|
On December 18 2012 14:54 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 14:44 Rabiator wrote:On December 18 2012 03:31 DemigodcelpH wrote:
You guys are missing the point here. The issue isn't with the other races being too inherently strong. Zerg and Protoss super-production capabilities are not going anywhere. The SC2 team will never cut those mechanics according to Browder.
The actual issue is with Terran being too weak. Specifically the mech backbone (the tank) not being a strong threat to any race that isn't Terran. This means that mech loses the powerful board control capabilities and direct engagement strength that it needs given that it's the most expensive, slowest to produce, and slowest to move army in the game.
I think you are missing the point that STRONG and WEAK are RELATIVE terms and that you cant increase the strength of a unit in such a game to ever greater heights. If you want a balanced game it must stay at a certain power level or become unstable. If the Siege Tank deals too much damage it will become overpowered in the game, BUT it might become more powerful - relatively speaking - with the same stats if it isnt overrun by masses of easily reproduced infantry units all the time. A few games of BW would clearly demonstrate this. A battle doesnt get more interesting with more units involved, because this will only result in lots of units dying fast at the beginning and the rate of dying will decrease with the number of units involved in it. Without such huge numbers the HotS buffs to medivac healing and Mutalisk regeneration would be totally unnecessary, but sadly Blizzard and their head honcho designer are apprently not smart enough to get it or too cowardly/arrogant to remove their stupid unit mass production from the game. tl;dr Buffing the Siege Tank isnt always the answer and certainly not the best. You must understand the game and what causes what to know what to do. I don't think faster production of infantry units has anything to do with what we're discussing. It doesn't matter how fast the enemy reproduces if he already runs over your mech army with the first wave - which is exactly what immortals in their present form allow. While positional mech is more easily overrun by enemy remaxes than, for instance, MMM, this has been the case all along, even in broodwar. The difference in sc2 is that tank-heavy mech is simply weaker than other strategies in most cases. That's the critical point that you're failing to address.
I am not talking about the REproduction speed, but rather about the amount of units on the battlefield in the first place. Just watch some BW games and you will see they rarely have maxed army fights and then the "tough units" like the Siege Tank are more threatening in a "limited number vs limited number" engagement. Sure you could keep the same mass production around and introduce a 12 unit limit and spread out unit movement, but that would just enable people to be everywhere and make viewing such games totally horrible, because too much is going on at too many places. So the only solution is to tune down the mass production and have battles with lower numbers of units.
Another point is that mass production DOES have a direct impact on the viability of the Siege Tank. Just think how many times you have heard casters say something like "he cant afford to lose those tanks, because he cant replace them quick enough"? It happens A LOT in current SC2 games, but the game is supposed to be about fighting and not about who produces which units fast enough (and who has the economy for it).
tl;dr
"More more more units in a battle" dont make fights more interesting in the same way that "higher kill count or bigger special effects budget" dont make a movie sequel better.
----
EDIT:
Just watching Sniper vs. Seed in the GSL Blizzard Cup now has a MASSIVE amount of Roaches fighting Stalkers and 3 Immortals. The Roaches win while the Immortals dont really matter and the reason is simple: There are too many Roaches on the battlefield so the Immortals/Stalkers dont really do enough. The "massive number of units problem" isnt limited to mech alone but rather affects Protoss as well.
|
So you say siege tanks do better in small numbers? Imo that just isnt the case, hell in large numbers they do better due to splash damage. And your second example is that immortals arent good enough because they lose when enormously outnumbered?
|
On December 18 2012 16:10 Sissors wrote:
So you say siege tanks do better in small numbers? Imo that just isnt the case, hell in large numbers they do better due to splash damage. And your second example is that immortals arent good enough because they lose when enormously outnumbered?
They certainly dont deal enough damage right now (relatively speaking) ... no matter if in small or large numbers. The point is that you cant buff their stats without making them overpowered in low numbers, so the only options is to reduce the ability of opponents to kill them by limiting the number of units on the battlefield in total (by removing production speed boosts) AND locally (by limiting the number of units in a group to 12 and spacing them out through forced spreading while moving). This gives expensive units a bigger impact automatically, because they arent one-shotted by a superior amount of easily massed cheap units.
