, but ranges throughout Starcraft 2 are longer, so it's not clear that this is a significant buff.
Changes to other units adversely impacting the tank:
-The addition of voidrays gives Protoss an effective (i.e. better than the scout) early to midgame air-to-ground option.
-Complementing that, the replacement of goliaths with thors (and the fact that thors are ineffective against voidrays) means that Terran has no good answer to voidrays out of the factory, requiring him to build a separate infrastructure to defend against this tech change.
-Movement rates have mostly increased in Starcraft 2, which reduces the effectiveness of immobile, space controlling units like the siege tank. Even units that don't move particularly faster can close on the tank more quickly, due to abilities like charge and blink.
-Drops, blink, warpins and cliff-walking mean that Terran and Protoss can attack a base from many angles throughout the game, rather than attempting to barrel down the choke or wait until arbiters.
-Several new units have been added that directly counter the tank: immortals, marauders, and voidrays are three that come to mind.
-Several new units have been added that indirectly cause problems for the tank: medivacs (drops and healing in one cheap package), colossi (cliff-walking), phoenixes (lift).
-Finally, the tank's best friend and partner, the vulture, has been removed in favor of the hellion, which, while playing a similar role and while certainly useful, lacks the critical mines that allowed BW Terran mech to maintain map control and vision. Additionally, hellions are relatively ineffective against chargelots, while vultures were always an excellent answer to speedlots.
|
Siege tanks are no longer the core of an army anymore they are considered more of a utility unit rather than the old 'I make moar tanks, i beat you'.
I reckon they are more of a supporting fire unit now, bio/hellion group goes forward, then backs off to the tanks for cover.
|
Tanks are pretty good against Terran and Zerg, so I will focus this response on Protoss.
The reason tanks are bad against Protoss is because they can field a billion and one counters while still having better mobility. Tanks cannot, under any circumstance, ever be good in the TvP matchup because of this. We can buff tanks, and clusterfuck ZvT (and maybe TvT, if you like bionic play). You can increase Terran AA or amount of meatshields, and clusterfuck ZvT without a significant increase in the effectiveness of tanks in TvP. Tanks will never, under any circumstance, ever be good in TvP due to the many cost-effective counters without screwing over other matchups.
|
The only thing to be discussed about the Siege Tank is it's role in TvP.
Tanks are effective in timing pushes, because you're able to pin the protoss down and slowly zone out the gateway units with range. Anything outside planned early game attacks, Tanks are pointless, since the protoss ball is extremely mobile once they actually get a "ball", and without a critical mass of tanks, the (woefully pitiful) damage does not justify the supply/time/resources invested. And if you do get a critical mass of tanks, the relative mobility between the two armies will fuck you up big time.
I remember a game with TLO vs HasuObs in the NASL Season 2 on Crevasse, Top vs Bottom, where he had MMM + 2 Fact Tanks, using his tanks to slowly leapfrog over as he took expansion along the siege path, until eventually he was able to have a position on HasuObs' ramp. It actually looked promising until HasuObs decided to break the tank line with surprising ease. TLO's bio ball was really small because of the fragile tanks that had been obliterated, and it was a complete one sided slaughter. The tanks did however kept TLO in the game, as he had really dug himself deep in his expansions. But HasuObs' stalker zealot collosi immortal ball just circumvented all of the defense lines, forced his way into the main and camped the production.
I don't like how Protoss players are claiming all of a sudden that tanks are good, they're just jumping on the hipster mech bandwagon. Artosis lied to you guys: Tanks are fucking bad in TvP compositions, ask any sane Terran player. Fuck even GoOdy, of all people admitted that mech TvP is DEAD.
DEAD. PEOPLE.
DEAD!!
|
On December 22 2011 16:07 Gamegene wrote:
The only thing to be discussed about the Siege Tank is it's role in TvP.
