EPTHow to make Mech and Stargate play viable. - Page 3
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
K_osss
United States113 Posts
| ||
|
kcdc
United States2311 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
On October 29 2012 16:28 Rabiator wrote: The idea of the Flaming Betty is nice and much better than Widow mine and Hellion transformation together, BUT it has one problem: It is too cheap! There either needs to be an upgrade which is higher up in the tech tree OR it should cost some resources to build the turrets. Otherwise you would just build lots of Hellions very early and block the expos of your opponent with 2-4 of these turrets. Against Zerg this would be devastating! I also like the idea of getting rid of the stupid Thor and instead getting the Goliath back. The giant and slow ass Thor is simply too easy to abuse by opponents. Yeah, you're probably right that the Betty would need an upgrade since it would be a powerful expansion block. I was wrestling over it myself, but didn't think of the expansion block. Probably need a Tech Lab upgrade, or require an Armory to drop the Flaming Bettys. This might not make it viable vs early all-ins though... On October 29 2012 22:04 CYFAWS wrote: How can a thread like this receive praise? It proposes a million changes which completely reworks the game in several different areas. Untestable... So you scold me proposing a lot changes that completely reworks the game in several different areas. Fine, I can respect people who don't think huge changes are a great idea. But then you say this: On October 29 2012 22:04 CYFAWS wrote: As always, the answer in my mind is increased unit radius, massive tank buff, increased protoss early defense and a better early protoss answer to marines so the 111 doesn't bork. Really? Don't scold me then turn around and do exactly the same thing, especially with no evidence! You have some ideas in your mind about how to improve the game, and you've obviously sold them to yourself. And apparently when you hear other peoples ideas that are different, you dismiss them, because the answer in your mind is the answer, and thus nothing else can be the answer. Open your mind. | ||
|
orakiodg
9 Posts
It was a great effort but I have a question for you regarding your changes to the immortal. With your proposal what do you expect the role of the immortal to be? With its new cost/numbers the unit does not appear to be cost effective versus almost anything in the game and the unit has no upgrades, special abilities, or special micro to really make it effective or unique in it's role. For a comparison, look at your numbers versus say 2 marauders. 2 Marauders: 200/50/4 supply. 250 hp. 6 range 13.4 dps to light, 20 dps to light when stimmed. +1.4, +2.0 per upgrade 26.8 dps to armored, 40 dps to armored when stimmed, +2.8, + 4.0 per upgrade Has stim and concussive shells 1 immortal(proposed by you): 175/75/4 supply. 250 hp 6 range 13.8 dps to light. +1.4 per upgrade 33.1 dps to armored, +2.7 per upgrade no special abilities Additionally the immortal is more negatively effected by armor, due to dual attack nature. Basically all bio is now effective against the immortal, the immortal is no longer a counter to mech, and is unable to attack air. Your proposal leaves it literally 0 role in TvP other than attacking undefended bases due to its high damage output for cost compared to most protoss units. Even then, it's extremely limited mobility and weakness to basic marines makes this a pretty poor option. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
On October 30 2012 01:50 orakiodg wrote: BronzeKnee, It was a great effort but I have a question for you regarding your changes to the immortal. With your proposal what do you expect the role of the immortal to be? With its new cost/numbers the unit does not appear to be cost effective versus almost anything in the game and the unit has no upgrades, special abilities, or special micro to really make it effective or unique in it's role. For a comparison, look at your numbers versus say 2 marauders. 2 Marauders: 200/50/4 supply. 250 hp. 6 range 13.4 dps to light, 20 dps to light when stimmed. +1.4, +2.0 per upgrade 26.8 dps to armored, 40 dps to armored when stimmed, +2.8, + 4.0 per upgrade Has stim and concussive shells 1 immortal(proposed by you): 175/75/4 supply. 250 hp 6 range 13.8 dps to light. +1.4 per upgrade 33.1 dps to armored, +2.7 per upgrade no special abilities Additionally the immortal is more negatively effected by armor, due to dual attack nature. Basically all bio is now effective against the immortal, the immortal is no longer a counter to mech, and is unable to attack air. Your proposal leaves it literally 0 role in TvP other than attacking undefended bases due to its high damage output for cost compared to most protoss units. Even then, it's extremely limited mobility and weakness to basic marines makes this a pretty poor option. Thanks for the comments. The Immortal's role is as a general anti-armored unit, and it still counters Tanks (though not Tanks in Siege Mode), Warhounds, Marauders, Roaches, Ultralisks, and Protoss armored units. You could also drop Immortals from the Warp Prism on top of Tanks in Siege Mode (in general I think the Warp Prism would have huge synergy with Robo units, especially the much slower Colossus now, and that is good because they both come out of the Robo). Furthermore, you'll be able to produce more Immortals, and faster. And since the new Immortal has nearly the same DPS as the old Immortal, more Immortals in army adds significant DPS to the army, so in many ways this change is a big buff. You pointed out some good stats, and it looks like two Marauders are superior to an Immortal. But let's see how the battle plays out. The Immortal needs 6 shots to kill both Marauders. It will kill them both in 8.7 seconds. After firing 3 shots (4.35 seconds), it reduces the DPS of the Marauders in half, as one of them dies. So how much damage do two stimmed Marauders do in 4.35 seconds? 