The Map Pool Menace ________________________________________________________
No unit has suffered more from the ever evolving map pool than the Siege Tank. This is because the Siege Tank is a positional unit. It is very powerful when sieged up in a good position, yet very weak when caught out of Siege Mode. While all units suffer from bad positions and benefit from good ones, positional units like the Siege Tank or Broodlord take it to the extreme. Positional units lack mobility and they can seem unstoppable when in a good position but useless when caught in a bad position. This is the opposite of a unit like the Marine, who is very mobile and whose effectiveness doesn't swing as wildly in relation to it's positioning. Unfortunately as maps have changed, the viability of Siege Tanks has declined.
The early map pool featured small maps like Steppes of War, where a Siege Tank stationed in the middle of the map could hit the ramp of a natural. And with it's massive damage in siege mode, the Siege Tank dominated the game positionally on small maps, because a few Siege Tanks could control a wide swath of the map. You just needed to leapfrog your Tanks a few times to get across the map and literally siege up your opponents base. And the immobility of the Siege Tank wasn't a giant issue because on a small map there aren't as many places to move them because the map is small and because of the range the Siege Tank can fire in relation to the map size.
Siege Tanks in the middle of Steppes of War can actually hit the ramp of both naturals...
Small maps limit the area and positions a Tank user has to control, and so it is easy to see why Siege Tanks had their damage reduced from 60 to 50 versus armored and 35 to other units when maps were smaller. But the map pool today is vastly different. Maps have grown dramatically and a Siege Tank stationed in the middle is not even close to hitting the ramp of a natural. It follows then that a few Siege Tanks control a very small piece of the map due to map size. And thus due to larger maps Mech play based around the positional Siege Tank is much easier to exploit and not as effective because Siege Tanks have a much larger area to cover, and to cover the larger area they either have to move more and then their immobility restrains them, or they have to be spread thinner.
...but Entombed Valley is a different story. The Tanks are about two screen lengths away from hitting the natural.
Thin Tank lines combined with the damage nerf allow an opposing Protoss Warpgate army that has significant health and mobility to easily find a weakpoint in the Siege Tank line and exploit it. This has meant that deathball play has dominated TvP, because positional units like the Siege Tank simply aren't powerful enough to make up for their immobility on the current maps. If a Terran player wants to combat a Protoss deathball with Mech units, he has to form a deathball of his own, and then the mobile Protoss player's army can circumvent the Terran player because Siege Tanks have poor mobility.
Behind the firepower of Siege Tanks, TLO is successfully pushing back Hasuobs army, and ends up pushing directly into Hasuobs's main and kills his third.
But just a few minutes later, Hasuobs flanks the powerful Mech force using Warpgate units, and crashing through a thin defensive line he decimates TLO's economy. TLO lacked the mobility to return to his base and defend, and small numbers of Siege Tanks simply crumbled under the Gateway pressure.
Positional play offers many advantages to deathball play. First, it adds another thing for SC2 players to master, positioning. This raises the skill ceiling in an interesting way (far more interesting that drilling yourself to never stop building Probes early). Second, it adds variety to game play. Deathball play generally ends with both players building a big ball and smashing it against one another. For instance, most late game battles in WOL are very similar in ZvP, with a deathball of Broodlord/Infestor/Corrupter battling a Mothership/Colossus/Stalker/Archon deathball. Positional play adds variety because the position of the units will have just as much to do with the outcome as the unit choices themselves. Finally, positional play means more decisions are being made as players more carefully consider positioning and its consequences. And the more decisions being made means more chances for skill to show. TvT often shows off the advantages and variety of this interesting style play for viewers, as Terran players jockey for position with their Siege Tanks.
Two things are required for positional Mech play based around the Siege Tank to function properly with the current maps in TvP. First, Siege Tanks have to do enough damage so opponents can no longer build a deathball, throw it at sieged up Mech army, and win. There should be no combination of ground units that can assault a well positioned, upgraded and sieged up 200/200 Mech army and win. The counter to a Mech force is to go around it, or force it out of position, because Siege Tanks are only strong when in siege mode. The second thing required is that small groups of Tanks with limited support needs to be an effective defensive force. If a Bio player outmaneuvers the main army of a Mech player and rushes a few Tanks defending an expansion, his attack force can take significant damage and lose units on the first volley. This is rarely the case versus Protoss because of the durability of Protoss Gateway units; they simple don't take critical damage from a single Tank shot. Furthermore a Protoss player can use Warpgates to attack different locations with large forces quickly, straining the limited mobility of Mech. Tanks simply lack both the mobility and firepower to respond to these kinds of attacks effectively.
This player was able to get my army out of position with Hellion harass and siege up an expansion of mine...
...but it didn't matter, my Immortals a-moved through him.
The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50 while reducing their damage versus light units to 30 (+2 per upgrade) from 35 (+3 per upgrade). Faster firing Tanks would have significantly more DPS in sustained battles, which allows them to crush deathballs. Also Mech wouldn't be as easy to exploit with Warpgates, as a small force of Tanks in a defensive position can now deal the damage necessary to push back small counter attacks along with the Mech changes I suggest later. However, we'd need to reduce Tank damage to light units slightly so Tank/Marine wouldn't be overwhelming versus Zergling/Baneling/Mutalisk. Faster firing Tanks means that Zerglings and Banelings would be easier to pick off, so this change reduces the overall splash damage of Tanks versus light units, and number of hits required to kill a Zergling. If that change isn't enough alone, Centrifugal Hooks could give Banelings +1 armor in addition to the speed boost (meaning Banelings wouldn't die in one tank shot).
But these improvements to the Siege Tank alone wouldn't be enough to make Mech play viable. There is another problem in WOL that needs to be addressed in HOTS that also limits the Siege Tank.
Attack of the Counters ________________________________________________________
Day[9] once said in a Daily that you don't build Immortals to counter Roaches, you build Immortals so your opponent stops building Roaches, or doesn't build them in the first place.
This has been the problem with unit counters in WOL, they limit strategies and force players not to use certain units, rather than give players a way to deal with certain strategies or units. There are several styles of play which have limited use in WOL due to unit counters.
Let's start with Mech. In addition to the Siege Tank suffering from the larger maps and damage nerf mentioned, it suffers from simply being hard countered by the Immortal in TvP. The Immortal's Hardened Shields absorb the slow powerful Tank and Thor blasts with ease, while it's massive damage to armored units means that an Immortal is a perfect a-move counter to the Siege Tank and Thor. The Immortal must be changed for Tanks to be viable in TvP.