Tanks are effective in timing pushes, because you're able to pin the protoss down and slowly zone out the gateway units with range. Anything outside planned early game attacks, Tanks are pointless, since the protoss ball is extremely mobile once they actually get a "ball", and without a critical mass of tanks, the (woefully pitiful) damage does not justify the supply/time/resources invested. And if you do get a critical mass of tanks, the relative mobility between the two armies will fuck you up big time.
I remember a game with TLO vs HasuObs in the NASL Season 2 on Crevasse, Top vs Bottom, where he had MMM + 2 Fact Tanks, using his tanks to slowly leapfrog over as he took expansion along the siege path, until eventually he was able to have a position on HasuObs' ramp. It actually looked promising until HasuObs decided to break the tank line with surprising ease. TLO's bio ball was really small because of the fragile tanks that had been obliterated, and it was a complete one sided slaughter. The tanks did however kept TLO in the game, as he had really dug himself deep in his expansions. But HasuObs' stalker zealot collosi immortal ball just circumvented all of the defense lines, forced his way into the main and camped the production.
I don't like how Protoss players are claiming all of a sudden that tanks are good, they're just jumping on the hipster mech bandwagon. Artosis lied to you guys: Tanks are fucking bad in TvP compositions, ask any sane Terran player. Fuck even GoOdy, of all people admitted that mech TvP is DEAD.
DEAD. PEOPLE.
DEAD!!
I agree. Artosis has no proof that mech is viable. I know he is a veteran and a great player but I truly can not believe mech can ever be viable. Although on STOG he did mention something about banshee and stuff so he might not have meant BW style mech. He probably meant a combination of air units as well so ugh iono. Either way, I agree with MVP. MVP said that as map get bigger, the better bio becomes. This isnt true just for TvT but also for TvP as well. As it stands, mech already crap and add this on it is basically more crap on crap. :/
|
On December 22 2011 13:28 PaleBlueDot wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 12:34 ThomasHobbes wrote:
Have you looked at race winrates? TvZ has been Terran favored for the past year, and when some form of racial balance is starting to form, you want to buff tanks? It's inane to discuss a tank buff and exclusively analyse its effect on TvP, it will effect TvZ, and that must also be part of the discussion.
On Roaches being thrown into siege lines -> Are you serious? I'm not interested in discussing whatever tactics were employed at the games release, but throwing roaches into sieged tanks is moronic when the Terran has good tank spread and units (hellions / thors) to distract the roaches and deal secondary damage. Zerg anti-mech compositions are effectively reduced to roach heavy styles, and roaches are countered by two of the units present in a mech army. Increasing tank damage against roaches will make what is already a dangerous and difficult composition to deal with even harder.
Ultralisks are already challenged in the late-game. Blizzard agrees on this, and is planning a substantial buff for them as a result. Increasing tank damage, however marginal, is not conducive towards making Ultralisks more effective, but rather works against that by making them less effective against a unit they're supposed to counter.
TLDR - Zerg is already challenged against Terran, Tanks were nerfed for a reason, and no buff will come because Blizzard will not risk upsetting a balance that is already in serious doubt. So let me get this straight. You feel that because tanks just might actually make ZvT harder, that one matchup should be damned to stagnation? How noble. The goal here is to discuss why tanks are performing poorly TvP, and how it may be fixed, be that by strategy, damage increase, or unit comp. You seem to have your head fixated on an increase in tank damage making your life harder, and therefor want nothing to do with it.