156 damage (taking into account armor). Then one dies. So the Immortal has 94 HP left, while a single Marauder has 125 HP. The remaining Marauder will fire 4 more shots before it dies, doing 76 additional damage. So an Immortal beats two stimmed Marauders with 18 hitpoints left. And when you look at the cost, this is good balance, 175/75 slightly beats 200/50. Even still, the Immortals role isn't necessarily to combat Bio units. Zealot/High Templar/Archon/Colossus would still be the go-to build. A bunch of Immortals catching an army of unsiege Tanks would be a slaughter, and that is why this change would emphasize positioning. Positional battles are decided before the battle begins. If you let Tanks get sieged up in a great spot, you're going to lose. But if you don't you win. Finally, Immortals would also be the go-to unit to counter the Warhound (though Blink Stalkers would also be effective). You're right the Immortal does need some kind upgrade. Perhaps the Immortal could have its hull strength increased, so it takes increasingly less damage the longer it is attacked or something (living up to it's name the Immortal). Probably not the best idea, but I'm sure we can think of something. I also want to say that my article doesn't provide a complete outline of everything, just some ideas, there is a lot of fill in the blank. On October 29 2012 17:18 Vindicare605 wrote: Medics can't come back to the Barracks because early game Medic/Marauder would just be overpowered. You could hit with Medic/Marauder/Marine so much earlier than you can do anything similar in Wings of Liberty and it'd just be too powerful for the early game, an area where Terran is actually strong and not weak. If you want to bring Medics back, you have to also nerf the Marauder. Nerfing just the Marine won't do it. This could very well be true, and I mentioned that in the section regarding the Medic that tweaking the Marines health might not be enough. Remember that Medic would heal at half the rate of a Medivac until upgraded too, and since that upgrade comes from the Tech lab, it delays Barracks timings. If you have any ideas, please share! | ||
|
orakiodg
9 Posts
1) In that scenario the immortal isn't a counter, it is a breakeven. Meanwhile against air openers, siege openers, or marine heavy builds it loses which means you can't afford to make immortals just to break even with marauders because a heavy investment in anything else and you lose. 2) A 1 immortal v 2 marauder comparison doesn't take into account micro, ai on large groups of units, or additional unit compositions. For example, focusing firing 2 immortals is easier than focus firing 2 marauders in a ball of units, and the games AI is constructed such that the closest targets are fired upon first. A MM ball versus say zealot/immortal would be able to a) kite the zealot/immortals all day long and b) after smashing the zealots the immortals would naturally fire upon the marines first. During that time period the marauders are incredibly more effective. You can test your proposition using the current mapmaker, and doing so you see that while on paper an immortal beats 2 stimmed marauders with 18 hitpoints, in real play it has issues under your current proposition. The reality, in my opinion, of immortals is that they are extremely effective against the right targets but have real weaknesses. A mech based army can easily counter immortals through investment in marine or ghost or banshee support, and issue with the immortal specific to terran should be met by changes specific to that matchup. The removal of hardened shields has significant repercussions outside of just TvP. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:46 orakiodg wrote: Two problems with your assessment though Bronze. 1) In that scenario the immortal isn't a counter, it is a breakeven... I don't see this as a problem with the assessment because the Marauder and Immortal perform exactly the same role as each other for their respective races. The fact they break even is good, and a sign of balance. I also agree that it isn't a real encounter. I used that example because you put down the numbers comparing two Marauders to one Immortal. In a real battle, the Immortals would have Guardian Shield and Zealots to Tank for them, while the Marauders would have Medic and Marine support. And Sentries (with FF and Guardian Shield) + Zealots is the real counter to Bio units early, not the Stalker or Immortal. Nothing has changed there. So in PvT vs Bio units, I see the Immortal as having not a huge role unless the opposing player is massing Marauders or going for Marauder/Warhound. So really nothing much is changing in TvP vs Bio. Heck, 3 Stimmed Marauders at 300/75 beats the old Immortal at 250/100, so the new Immortal could be seen as more effective vs Bio now than the old one. But it's real purpose is to fight vs Mech units. As for the significant repercussions, Hardened Shields is most effective vs Tanks and Ultralisks, and these are two units that see almost no action versus Protoss because the Immortal is too strong. What is the problem with giving them more viability? | ||