Even Dragon can't get Tanks to work in HOTS. These few Immortals cleaned up the rest of his Tanks.
The Ultralisk also suffers from the Immortal in ZvP, for the same reasons. So it is very important to adjust the Immortal for ZvP too, especially since Ultralisks aren't particularly effective versus other Protoss units like Archons or Zealots.
So here is what we can do. First, remove hardened shields and 50 hit points from the Immortal (so it has 100 shields and 150 hitpoints). This change emphasizes positional play in TvP, making Siege Tanks effective vs Immortals only when in Siege Mode. Next, adjust how it does damage, giving it two attacks that deal 24 damage (+2 per upgrade) each to armored units, and two attacks that deal 10 damage (+1 per upgrade) each to other units (it currently has one attack that deals 50 damage (+5 per upgrade) to armored units and 20 damage (+2 per upgrade) to other units). This slightly reduces both the base damage and upgraded damage it does to armored units, but it doesn't change the number of hits required to kill the majority of armored targets. Marauders would still die in three hits, Stalkers and Tanks in four, and Roaches in three if the Immortals have the +1 upgrade.
The exception is the Ultralisk. With +3 attack the new Immortal would deal 60 damage instead of 65 to armored targets. And an Ultralisk then, with 6 armor that takes 59 damage from the current Immortal (meaning it takes 9 shots to kill an Ultralisk), would only take 48 damage from the new Immortal (meaning it takes 11 shots to kill an Ultralisk) because we'd apply it's 6 armor twice. Finally, we'd remove 7 seconds from the Immortals build time (from 55 to 48), and change it's cost from 250/100 to 175/75 to compensate for it's reduced durability and firepower.
This would help the Ultralisk in ZvP, and if Burrow Charge was removed and replaced with the ability for Ultralisks to walk over Zerglings, Broodlings, and Locusts, Ultralisks would be a viable and powerful alternative to Broodlords. Burrow Charge isn't working well, and even if it wasn't an upgrade it doesn't solve the DPS issues that Ultralisks have vs light units, and allowing Zerglings to attack while under Ultralisks could solve this.
The Colossus also needs to be rebalanced in order to make Mech viable. The Colossus is nearly a perfect a-move unit combining incredible firepower, long range, mobility, and significant health. Because of these strengths, it counters positional play. Colossus vs Siege Tank battles remind me of naval warfare, where the objective is to "Cross the T."
Imagine that the red ships above are a line of Siege Tanks, and the blue ships are Colossus. The Colossus can ball up and attack down the line from either the extreme right or left with their mobility and together battle an individual Siege Tank alone before the others can reposition. Even if the others do arrive in time, they won't have time to get into Siege Mode. This forces the Siege Tanks to ball up, and now the Colossus can simply walk around them, forcing the Tanks to unsiege, and the Colossus can engage before they resiege. For a long range AOE unit the Colossus is far too mobile for the firepower it has, especially when compared to a unit with similar firepower like the Siege Tank.
We can fix it by making the Colossus stronger and slowing it down. Let's add 100 base hitpoints to the Colossus, and extend it's range to 7 (10 upgraded). Let's also reduce its build time by 5 seconds to 70. And then let's give it around 1.2 movespeed, down from 2.25.
Now the Colossus is much slower, and is a positional unit itself. Terrans could track their movement and counter them with good Siege Tank and Viking positioning. The opportunity for a positional game between Terran Mech and Protoss Robo units is an exciting proposition. But a mobile Protoss army might now lack AOE, and thus the Archon will probably need to have it's DPS improved so Protoss can handle Zerglings, Broodlings, Locusts and Terran Bio effectively.
This change may also help PvP, which is dominated by Colossus play. Because Colossus annihilate everything on the ground with ease, and because Stalkers and Archons are an effective counter to Void Rays, late game PvP is one dimensional. Slowing the Colossus down would open up opportunities for Stargate and Warpgate units to exploit Colossus play with their mobility.
These changes would make Siege Tanks and Ultralisks much more effective vs Protoss, and would make late game PvP more interesting. Another style of play that has limited use due to counters is Stargate play. We'll explore that in the section titled "The Carrier Strikes Back."
The Revenge of the Marine ________________________________________________________
There is though, one last thing standing in the way of the Siege Tank receiving a damage buff.
The Marine.
"Been waitin' on you." Yeah, well I was waiting on my HOTS key.
Marines are strong the second you get them, they require no upgrades to be powerful, though they scale wonderfully with upgrades. And since they are a mineral only unit, you can combine this powerful all-purpose mineral unit with gas units from the Factory and/or Starport to create incredibly powerful timings attacks, such as the 1-1-1 or 1-1-2, or powerful pressure builds.
Thus, we can't simply buff the Siege Tank without risking early Tank/Marine or Tank/Marine/Banshee pushes becoming too powerful. The only option then, is to nerf the Marine.
Nerfing the Marine is very problematic though. Terran depends on the Marine in combination with Bunkers for early defense, especially for gasless economic openings. Furthermore, we want to avoid reducing the power of Bio in order to make Mech viable. Trading one for another doesn't make the game better, just different.
An Old Hope ________________________________________________________
There is hope though. There is one unit that can save Terran from the problems I outlined above.
The Medic.
"Did someone page me?" Yes, yes I did, we need you now more than ever baby.
Imagine for a moment how powerful a 2 rax pressure build (the Reactor-Tech lab version used in TvP) would be if Terran had access to Medics early. It would be incredibly overpowered is what you should be thinking.
And that is why putting the Medic back into the game (with a cost around 25/50) is the solution. The Terran early game depends heavily on the raw power of Bio units to give power to their attacks, or to help them stay alive. If we added the Medic into the mix, we could slightly reduce the durability of unupgraded Marines in the early game because they could be healed. Then we could add Medic upgrades (for instance one could allow a single medic to heal two units at once, while another improves the rate they heal to the same as a Medivac) to give Terran Bio the same potency it has now in mid game and even more potency in late game. And any Medic upgrades could be added right to Tech Lab on the Barracks.
This would allow the Siege Tank to be buffed without having to worry about the 1-1-1 or early Tank/Marine pushes becoming overpowered, since early Marines wouldn't be as effective without support from Medics, and Terran players wouldn't have the gas to afford both Medics and Tanks on a single base. I am imagining the nerf to Marines to be something like reduce their base health by 5 to 40, but increase the health given by Combat Shields from 10 to 15 and increase the cost of Combat Shield to 150/150. This change makes a significant difference in the number of hits the Marine can take before dying to many early units. However, it very well could be too much or not enough. It might also ruin the viability of gasless expands, though I think this could be addressed with some changes to the Bunker.