Just take Stalkers for example. They simply cant deal with an equally valuable amount of Roaches - which they should be good against due to the vs armored bonus damage. They NEED Blink, Forcefields and maybe even Immortals to be able to deal with them in bigger numbers ... which is a terrible balance shift. Protoss Shields are supposed to be used for retreating and then "healing up a bit", but since units are most likely killed altogether (due to the high kill speed with lots of units) the whole concept becomes worthless. The Roach counterpart does NOT require burrowing and regenerating to be effective at all; they simply overwhelm the Stalkers and are cheap and easily massed. Supporting them with Fungals is just a bonus.
Siege Tanks ONLY deal enough damage if you have all of yours in one spot. The immobility of them would require you to cover all the entrances to your bases with some of them though and as a result you either die to having your defensive line pierced in one area with far superior numbers OR you lose your whole bunch while trying to do the "big clump dance" with the opponents big clump. Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong.
Its just a case of "less is more" across the board and not just limited to one specific unit.
|
On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote:
Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong.
To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade...
|
Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state.
|
On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state.
During the WOL Beta, there was legitimately no way to stand up to mass tanks. Then again, the maps were smaller and included Steppes of War...
|
On December 18 2012 17:11 Aetherial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 16:35 Rabiator wrote:
Buffing the damage of Siege Tanks seems to be a solution, but then "Siege Tank rush" would become too strong. To avoid this I'm thinking tank damage could scale by more for each weapon upgrade...
Yes, it seems like a decent - the only possible - solution, BUT its something Blizzard hasnt done yet for any unit in the game. Since they havent even bothered to try anything with the Siege Tank like they have for many other units I am doubtful they will do this and rather "buff mech" in any other possible way (like merging the buffs with air, making Thors and Battle Hellions (I despise the name of Hellbat, because bats can fly and they dont have anything in common with bats ... not even baseball bats) stronger.
On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state.
Nah, the damage would be too much, because you weaken the opponent SIGNIFICANTLY with a single tank and then take them down with the rest of your army.
Broodwar had Siege Tanks "locally overpowered" by dealing enough damage to kill at least some units outright, but right now it doesnt even kill a single Marine who hasnt stimmed. Thats wrong and maybe the problem lies with the bonus damage system of SC2, because there arent many armored infantry units and many more non-armored infantry units. In BW the only deciding factor was the distance from impact and some units got full blast, while others got only half or less damage; thus the Siege Tank was equally good against all units it could hit. Thats a much better system compared to the "rock, paper, scissors" system of SC2 ... for the immobile Siege Tank at least.
|
On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state.
This works in TvT and TvZ, so buffing Tanks damage directly would cause imbalance in those 2 matchups.
And guess what, Tanks make for very entertaining gameplay in both matchups. In TvP, not so much..
Basically every unit with the exception of sentry and high templar counters Tank in some way.
Only against Stalkers without Blink Tanks can trade effectively. Any other case, Tanks are not going to do anything for you. You only lose mobility and you are forced to build this insane ball of mech, which still doesn't cut it most of the time due to instant remax. Because when you see Terran going mech as a Protoss, it is like:"Oh, I think I just won jackpot" and proceeds to expand everywhere..
|
On December 18 2012 17:29 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. During the WOL Beta, there was legitimately no way to stand up to mass tanks. Then again, the maps were smaller and included Steppes of War...
So Tank was nerfed from 60 to 35 + 15.. Did the maps change? Yes. Did the Tank damage go back to 60? No.
edit: I can see how they tested immortal vs 60 dmg tank and be "ok" with that.. But man, so many things has changed and ALL of them went against the Tank.
|
On December 18 2012 17:40 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:29 starimk wrote:On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. During the WOL Beta, there was legitimately no way to stand up to mass tanks. Then again, the maps were smaller and included Steppes of War... So Tank was nerfed from 60 to 35 + 15.. Did the maps change? Yes. Did the Tank damage go back to 60? No. edit: I can see how they tested immortal vs 60 dmg tank and be "ok" with that.. But man, so many things has changed and ALL of them went against the Tank.