|
MugenXBanksy
United States479 Posts
On October 30 2012 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote: I don't see this as a problem with the assessment because the Marauder and Immortal perform exactly the same role as each other. The fact they break even is good. I agree that it isn't a real encounter. I used that example because you put down the numbers comparing two Marauders to one Immortal. In a real battle, the Immortals would have Guardian Shield and Zealots to Tank for them, while the Marauders would have Medic support. In TvP vs bio units, I see the Immortal as having not a huge role unless the opposing player is massing Marauders. That may be true but your thought process renders then utterly useless for the most part in real play | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
And thus, they aren't useless in real play. Immortals are rarely seen in TvP as is, and won't be used versus Bio. They will be used versus Mech, because they are a relatively cheap, durable (250 HP is a lot for a unit that costs 175/75, remember the old Warhound had 220 hp for 150/75, and basically had the same build time), hard hitting unit that can handle Warhounds and Tanks. Remember, the new Immortal builds faster and is cheaper (meaning you can field more of them) and has nearly the same DPS as the old one. So you're basically trading durability for more DPS on the battlefield. I'm surprised no one has mention the Immortal all-in in PvZ yet. But I have an answer for that too... | ||
|
orakiodg
9 Posts
The reality is that instead of removing hardened shields and changing the role of the immortal entirely developers could and should look for ways to develop counter play to heavy immortals for terrans. Biggest and best suggestion i have seen is re-introducing the lock down spell through either a factory based caster or through some other unit. This, unlike your changes to immortal, would have no impact against zerg allowing easier balance factors since you only really need to accommodate 2 races instead of all 3. | ||
|
MugenXBanksy
United States479 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:05 BronzeKnee wrote: As the pictures in the OP show, if Immortals can A-move through sieged up Tanks, then one of these things needs to happen to make Mech viable vs Protoss. Either Mech players need a unit that can counter Immortals, or the Immortal needs to changed. Ghosts and Marines have proven ineffective counters when combined with Mech, and any Mech unit that straight up counters the Immortal risks taking the spot of the Siege Tank as the core of Mech (as the old Warhound and Widow Mine have). So, if we make sieged up Tanks the counter to Immortals, but leave the Immortal to counter unsieged Tanks we get a situation where positioning becomes key. And that is a fun situation, with far more strategy then one where X unit counter Y unit in all situations. And thus, they aren't useless in real play. Immortals are rarely seen in TvP as is, and won't be used versus Bio. They will be used versus Mech, because they are a relatively cheap, durable (250 HP is a lot for a unit that costs 175/75, remember the old Warhound had 220 hp for 150/75, and basically had the same build time), hard hitting unit that can handle Warhounds and Tanks. Remember, the new Immortal builds faster and is cheaper (meaning you can field more of them) and has nearly the same DPS as the old one. So you're basically trading durability for more DPS on the battlefield. I'm surprised no one has mention the Immortal all-in in PvZ yet. But I have an answer for that too... ummm...... Immortals are integeral to TvP if you want to punish them from 1rax expanding its just a variation of the immortal sentry all in as seen in PvZ commonly. FF bunkers and ripping though things generally forcing GG. In wings anyways I haven't gotten into the beta . | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:22 orakiodg wrote: Let me ask you BronzeKnee, what would then be the protoss ground response to siege tanks? That was the whole concept, protoss can't swarm and isn't mobile enough to overrun a siege tank position in the same way zerg does. They don't have enough dropships, and the supply for dropships isn't as useful as medivacs are for terran. And if you find it acceptable that a protoss ground force simply can't break a heavy tank siege line, then why is it unacceptable that a terran has to use something other than just factory units to overcome a heavily immortal based force? You are creating a double standard in which protoss has to adjust and change based on terran composition but terran should make no adjustments really to counter an opponents composition. The reality is that instead of removing hardened shields and changing the role of the immortal entirely developers could and should look for ways to develop counter play to heavy immortals for