Furthermore, the Medivac would lose it's ability to heal. Obviously Mech players do not utilize the healing provided by Medivacs, and if the Medivac cost 100/0 instead of 100/100, Terran Mech players could divert that valuable gas to Mech units rather than spend it on Medivacs if they want to be able to drop. Finally, Medivacs filled with Hellions wouldn't simply die immediately to Feedback, seeing as they have no way to drain their Energy. For Bio players, it would also mean Feedback isn't effective versus Drops, though they would have to fill 1 slot in their Dropship with a Medic if they wanted to retain the ability to heal dropped units.
The end result is more flexibility for both Bio and Mech players. Bio players will be able to build Medics from the Barracks and thus don't need to race to the Starport every game for Medivacs for healing if they don't plan to drop early. Instead they can go into Ghosts. It would also free up the Starport for more Viking production, and 6 Medics could do the healing of 12 Medivacs once upgraded, giving a buff to late game Bio. Finally, the Medic would give meaningful changes to Bio play for Terran players in HOTS. And this is important, because at the moment, Bio play is essentially unchanged except for the Reaper.
With the reintroduction of the Medic, Mech players can finally get the improved Siege Tank they need, while Bio players have a new support unit to play with.
The Carrier Strikes Back ________________________________________________________
One of the new additions to the Stargate is the Tempest. A long range Capital Ship that is supposed to give Protoss a way to handle Broodlords, allowing Vortex to be removed or changed to effect only ground units.
Unfortunately the Tempest doesn't do it's job, and the Vortex remains the only effective method for stopping a late game Zerg army. Vortex is bad for the game though because it creates situations where the game is decided by just a few actions. For Protoss landing a good Vortex and throwing in a bunch of Archons results in a win. However, if Protoss fails to land a good Vortex or if Zerg is able to Neural Parasite the Mothership before Vortex is fired then Brood/Infestor/Corrupter becomes unstoppable. Either way, the whole game boils down to Vortex.
One of my many attempts to use the Tempest versus Broodlords. Sadly, it didn't work...
...and then I died to mass Corrupter.
Removing Vortex requires two things. First, you need a unit that can effectively battle Broodlords at long range, and second, you need a unit to deal with mass Corrupters.
The solution to battling Broodlords at long range is the Carrier. If the Carrier had it's build time reduced from 120 seconds to 90 seconds, healed any hull damage (but not any shield damage) to Interceptors when they return to the Carrier, and was able to be microed the same way it was in Brood War (as LiquidTyler explains in this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=369313), then it would be a great addition to Protoss late game and also counter Broodlords.
But why use the Carrier to counter Broodlords and not the Tempest? First, the Tempest simply doesn't have the DPS necessary to deal effectively with Broodlords, even with it's +30 damage upgrade. Consider that a single Viking does 14 DPS to Broodlords while a Tempest with Quantic Reactor does 18.8. Now two Vikings cost a total of 300/150 and do almost 10 more DPS to Broodlords than a single 300/200 Tempest. And the Tempest takes longer to build, requires more tech and has a tendency to overkill units, further reducing it's DPS.
So the Tempest is just an expensive version of the Viking, that can also hit ground units for 30 damage every 3.3 seconds (9 DPS). That doesn't make it worth it's cost.
To fix the Tempest, it's role needs to be defined. Is it going to be an anti-air only unit capable of dealing with Broodlords? In that case, it needs to be cheaper and cost less food like the Viking, (or else a Protoss player will end up with a bunch of flying paperweights versus ground units, which are what Tempests are now) but the last thing we need is more units that are situation specific hard counters that limit unit usage. But what if it was a long range siege unit? In that case it needs a faster attack speed, and it's damage it going to need to be reduced somewhat. And thus it would become a Battle Cruiser with a long range attack. Unfortunately, that would be overpowered.
The Carrier is better because it can fill the role of a long range siege unit without being overpowered. The fact it uses Interceptors means that even if you can't reach the Carrier to attack it, you can kill off the Interceptors and buy yourself time versus Carriers. So we'll see Carriers hitting Broodlords from afar, but Infestors, Corrupters and Hydralisks can pick off the Interceptors and attack the Carriers to protect the Broodlords, meaning the Colossus and Stalkers will need to close to push them back, exposing them to Fungal Growth, ect... That is an interesting battle with lots of dynamics, far better than a battle based solely around Vortex, and unless the Tempest receives Interceptors, than it won't be possible. Finally, the Carrier doesn't overkill and it is useful in other roles than simply countering Broodlords.
But the Tempest has a role in HOTS too. In WOL, the only thing that could stop mass Corrupters from decimating a Protoss army was a well placed Vortex. This is due to the fact that Protoss not only lacks a high DPS ground to air unit, but also a powerful and relatively cheap flying anti-air unit like the Corrupter or Viking. The Phoenix is strong versus light air units, but isn't effective versus armored targets. The Void Ray is too expensive, takes too long to build, and is too slow to be effective versus anything but massive air units.
The result of this is that a Zerg player can mass Corrupters and counter every unit (including the Carrier) that Protoss has except ones built from the Gateway and the Immortal. That leaves Protoss without an effective counter to Infestor/Broodlord, as Fungal Growth seizes even Blink Stalkers so they can't close and engage the Broodlords.
So let's return the Tempest to the role of an AOE anti-air unit, giving it 200 health and 120 shields, a movespeed of 2.75, a 6 range anti-air attack that deals 35 AOE damage to non-massive targets, and 20 damage to massive targets every 2 seconds. Finally we'll give it a ground attack that can hit single units for 25 damage every 1.5 seconds.
Instead of making the Tempest a unit built from the Stargate though, let's make it a transformation of the Phoenix that requires the Fleet Beacon. Phoenixes are currently used to scout, counter light air units and harass. They problem is that they are limited to these roles, and aren't particularly great at any of them. They are a very expensive scout and their effectiveness harassing is usually limited because they can't hit buildings and need energy to kill ground units. They do counter light air units well, but once they have handled the threat of opposing light air units, they are limited to their other roles, and because they are so expensive, it is generally more cost effective to counter Banshees and Mutalisks with Stalkers and High Templars. If they could transform into a Tempest (at a cost of 100-100 over 25 seconds) the same way Corrupters transform in Broodlords then it would add utility to the few Phoenixes a player usually builds early in PvZ. Finally, it could prevent Phoenix massing in PvP after both players open with a Stargate.