I believe tank damage went to 50 flat for a brief period of time as well, which might be a more 'gentle' starting point. The significance of that was that it no longer one-shot a Combat Shield Marine, I think.
That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes?
|
That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes?
I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank.
|
On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:Show nested quote +That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank.
No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal.
|
As I've said before, just make tank damage do full damage to shields - no damage reduction (except Immortalshields) And Make tank shots to +50/60 Dmg Vs Shields, Balanced Vs Protoss without making the game totally imbalanced in TvT, TvZ.
Or make tanks 2 supply?
The other main issue is.
Tanks in BW did crazy damage, and units took so long to get to them due to AI/Game Engine.
Now Tanks do less damage, are +1 Supply, but units are on your tanks within seconds now, again due to AI/Game Engine.
|
On December 18 2012 17:35 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 17:23 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Tanks with more damage wouldn't be overpowered in lower numbers. Tanks are supposed to do damage, because when they're seiged they can't move.
They'd just turn into an actual decent unit as opposed to the current, arguably joke worthy, state. This works in TvT and TvZ, so buffing Tanks damage directly would cause imbalance in those 2 matchups. And guess what, Tanks make for very entertaining gameplay in both matchups. In TvP, not so much.. Basically every unit with the exception of sentry and high templar counters Tank in some way. Only against Stalkers without Blink Tanks can trade effectively. Any other case, Tanks are not going to do anything for you. You only lose mobility and you are forced to build this insane ball of mech, which still doesn't cut it most of the time due to instant remax. Because when you see Terran going mech as a Protoss, it is like:"Oh, I think I just won jackpot" and proceeds to expand everywhere..
Well it TvT so it wouldnt be considered imbalance imo it just a change of style and meta. Although massing tanks might become a problem but with medivac buffs it might be alright.
TvZ might be alright too considering that viper blinding cloud and abduct is insane and zerg got more options now when facing seige tanks. Ultras also do amazing well with their DPS increase, they can plow through hellbat faster and reach tanks much MUCH faster. Combine this with increase size in map and a direct buff to seige tanks might not seem so imbalance imo.
Also, HT do great against tanks too btw since tanks dont move, 2 storm can kill clusters of tanks easily. Blink stalkers isnt much of an issue either once your tank count is high enough. In the early game when tanks count is relatively low compare to stalker, blink stalker are scary but once your tank count get higher, you would jump out of your chair in joy if he blink in because then he has no way of retreating those stalkers. Which is why protoss favor chargelots heavy composition over stalker heavy composition.
|
Did about 2hours of testing with mech. Going to dispel some misconceptions.
1. Here's the BIG one. Mines are NOT defensive. If you burrow them defensively, you will only detonate on zeals, and you will be fucked, since the rest of your army does not handle nonzeals effectively. What you do with mines is NOT to burrow them, but to rush them in when P engages, and RUN past the zeals, and burrow them against stalkers/immo/colo.
2. To expand on this, mines are REALLY REALLY BAD preburrowed. They will detonate against zeals, splash your hellions and trade poorly. Mines are to trade against stalkers, and any other expensive units if possible/lucky. If they detonate on zeals, you will lose the fight.
3. Mass tanks are NOT the way to go against Protoss. You only want a handful, 2-6, to siege a position and force an engagement. Think of them as Tempests v Z.
4. Same deal with vikings, you want a handful to shoot colo, maybe air, but really what they do is abuse range/space. The truly cost effective unit is, you guessed it, the mine, which doesn't have range.
TLDR:
Mines = speedlings, run them and surround/burrow against Protoss tech units. All of mech is now: how well can you get your mines to trade against Protoss tech.
|
On December 18 2012 18:19 architecture wrote:
TLDR:
Mines = speedlings, run them and surround/burrow against Protoss tech units. All of mech is now: how well can you get your mines to trade against Protoss tech.