terrans. Biggest and best suggestion i have seen is re-introducing the lock down spell through either a factory based caster or through some other unit. This, unlike your changes to immortal, would have no impact against zerg allowing easier balance factors since you only really need to accommodate 2 races instead of all 3. Good question, and your Lockdown suggestion (perhaps for the Raven to replace PDD?) is a really good suggestion. But it leads us down the same road as Strike Cannons (which provided a Mech counter to Immortals). I don't want to see a game where I build X, then you build Y to counter, and I build Z, then you build A, and then I didn't have time to get B so I lost. I want to move away from that and move toward a game where both sides have good units and you have to out position and outplay your opponent to win. What leads to win isn't necessarily what units you have, it is how you use them. So both the Immortal and Siege Tank counter each other, it up to the players to use them right. This allows for skill to show, and also allows games to look different instead of smashing the same deathballs against each other every game. Does that make sense? You're right in that Mech provides the Terran player with all the tools to counter pretty much any composition. But you forgot that it doesn't provide the Mech player much mobility, that is the drawback of Mech play. So what I envision for TvP is this: Both Terrans and Protoss can use viable forms Bio play (Barracks and Gateway play) that provides you with lots of mobile but weak units, or Mech play (Factory and Robo) that provides you with a smaller number of hard hitting units that aren't as mobile. Now is Terran opens up Bio, then Protoss will work basically the same. You'll open up expand into 3 gate Robo to get anObs, maybe an Immortal, then a few Colossus (and the new Colossus are slower and more powerful, so more of a defensive unit) and transition into High Templar/Archon/Zealot. Nothing really has changed, and this is because the Viking hard counters Colossus so much. But it still gives good variety. Now if the Terran opens up Mech, Protoss has options. They can stick with Gateway units (and mix in some Immortals for firepower), and expand faster than the Mech player and try to outmaneuver and out position them with their mobile army. Blink Stalker will be the core of the army due to their mobility (the same way Zerg players mass speed Roaches vs Mech). And then while getting up a huge economy where they can then drown their opponent in Gateway units. Mech lacks a direct counter to Archons, so they will tank well for Gateway based forces, in turn Archons don't do much damage vs Mech. Alternatively, the Protoss player after opening expand into 3 gate Robo scouting a Mech player can choose to stick with Robo units and make the slower, but very powerful Colossus and support it with Stalkers and Immortals. So the Colossus is anchor, slow, and lots of firepower, the Blink Stalker is the anti-air unit and harass unit, while the Immortal gives anti-armored punch. The Warp Prism provides mobility for the slow Protoss Robo units. Terran on the otherside has Hellions to harrass and deal with harassment, Warhounds to Tank damage, handle light and air units, and defend harassment with their decent movespeeed. And then Siege Tank is the anchor, slow with lots of firepower. Terran will also need well placed Sensor Towers and Vikings to counter Speed Prisms loaded with Immortals. Of course the Vikings can also push back Colossus. Both sides can mix in other air units as they see fit. The result is positional play similar to Tank vs Tank warfare in TvT, where both players try to outmaneuver the other's power units (Siege Tanks and Colossus). On October 30 2012 04:39 MugenXBanksy wrote: ummm...... Immortals are integeral to TvP if you want to punish them from 1rax expanding its just a variation of the immortal sentry all in as seen in PvZ commonly. FF bunkers and ripping though things generally forcing GG. In wings anyways I haven't gotten into the beta . Well that is an all-in that I've done a lot, and I don't think you understand it. You build 2 or 3 of Immortals (preferably from a Proxy Robo) to smash Bunkers quickly and Hardened Shield don't matter for that all-in because the Terran won't have many (or any) Marauders. Cheaper, quicker building Immortals actually makes that all-in stronger because you could hit an earlier timing or build more Immortals to hit the same timing... | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
That means 2 tanks kill 1 Immo with 1 Tank at full health, while equal amounts of Immos always win, but with all of their shields down and 49 health down on 1 of the Immos. Sound reasonable enough to make mech viable? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:14 Antylamon wrote: There is actually a very simple solution for Immortals vs Tanks. Nerf Hardened Shield to have an upper limit around 45. Attacks that do over 45 damage would simply go straight through the shields with full damage. It would only affect Tanks and upgraded DTs. That means 2 tanks kill 1 Immo with 1 Tank at full health, while equal amounts of Immos always win, but with all of their shields down and 49 health down on 1 of the Immos. Sound reasonable enough to make mech viable? That is another good idea, kind of complex, but I like it. It would still us the great balance where unsiege Tanks lose to Immortals, but sieged Tanks beat Immortals. It doesn't help Ultralisks too much though... | ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:29 BronzeKnee wrote: That is another good idea, kind of complex, but I like it. It would still us the great balance where unsiege Tanks lose to Immortals, but sieged Tanks beat Immortals. It doesn't help Ultralisks too much though... I think Hydras should be focused on rather than Ultras. A composition like Hydra/Viper/Ultra could be very effective. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5221 Posts