The Tempest would now easily handle a flock of Mutalisks, large numbers of Phoenixes or a swarm of Corrupters rushing forward. However, they would be weak versus massive flying units like the Battle Cruiser, Broodlord and Carrier. They would also be weak versus ground units, meaning that Zerg could counter them with Hydralisks or Infestors. Thus, the role of a powerful flying anti-air unit for Protoss that can deal with mass Corrupters has been filled, allowing us to finally remove Vortex.
And then there is one last thing to do. The Mothership needs another spell to replace Vortex. I suggest a spell called Transferance. This spell would cost 50 energy, last 60 seconds and would link the shields of the Mothership and up to 3 nearby massive units (Archons, Colossus or Carriers). Any damage taken to a linked unit would be divided across the 4 units. Thus to deal hull damage to any of the 4 units, you'd have to break through the total combined shields of the 4 units first. This would be an interesting spell for Protoss players to use. They could greatly enhance the survivability of their Mothership by linking it to three Archons. Alternatively, the 350 shields of the Mothership could enhance the survivability of nearby Carriers or Colossus.
These changes make Stargate units more powerful and viable in the late game, while allowing us to remove Vortex.
The Return of the Warhound ________________________________________________________
The final pieces of the puzzle necessary to make Mech work is to re-introduce the Warhound (or Goliath), introduce the Flaming Betty, give Mech a better way to repair, and remove the Widow Mine, Thor and Hellbat.
Yes, this puzzle has a lot of pieces, it is for ages 10 and up.
Let's start with the new Warhound. While Tanks have the role of anti-armored and general AOE damage vs. ground units on lockdown, Tanks will obviously need support vs. light units and air units. The Hellion gives Terran AOE damage versus light units, and this is effective versus Zerglings because they can kill a line of them in two shots. However it isn't as effective versus Zealots because the overall DPS of Hellions isn't high enough handle Zealots effectively. So one of the roles of the new Warhound is an anti-light unit.
I've been testing a unit that costs 150/75 and 2 food, has 175 HP, 2 armor, moves at 2.45, and does 25 damage (+3 per upgrade) every second to a single light unit, and 10 damage (+1 per upgrade) to other units. With 2 armor, the Warhound is particularly resistant to Zealots with their two attacks, and you'll note their overall DPS done to light units is the more than stimmed Marauders do to armored units. You'll also note however that this unit won't simply steam roll everything in it's path. It will won't be cost effective versus Roaches, Ultralisks, Tanks, Marauders, Stalkers or Immortals. But it will be effective versus Zealots, Sentries, Marines, Hellions, Hydralisks and Zerglings. See the chart below for more information.
Also the Warhound would provide anti-air capability for Mech, with two attacks doing 10 damage each every 1.5 seconds, with 8 range. The Warhound would have an upgrade at the Tech Lab that would give these attacks AOE damage (similar to the upgrade in the WOL campaign that gave Vikings AOE damage) to help handle Mutalisk balls. Unlike the Thor, but similar to the Marine, the Warhound provides a highly mobile all-purpose anti-air unit for Mech. This allows Warhounds to provide necessary anti-air coverage for spread out Tank lines.
All of these tests were completed with no upgrades, unless specified.
Versus Other Ground Units
1 Warhound vs 1 Siege Tank (Tank Mode) = Tank left with 88 HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Marauder (No Stim) = Warhound left with 13 HP 3 Warhounds (spread out) vs 1 Ultralisk = Ultralisk left with 181 HP 6 Warhounds (clumped) vs 2 Ultralisks = 2 Ultralisks left with 29 and 500 HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Roach = Warhound left with 63 HP 1 Warhound vs 2 Roaches = 2 Roaches left with 31 and 145 HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Queen (on creep) = Warhound left with 91 HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Immortal (current or suggested) = Immortal left with 40 shields, full HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Stalker = Warhound left with 19 HP 2 Warhounds vs 2 Stalkers = 1 Warhound left with 91 HP
Versus Light Ground Units 1 Warhound vs 3 Marines (with Combat Shield, No Stim) = Warhound left with 103 HP 2 Warhounds vs 8 Marines (with Combat Shield, No Stim) = 1 Warhound left with 83 HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Hellion = Warhound left with 159 HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Hydralisk (with Grooved Spines) = Warhound left with 135 HP 1 Warhound vs 6 Zerglings (with Metabolic Boost) = Warhound left with 40 HP 2 Warhounds vs 12 Zerglings (with Metabolic Boost) = 2 Warhounds left with 49 and 58 HP 1 Warhound vs 1 Zealot (with Charge) = 1 Warhound left with 115 HP 1 Warhound vs 2 Zealots (with Charge) = 1 Zealot left with 4 HP 1 Warhound (with +3/+3) vs 2 Zealots (with Charge and +3/+3/+3) = Warhound left with 31 HP 8 Warhounds vs 16 Zealots (with Charge) = 3 Warhounds left with 49, 61 and 103 HP.
Versus Air Units 1 Warhound vs 1 Voidray = Voidray left with 0 Shields, 90 HP 2 Warhounds vs 2 Voidrays = 1 Voidray left with 60 Shields, Full HP. 1 Warhound vs 1 Banshee = Warhound left with 15 HP. 1 Warhound vs 1 Mutalisk = Warhound left with 133 HP. 3 Warhounds vs 1 Battlecruiser (No Yatamoto) = Battlecruiser left with 14 HP.
Now one might say, "doesn't the Hellbat give Terran what it needs versus Zealots?" Well, the Hellbat presents a lot of problems that the Warhound doesn't. First, it only costs minerals, and now again Terran has a powerful mineral only unit from one tech tree that can combined with gas units from another tree. Thus, a Bio player could easily incorporate Hellbats into their builds and we have the same problem we ran into with Marines being combined with Mech units. And the fact that Hellbats can be healed due to their Biological status just exacerbates the problem, and I've seen a lot of players simply adding Hellbats into Terran Bio, which leaves Protoss with even fewer options to deal with MMMGV + Hellbat because Zealots aren't nearly as effective even when the only upgrade the Hellbats have is Blue Flame.
The Hellbat is also too cost effective for a mineral only unit. It is not only an effective main line fighter but it still harass very effectively. Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!
Dragon cleared out this mineral line in no time...
So now to a unit that will solve a problem that Terran Mech players have had since Brood War, and combined with the Warhound, make the Hellbat and Widow Mine unnecessary. Swan's Flaming Betty (or it could be called the Perdition Turret).
You should be hearing the country music from single player when Swan gives you a new toy...