"Have you looked at race winrates? TvZ has been Terran favored for the past year, and when some form of racial balance is starting to form, you want to buff tanks?"Winrates are ineffectual for you personally (as you will never be Code S, which is where they are focused, at the top), but also have a lot of other factors that people like to ignore. Cheese counts as a win still, which means when MKP excutes flawless marine micro to end a TvZ in the early portion of the game, that increase in winrate should most definitely be used as proof that tanks are fine. Makes sense. Want a higher personal winrate? Cheese every game. Want a balanced game? We must think beyond that. "On Roaches being thrown into siege lines -> Are you serious? I'm not interested in discussing whatever tactics were employed at the games release, but throwing roaches into sieged tanks is moronic when the Terran has good tank spread and units (hellions / thors) to distract the roaches and deal secondary damage. Zerg anti-mech compositions are effectively reduced to roach heavy styles, and roaches are countered by two of the units present in a mech army. Increasing tank damage against roaches will make what is already a dangerous and difficult composition to deal with even harder."Not interested in comparing tactics that at the time was the entire basis for the nerf? Bad policy. How often do you see pure mech vs. Z at the top level. Not so much. It isnt exactly as daunting as mech vs. P, but there is a reason why it isnt used as much as bio. You seem to not understand the matchup really well if you think you can only go roach vs. mech. Until thors hit absolutely large numbers, 5-6, mutas will ROLL them while magic boxed, enjoy killing a 150 supply army with nothing but mutas. Situations come up where tech switches and different units are used to destroy mech balls really well [ex. First engagement all the hellions are killed off, so you remax on zerglings], stuff like that. You are seeing this the wrong way. We arent saying "Lets buff tanks, regardless what it does to other matchups", we are saying "Lets test the idea, and see how it works in relation with the other matchups". How do you absolutely know a damage buff will wreck the matchup again? Do you have a secret PTR server? Because I would like to test it myself. No one wants imbalance. Tanks seem weak and ineffectual PvT, while in my eyes carrying the key to a macro lategame terran in their arms, so I ask if there is a way to bring them up to speed while keeping the game balanced. Work with me here, not against me.
"Ultralisks are already challenged in the late-game. Blizzard agrees on this, and is planning a substantial buff for them as a result. Increasing tank damage, however marginal, is not conducive towards making Ultralisks more effective, but rather works against that by making them less effective against a unit they're supposed to counter. "Are Ultralisks challenged in the late-game? Yes I agree they are. But the game does not revolve around the Ultralisk. There is no evidence that tanks getting an increase in damage will absolutely shut down all ultra play, not even in theorycraft. They counter tanks just fine as it is, and are getting a buff to help them cope with the massive bioballs that you can lose 4-5 ultras to just approaching. These are seperate cases, there is no reason we cant have ultras getting better and tanks getting better at all. You can have the cake and eat it too. " TLDR - Zerg is already challenged against Terran, Tanks were nerfed for a reason. " TLDR - If you yourself state that the winrates have nearly balanced out, then there is no reason not to revaluate the situation to help better the other matchups as well. Tanks were nerfed in what was essentially the stone ages of SC2, back when absolutely nothing was developed, and as such I believe it was premature. "and no buff will come because Blizzard will not risk upsetting a balance that is already in serious doubt"See I know you are joking when you say this while referencing the new units and abilities that will come out untested [in beta of course] by anyone other than blizzard staff.
No.
The Tank is an important unit in the TvZ match-up, a match-up which has, traditionally, been Terran favored.
This has nothing to do with whether or not my life is harder, it has to do with balance.
The Tank was nerfed because of imbalance as perceived by the Blizzard balancing staff. That is all. Blizzard will not buff the unit because it will wreck the balance they tried to impose by instituting the nerf in the first place.
I'm sorry if you want to use Tanks in every match-up, it isn't going to happen unless you find a method of using them outside of a buff by Blizzard. The Tank is a powerful unit, it pretty much defines the TvZ matchup after the marine, and in the case of mech instead of the marine. It is not going to be buffed because it would require additional buffs to Zerg units, which in turn would effect Protoss units and require additional buffs on their part as well.
In short, it would be a mess, a mess Blizzard does not want (This is David Kim's stated reason for not wanting to touch the marine, the balancing would be a nightmare).
Please stop directing this towards me, I'm irrelevant in this. The Tank will not be buffed because Terran would be imbalanced with a stronger Tank, they already border on imbalanced as is (no, not according to me, according to winrates at the highest level, especially in Korea, where you see to believe balance should be made).
|
On December 22 2011 12:05 Lobotomist wrote:
Well I don't get to use hydras in any games in any matchup
Then wake up, because Hydras are used in ZvZ and ZvP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