| ||
|
Antylamon
United States1981 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:52 BronzeKnee wrote: Nevermind. What was wrong with your post? | ||
|
Phoenix2003
126 Posts
On October 30 2012 04:22 orakiodg wrote: Let me ask you BronzeKnee, what would then be the protoss ground response to siege tanks? That was the whole concept, protoss can't swarm and isn't mobile enough to overrun a siege tank position in the same way zerg does. They don't have enough dropships, and the supply for dropships isn't as useful as medivacs are for terran. And if you find it acceptable that a protoss ground force simply can't break a heavy tank siege line, then why is it unacceptable that a terran has to use something other than just factory units to overcome a heavily immortal based force? You are creating a double standard in which protoss has to adjust and change based on terran composition but terran should make no adjustments really to counter an opponents composition. The reality is that instead of removing hardened shields and changing the role of the immortal entirely developers could and should look for ways to develop counter play to heavy immortals for terrans. Biggest and best suggestion i have seen is re-introducing the lock down spell through either a factory based caster or through some other unit. This, unlike your changes to immortal, would have no impact against zerg allowing easier balance factors since you only really need to accommodate 2 races instead of all 3. Agreed. Terrans are under the belief that they're 'entitled' to go pure factory like they did in BW whereas P had to use gate/robo(for obs and shuttles with the occasional reaver)/ and eventually stargate(for carrier/arbiter). Even in WoL, P did gate/robo/stargate comps. I don't get why T can't incorporate a few ghosts and vikings into their mech based play. Nothing to do with upgrades as P also had expensive upgrades for their ground and air ups. No reason it should be different for terran. | ||
|
starimk
106 Posts
Personally, I don't mind Hardened Shields as much. I speak more as a spectator than as a player, but I like the idea behind the ability; however, I am not as fond of its current implementation as it essentially nullifies all Siege Tank play. I have a proposition of my own. Change the Immortal Hardened Shields so that they deactivate whenever the Immortal is attacking. The Immortal would still be extraordinarily resilient in getting in and out of fights, but it cannot simply A-roll a fortified Tank line. If microed correctly, Tanks could dish out tons of damage to the Immortal, which would take around 6 shots to go down in attack mode as oppposed to 14 all the time. Immortals would now have a choice: either to engage directly and hope for a straight up win; or to retreat or tank damage under the protection of the Hardened Shields. The Siege Tank-Immortal battle could become much more interesting to watch. What do you guys think? I realize that this change may destabilize the Immortal's relationship again many other units in the game, and it may not solve all of mech's problems in TvP. | ||
|
MugenXBanksy
United States479 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:24 starimk wrote: Great analysis of factors contributing/detracting from mech play. I'm a bit uncertain about your proposed changes, though - perhaps there are other ways of making mech, stargate tech viable. Personally, I don't mind Hardened Shields as much. I speak more as a spectator than as a player, but I like the idea behind the ability; however, I am not as fond of its current implementation as it essentially nullifies all Siege Tank play. I have a proposition of my own. Change the Immortal Hardened Shields so that they deactivate whenever the Immortal is attacking. The Immortal would still be extraordinarily resilient in getting in and out of fights, but it cannot simply A-roll a fortified Tank line. If microed correctly, Tanks could dish out tons of damage to the Immortal, which would take around 6 shots to go down in attack mode as oppposed to 14 all the time. Immortals would now have a choice: either to engage directly and hope for a straight up win; or to retreat or tank damage under the protection of the Hardened Shields. The Siege Tank-Immortal battle could become much more interesting to watch. What do you guys think? I realize that this change may destabilize the Immortal's relationship again many other units in the game, and it may not solve all of mech's problems in TvP. How often do you actually see a wad of immortals walking into a siege line....................... its gonna have zealots running in first 90% of the time getting hit in the first volley of rounds. | ||
| ||