The purpose of introducing the Flaming Betty to multiplayer is to give Terrans a powerful anti-light AOE attack, a unit that encourages positional play, and a fixed anti-ground defensive structure that doesn't cost gas as Planetary Fortresses do, or food as Widow Mines do.
Every Hellion would be able to put down one permanent Flaming Betty Turret, that would build itself automatically over 10 seconds (so it can't be used offensively and be thrown down in battle or in a mineral line and immediately do damage), have 150 HP, 2 armor, 5 range, and would do the same damage as Hellions and would benefit from the Blue Flame upgrade. It would also have a wider arc of fire similar to Hellbat, be classified as Armored and Mechanical, be able to be repaired by SCVs, and it would not be able to hit air units.
There are many consequences to having this unit in multiplayer. First, it can be used as an anti-ground static defense to help protect Mech players from all-ins and attacks during any stage of the game, the same way Bunkers are used for Bio players. See a powerful attack coming? Throw down some Flaming Bettys!
Flame on!
Also they could be used to protect Siege Tank positions from Zerglings, Zealots and Marines, encouraging positional play. Just like a field of Spider Mines, a bunch of Flaming Bettys in an area is also going to slow the advance of your opponent, giving your Tanks time to fire or reposition.
Siege Tanks think Betty is hot.
Finally, they could be used to defend bases from ground units in the place of Planetary Fortresses for bases that aren't at risk from being attacked by a large army, but are at risk from Zergling run-bys, drop play, or Zealot Warp-ins. This would allow more gas to go into the Mech army itself.
Safe and Sound.
So why is the Flaming Betty better than the Widow Mine?
First, they don't cost supply, gas, or Factory build time, things that are important to Mech players.
Second, they can't be used effectively offensively. I've seen a lot of people using Widow Mines offensively, whether it be running them into the mineral line of an opponent, or blocking expansions with them (like a burrowed Zergling).
Now you see em...
...now you don't.
This might not seem like a big deal, but Widow Mines are built far in advance of any other cloaked or burrowed unit, and mines can stop expansions from going down, and can simply force a player to not collect resources until the mines are cleared, which can be game ending and forces earlier detection.
Third, the Flaming Betty doesn't have such a drastic effect on detection because it isn't cloaked. Widow mines have limited the variety of builds a player can do early, even with Spore Crawlers not requiring an Evolution Chamber and the MSC granting detection. The Flaming Betty does not limit the builds of other races, and we can return detection to a point where the Banshee and Dark Templar can do their job effectively.
Fourth, Flaming Bettys will be used because they are free. The Widow Mine takes up time from the Factory, and due to their expense, supply cost and potential to do very little damage, they may see limited usage in some game.
Fifth, the Flaming Betty has a predictable effect on the game. The Widow Mine deals so much damage that some games simply end in a very anti-climatic fashion if a ball of units comes close to a pack of mines. And in other games the mines will be detected and sniped off and the investment will be a complete waste. This is not a good mechanic because gives the game a coinflippy feel that it doesn't have to have. With the Flaming Betty players won't be praying their opponent doesn't have Widow Mines, or crossing their fingers than their opponent runs their units into a bunch of Widow Mines. The Flaming Betty's effect is predictable, and you won't see whole armies being killed if a player forgets to bring their Observer or Overseer with their army.
AiHonor's switch into mass Tempests caught MorroW off guard, forcing him to go for Honor's base with his army to buy time because he no an anti-air except seven Widow Mines. Thankfully, MorroW positioned his Mines in just the right spot, killing 7 of 12 of Honor's bunched up Tempests as they tried catch MorroW's army. Two of three in the picture with almost no health are about to die, finished off from the Widow Mine on the left which is firing it's rocket in the picture. A very anti-climatic ending to an epic game.
Finally, the Flaming Betty doesn't hit air units or cloaked units. This is key, because the obvious counter to a style of play that emphasizes holding positions is to build units that are extremely mobile to find weak points and outmaneuver your opponent. The Widow Mine deals a lot of damage to everything that comes into range, whether it be a flying unit or a cloaked unit, limiting the obvious counter to positional play.
The power of Mech should not come from the Widow Mine, it should come from the Siege Tank. The Siege Tank should hit hard, not the Widow Mine. If Siege Tanks do enough damage then Mech will work. If they don't, then we'll constantly be looking for something that will do big damage and that we can combine with Siege Tanks so we can say "See Siege Tanks work when you use them with X!" X being the very hard hitting Warhound that was removed or Widow Mine. And in both cases, the Widow Mine and Warhound are better used alone or with other Terran play styles, than in conjunction with Siege Tanks in TvP.
And then the last piece of the puzzle is that Mech play needs a better way to repair their units. Thus, the seldom used auto-turret should be replaced with the Mech repair spell from the single player Science Vessel. Not only would this make it easier for Mech players to repair, but also gives them a way to repair units that doesn't cost resources. No other playstyle in the game is burdened by having to spend resources to repair units.
So now not only is Bio revitalized with the Medic in HOTS, but Mech now has the Warhound, Hellion, and Flaming Betty supporting Siege Tanks. This gives Mech players a viable core of units to use against every race, and these units emphasize positional play, rather than deathball play.
I started writing this as a piece on why Siege Tanks needed to be more powerful for Mech to work, and how to remove Vortex. But because units are dependent on each other and nothing exists independently, you can't responsibly buff Siege Tanks or remove Vortex without reworking other areas of the game, which in turn effects other areas of the game. And so I ended up writing a piece longer than my college thesis.
I've given a lot of thought to each race, and also to what makes SC2 fun, and believe the above changes would add significantly to each race. However, the changes I've suggested are almost certainly not perfect, but at the very least I hope they spur new ideas and help improve HOTS.
Finally someone who doesn't only say "this is bad, fix it" but also gives ways of fixing it. I like your post very much, mostly because it would allow for more build, such as pvz stargate and tvp mech. That would really improve the game, and make it a lot more fun to watch, cuz you can't know what the players will do(nowadays its very locked up, T goes for MMM with a timing at 10 min, P would counter this) That is boring. Thx for this post, and i hope blizzard will read this too.
I want to point something out. I feel like the post is all over the place and that hurts the legitimacy of the points you are trying to make.
Essentially what you are suggesting is:
Change A so that B Then change B Then add C Then change D and E so that C works with B Then etc...
While the whole concept might work out fine, you are adding and removing to many unknown variables. It is impractical because there is no way for us to know which changes does what. WoL beta was like this out of necessity, but now that we have a knowledge base to stand on, lets not go down that road if we can avoid it.