Problem there is Mines are Light armour, Zealot/archon/collosus will smash them before they get burrowed, also if toss went templar instead, storms are sick vs mech due to the immobility.
Any chance we can get some replays with you rushing mines in to protoss mid-late game?
Not trying to discredit you and your findings, I agree with the other points just not this one.
|
On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal.
Lolwut? Tanks are fucking horrible against zealots. Even without charge you're going to kill more of your own tanks then you are his zealots, which by the way dont cost gas.
|
On December 18 2012 18:25 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:10 Everlong wrote:On December 18 2012 18:03 starimk wrote:That said, I'm generally in agreement that they should try out a stronger tank. Hell, some of the stuff they've been playing around with has been borderline broken, so why not give the tank a try with 50 flat damage and see how it goes? I'm with you on this point. Hydras get speed buff at Lair tech (relatively minor), Ultralisks get uber-damage, Void Rays get uber-damage... Tanks already oneshot Zerglings and Banelings, and it would be quite nice if they did more damage to Zealots and Archons. On the other hand, it would make Hydras even more useless versus Tanks... But seriously, Blizzard seems relatively timid with the Tank. No need to buff Tank damage.. It's really good against all races. Even against Protoss.. It's good versus Stalkers, Colossus, Sentry, High Templar and now with Hellbat it's decent even against Zealots with charge. The problem really is Immortal, which takes 15 shots to kill with Tank and Tank takes 4 shots to kill with Immortal. Lolwut? Tanks are fucking horrible against zealots. Even without charge you're going to kill more of your own tanks then you are his zealots, which by the way dont cost gas.
Yes I know for God's sake but with Hellbats you are able to fight them now at least. In WoL, you are doomed once Charge is researched.
|
Well I hope that is patched, because running mines into toss armies is imo not a fun/good game mechanic, but I think your post is accurate, although you also got sentries which with good forcefields would give you an autoloss.
@Shear, blink stalkers decimate siege tank play, but not for the frontal attack, because indeed massed siege tanks, maybe some widow mines between your tanks, do good against stalkers. However what if he takes 15 stalkers and blinks into your base? The only fast unit you have are hellions, which you really don't want to use against stalkers (despite that some people claim massed hellions do fine against stalkers, they don't). And even if you had 1-2 siege tanks there for defense, they simply die immediatly. So your only solutions are either base trade, or turtling up heavily.
Currently I am trying the hellbat/thor combo backed up by marines, granted my win prc against toss is so low I wouldnt try most stuff I try, but still it might work without going pure bio. Maybe mix in a few siege tanks, although I dont know yet if there aditional long range dps is worth the lack of mobility.
But the idea is the hellbats/thors provide a nice a-move meatshield, while the marines got their traditional role. Also directly a nice counter to toss air without having to screw around. And finally late game I take marines any day over hellions to harass, since they can actually destroy his infrastructure.
Yes I know for God's sake but with Hellbats you are able to fight them now at least. In WoL, you are doomed once Charge is researched.
There you also got BFHs. And preferably you have them really in front of your army, so you can kite the chargelots in, and with a good engagement it isnt that bad. Sure hellbats are WAY better at the job, but at the same time toss also got way more toys. So in the end I rather play mech in WoL than in HotS.
|
On December 18 2012 18:24 KovuTalli wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2012 18:19 architecture wrote:
TLDR:
Mines = speedlings, run them and surround/burrow against Protoss tech units. All of mech is now: how well can you get your mines to trade against Protoss tech. Problem there is Mines are Light armour, Zealot/archon/collosus will smash them before they get burrowed, also if toss went templar instead, storms are sick vs mech due to the immobility. Any chance we can get some replays with you rushing mines in to protoss mid-late game? Not trying to discredit you and your findings, I agree with the other points just not this one.
Well in theory, mine dont get attack unless they burrow. Therefore if there is another unit nearby to draw target priority away from the mine, the mine can burrow and do damage without getting attack. In otherword, if you surround a protoss army with hellion and they delay long enough for mine to burrow, it can work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