In my oppinion, we need to make incremental changes, then test to see the result of each change(Blizzard likely does this a lot internally that we know nothing about). What we want is not only a balanced game, we need to know why. Thats the only way to add new units in an oncoming expansion.
But enough about that. Let me comment on what you actually wrote about:
Maps: I feel that the community dictates how maps look, which is not good since the community as a whole knows very little of map design. Maps at the moment are made with the meta game in mind, but at the same time, the meta game looks like it does because of the maps(daybreak imo is a really bad map for this reason). Changing the maps should not implicate balance in matchups, but rather with strategies to use in said matchups.
Tanks: Tanks are like colossus to me, cheaper and immobile perhaps, but they do splash that is really good against all ground units. Combine that with the fact that vikings are good against every single unit that flies, and we must be very careful about making the tank too good. The colossus is like that and it is part of the reason why star-/warpgate units can't be better imo.
At the same time, splash should be strong. Positional units should be strong. It is a way to encourage splitting the army up, both against splash, but also with splash against a mobile harassment based army. Imo, if the tank is a glass cannon, it can be good against small groups of light units, but only if it is in the right place. That is a good functionality. Against heavy armor is should not be as effective. Terrans have thors and marauders that both kill armored fairly well, and quite frankly, the unsieged tank is also decent versus armor.
The issue is, imagine a map like daybreak. Terran is sieged up around his watchtower, controlling all three lanes of attack. If siege tanks were as good as some people would like, that is a nigh impossible position to break. So some people say, expand and harass. Which is fine until a point. The same point you get to versus infestor / BL. Some armies cannot be attacked into, and because of it, every single game that reaches that stage becomes a base race or relies on gimmicks like the vortex ability(which should have been removed a long time ago).
If you make immortals weaker against tanks(which is fine), they are also going to be weaker against everything. You make them cheaper to make up for that, but cheaper is better versus mech as well. Maybe if immortals became more of a tank and less of a damage dealer, with more shields or life but less dps. Because currently, they are not cost effective against marauders with stim and most other units kill ultras as well. Making them weaker to make mech more valid also makes bio and zerg more valid against immortals in general.
Counters: I dislike counters as well, but if protoss can build immortals in response to tanks, what keeps terrans from building ghosts or banshees or bio as a response to immortals? I don't see this as a massive problem. The underlying problem is that terrans "go mech" without bothering with other tech paths. The general consensus is that upgrading is too slow otherwise, something I just don't agree with, but lets assume this is true.
If terrans could add a reactor to their armory, or something else that makes upgrading faster, they would be more incentivized to not go pure mech. Pure mech should NOT be a possible unit composition against every protoss or zerg composition. That is just a silly idea.
Colossus: I do not like the idea of making the colossus slower. Protoss armies are capped at 2.25 move speed at best anyway, which is only comparable to mech, both bio, skyterran and all zerg compositions are faster(bar BL). Colossus is common in pvp because protoss air is weak. Tempest and possibly void ray will/should change that. I don't mind making the colossus weaker, but it doesnt actually change much about how the unit operates.
For starters, I'd like to remove its ability to walk over friendly units. I think that alone helps make it harder to position the colossus, especially in stalker heavy armies that take up a lot of space. It also makes protoss balls less silly looking.
The second thing I would like to change is how the damage is being dealt. Someone suggested an ability that can be avoided with micro, I like that. Another thing is that the splash colossus currently has punishes concaves and rewards balls. Making it do a circular splash instead, or a hellion-like spray is better imo. Those three small mechanical changes would make the colossus less automatic but still very powerful. I like that idea.
Marines and healers: Marines are damn strong. No arguing there. However, we know how to deal with them. They are such a core unit and changing them even the slightest will make half of all terran compositions weaker. I don't like that. Especially not since I want more mech builds to incorporate other unit types as well. Bio with medivacs is very iconic and I actually like the synergy. Mostly because it requires a different kind of tech. I also like the fact that feedback is strong vs. drops. Protoss does not have a fast army like the zerg, meaning you would either have to sit at home or build cannons everywhere. I don't like either prospects.
If you want more staying power in the early game, make bunkers slowly regen the life of your units(or something). With no restrictions on how you can heal you units, the offensive power will surely be even better than current stim timings. That is not good for the early game of any matchup imo.
Carriers: The problem is not that the current carrier doesn't kill broodlords. The problem was never the brood lords. The problem is the 25 corruptors that will just fly in over archons and stalkers alike to snipe all your colossus and air units before they die. Because both players know that infestor/broodlord cannot be engaged on the ground by regular protoss units.
Also, infested terran spam with numerous infestors effectively put an end to carrier micro so fast that you can barely get anything done. All of this for no cost unlike building interceptors.
The tempest removes the problem of infestors by staying at range. It also makes it harder to kill for corruptors. harder but not impossible. With good vision, the amount of dps time a tempest can potentially get is staggering. Thats is why the dps is so low, and I like it that way.
The missing link imo against corruptor/infestor/broodlord is the voidray. VRs can protect you from corruptors as long as they function properly. That is good(as long as they do function properly). The other part is the part where the infestor is just too good. Both fungal and IT feels way too effective in the general case scenario for me, but I will leave zerg units to the zerg players. Besides, you can snipe infestors with tempest now, as long as you have good map vision.
That leaves the carrier in an awkward spot, the same spot it has been in since forever in WoL. If the carrier shot bolts instead of the tempest, cost a bit more and had interceptors to defend it in close range, we could remove the tempest completely and never look back. But since both the VR and the carrier currently feel slightly unwarranted, I can't help but feel like one of them needs to be cut. Otherwise we would have units with very overlapping roles.
Mothership: I think your suggestion is a pretty good one and vortex has to go either way. Would like to try this out.
Warhound: Like I said earlier, I think it is the siege tanks job to deal with zealots, especially since hellions are already "decent". Add emp on top of that and you are set. The Thor kills big units, Siege tanks kill many units and hellions kill light units. Widow mine kills every unit with a condition. Overall, terran has a very strong mech composition already. Adding another staple unit makes no sense. Your warhound with marauders would own everything. Mech doesnt need anti air when terran has vikings, thors AND marines. There is no area that these 3 units does not cover.
If I were to add something it would be a caster. A caster with auto-repair, ability to make mines from energy and possibly a third spell of some sort. It could even have the warhound base stats but with much reduced damage output.
Hellions: If hellions got more mileage out of the hit and run micro that you usually see, they would be fine without battle mode imo. I would rather see pre-igniter changed. Something like a damage over time effect(bio units catch on fire, maybe?) for 3 seconds or so, doing an additional 10(?) damage over time. If you are active, you get a lot more damage done than if you are not. Combined with tanks that are stronger vs light, I don't think mech will have such problems with zealots.
I don't think offensive widow mines are bad either. I love variety. Overall I really like mines as a concept, even if I think it would be better if they were cheaper and more expendable(maybe even free if the warhound is the only thing that can make them). The only real issue I have with them is that they automatically target cloaked units, which I do not like.
The flaming betty is basically siege mode for hellions, and I can't really comment on it since I don't know what the means for the game, but imo, it might not even be necessary if the baseline hellion works just a little bit better.
I like all your changes ! I think widow mine can still be cool to protect expansions against blink agression etc... But all other changes are very good. Hopefully blizzard will read this...
On October 27 2012 17:54 Fenris420 wrote: I want to point something out. I feel like the post is all over the place and that hurts the legitimacy of the points you are trying to make.
Essentially what you are suggesting is:
Change A so that B Then change B Then add C Then change D and E so that C works with B Then etc...
Thank you for the comments.
Making Immortals cheaper does make them more accessible, and I think this is a good thing. First, more players will utilize them in their army, and because they aren't a Warpgate unit that can be warped around, it slows the game down a bit. Furthermore without hardened shields and a bit less HP, Tanks will decimate them at long range.
The Carrier is in a bad spot because it takes way to long to build. And even when it's done, it still has to build Interceptors, and then it can't be microed properly, and the Interceptors have no way to heal. If you fix those things, I think it becomes viable. But you can't just leave the Carrier in the spot it is in and expect somehow it to work. Some people think the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Seems to apply here. Remember that the Ultralisk had it's build time reduced to make it viable because frankly, it was terrible.
Because of the nature Zerg, and how they can switch from mass Roach army to mass Corrupters in a mere 40 seconds, for Void Rays to effective counter Corrupters they would have to deal AOE damage, which is an option, but I like Void Rays where they are now.
The see the Flaming Betty as a replacement for the Spider Mine in terms of positional play and map control, and also as a fixed ground defense that Mech lacks (Bio has the Bunker).
I think most of our disagreements are philosophical regarding how the game should work. You think Tanks should counter Zealots, and I don't. I don't think offensive Mines are good for the game, you do. I like Void Rays where they are, you don't. And that is ok.
I do feel very strongly though that Tanks need a buff, we need to adjust the Marine in order to make that buff, and that the Colossus is so much better as an AOE long range unit that it needs to be nerfed somehow in order to make tanks viable, less every Protoss play "crosses the T" against their Terran opponent.
Interestingly, I have yet to lose to a Mech composition, and in one game I had an army of Immortal, Archon and Stalker and he tried to switch into Bio. The result was 1/0 Marines, Ghosts, and Marauders vs 3/3 Immortals and Stalkers. He blanketed me with EMPS, but I still rolled him, and I've never seen anything like it.
The hardest thing for me to deal with in HOTS is Bio compositions that include Widow Mines and Hellbats. Widow Mines give good map control and positional play on their own, without Tanks and Hellbats are great vs Zealots when MMM is behind, even without upgrades.
My experience has been that the Tank is still as useless as ever in HOTS, and that high level Terran players will just add Widow Mines and Hellbats to their arsenel and PvT will be mostly unchanged.
"But just a few minutes later, Hasuobs flanks the powerful Mech force using Warpgate units, and crashing through a thin defensive line he decimates TLO's economy. TLO lacked the mobility to return to his base and defend, and small numbers of Siege Tanks simply crumbled under the Gateway pressure."
Actually stopped reading there, TLO had multiple medivacs with a ton of bio forces if you argument even was siege tanks are immobile. That's the point of the siege tank--immobility. Nevertheless, most meching terran will always have siege tanks in their main to prevent that.
I believe mech is already viable. I just don't think it's easy. The question is, are you trying to mech or are you trying to do it easier? If you compare mech to bio, of course it's hard...you're more immobile and can be punished harder. Frankly, a more mobile army is the counter to mech, that's not imbalance it's just how it is.
On October 28 2012 00:42 Archon96 wrote: "But just a few minutes later, Hasuobs flanks the powerful Mech force using Warpgate units, and crashing through a thin defensive line he decimates TLO's economy. TLO lacked the mobility to return to his base and defend, and small numbers of Siege Tanks simply crumbled under the Gateway pressure."
Actually stopped reading there, TLO had multiple medivacs with a ton of bio forces if you argument even was siege tanks are immobile. That's the point of the siege tank--immobility. Nevertheless, most meching terran will always have siege tanks in their main to prevent that.
I believe mech is already viable. I just don't think it's easy. The question is, are you trying to mech or are you trying to do it easier? If you compare mech to bio, of course it's hard...you're more immobile and can be punished harder. Frankly, a more mobile army is the counter to mech, that's not imbalance it's just how it is.
I actually play Protoss which you'd figure out if you kept reading. My experience has been how easy it is to win vs Mech players. I've also watched a significant amount of MorroW, Dragon and Avilo stream HOTS.
The point of the TLO/Hasuobs example wasn't to show the immobility of Mech, it was to show how a few defensive Siege Tanks and supporting units are completely unable to cope with Warpgate counter attacks. Mech needs more options in order to deal with Warpgate counterattacks because they are so strong, and I explain that in the article:
BronzeKnee wrote: If a Bio player outmaneuvers the main army of a Mech player and rushes a few Tanks defending an expansion, his attack force can take significant damage and lose units on the first volley. This is rarely the case versus Protoss because of the durability of Protoss Gateway units; they simple don't take critical damage from a single Tank shot. Furthermore a Protoss player can use Warpgates to attack different locations with large forces quickly, straining the limited mobility of Mech. Tanks simply lack both the mobility and firepower to respond to these kinds of attacks effectively.
In my opinion, Tanks should lack mobility, but they shouldn't lack firepower. They also need some help, which I suggest in the last section.
"Mech needs more options..." Every race and strategy could use more options. Zerg want to use hydralisks and ultralisks and perhaps even vipers without going to infestor broodlord in every matchup, Protoss would like to use air outside of the early game and even against Terran. That much is undeniable. It looks like you put a lot of thought into this, which is why I'm sad to say I disagree with you(I'm allowed to say so I hope)
It's not just disagreement about your stance on mech either, I feel tempests do counter broodlords, at least more effectively than stalkers right now. Your ideas are interesting but I don't know if that's where things should be headed.
On October 28 2012 00:57 Archon96 wrote: "Mech needs more options..." Every race and strategy could use more options. Zerg want to use hydralisks and ultralisks and perhaps even vipers without going to infestor broodlord in every matchup, Protoss would like to use air outside of the early game and even against Terran. That much is undeniable. It looks like you put a lot of thought into this, which is why I'm sad to say I disagree with you(I'm allowed to say so I hope)
It's not just disagreement about your stance on mech either, I feel tempests do counter broodlords, at least more effectively than stalkers right now. Your ideas are interesting but I don't know if that's where things should be headed.
I do think every race and strategy could use more options, and that is the point of this thread. I'm not sure where you are going with that.
You are absolutely allowed to disagree, if you have better ideas please share! I thank you for your comments, though you have to understand when you say "I stopped reading when I read this..." doesn't show any investment, nor does it give us anything to talk about expect the disregard you have for what I've written. Frankly, it is rude. It is a "I'm going to take my toys and go home" attitude that doesn't further discussion, it does the opposite.
You see, it is really easy find 100 people who can tell you why something is wrong, but really hard to find just one person who will help you fix it. If I am headed in the wrong direction, then turn me around my friend...
So I'd like it if could you explain how I can get the Tempest could work versus Broodlords. If you explain it to me, then I'd be happy to try it on ladder. And then I would have learned something, and I love to learn.
But when you are unwilling to share your knowledge so I can't learn, I don't like that because again it is "I'm going to take my toys and go home" attitude. It also makes me question whether or not you really know what you are talking about, because you won't share.
I think you approached my article with an attitude that this guy is wrong, and your just criticizing everything, evidenced by the fact that I say "Mech need more options" and your response is "Every race and strategy could use more options"...
Colossus play positioning is extremely important in all matchups. Balling up your Colossus is not as efficient as spreading them in a concave, and opposing units should also spread because it reduces the number of units Colossus hits. In fact PvP is all about who has the better concave in the endgame.
On October 28 2012 00:57 Archon96 wrote: "Mech needs more options..." Every race and strategy could use more options. Zerg want to use hydralisks and ultralisks and perhaps even vipers without going to infestor broodlord in every matchup, Protoss would like to use air outside of the early game and even against Terran. That much is undeniable. It looks like you put a lot of thought into this, which is why I'm sad to say I disagree with you(I'm allowed to say so I hope)
It's not just disagreement about your stance on mech either, I feel tempests do counter broodlords, at least more effectively than stalkers right now. Your ideas are interesting but I don't know if that's where things should be headed.
I do think every race and strategy could use more options, and that is the point of this thread. I'm not sure where you are going with that.
You are absolutely allowed to disagree, if you have better ideas please share! I thank you for your comments, though you have to understand when you say "I stopped reading when I read this..." doesn't show any investment, nor does it give us anything to talk about expect the disregard you have for what I've written. Frankly, it is rude. It is a "I'm going to take my toys and go home" attitude that doesn't further discussion, it does the opposite.
You see, it is really easy find 100 people who can tell you why something is wrong, but really hard to find just one person who will help you fix it.
So I'd like it if could you explain how I can get the Tempest could work versus Broodlords. If you explain it to me, then I'd be happy to try it on ladder. And then I would have learned something, and I love to learn.
But when you are unwilling to share your knowledge so I can't learn, I don't like that because again it is "I'm going to take my toys and go home" attitude. It also makes me question whether or not you really know what you are talking about, because you won't share.
I think you approached my article with an attitude that this guy is wrong, and your just criticizing everything, evidenced by the fact that I say "Mech need more options" and your response is "Every race and strategy could use more options"...
Well if that's how you feel or if you feel that I commented with a bias or unfairly toward you as a person, then I apologize. But know that is not the reason. I said I stopped reading in honesty and skimmed through your main points. Why? Because it's already been rehashed over and over and over. Understandably so, it can get frustrating to carry on, and to do so with a high level of interest to read the same argument again and again. I wasn't approaching your article with an "this guy is wrong attitude," but quite the opposite, I was excited to see a different argument and your opinion. That is the only reason I am here right now anyways, I took my time out of playing a sc2 match to say hey, this guy is talking about mech, awesome, let's check it out.
As for tempest to work--make 4 tempest, no more no less, don't bother getting air weapons, if you have extra money get air armor. 4 tempests on target fire will 1 shot a broordlord(20 tempest on target fire or not target fire with +3 will also 1 shot a broodlord) Obs is hard to use because of spores, overseer so you need to use revelation. Target fire the broods with tempest, they will start dying every 3.3 seconds. The corruptors will swarm in, making them viable targets for your stalkers and templar(of course you'll have an army too not just tempest.) Target fire the corruptors with stalkers and after queuing up attacks, storm the corruptors. The tempests have enough hit-points to weather some blows. It really boils down to control and micro(doesn't everything), micro back the tempest that is getting focused from the corruptor. Usually the broods will close during this and infested terrans shoot everywhere, use storms and micro back the stalkers to avoid getting hit by broodlords for as much time as possible. The important thing to note is your entire army is on hold position covering the tempest just like how zerg's entire army is covering the broordlord. Don't just attack move in, that'll always lose.
As for the evidenced portion of every race/strategy using more options. I don't know what you're hinting at here. It's inherently obvious that in a strategy game everyone would love to have a multitude of strategies to employ. Think abstractly here. That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong for wanting to have strategy. You need to consider what tactics and changes that effect has not only on one race, but BOTH the other race and the mirror of the race being changed which I feel was not done too well.
Again, I'm just someone who was trying to weigh in input. I hope you get a lot of attention here and I was coming to +1 actually, but nevertheless good luck to you sir and go get'm with those tempests.
On October 28 2012 00:57 Archon96 wrote: "Mech needs more options..." Every race and strategy could use more options. Zerg want to use hydralisks and ultralisks and perhaps even vipers without going to infestor broodlord in every matchup, Protoss would like to use air outside of the early game and even against Terran. That much is undeniable. It looks like you put a lot of thought into this, which is why I'm sad to say I disagree with you(I'm allowed to say so I hope)
It's not just disagreement about your stance on mech either, I feel tempests do counter broodlords, at least more effectively than stalkers right now. Your ideas are interesting but I don't know if that's where things should be headed.
I do think every race and strategy could use more options, and that is the point of this thread. I'm not sure where you are going with that.
You are absolutely allowed to disagree, if you have better ideas please share! I thank you for your comments, though you have to understand when you say "I stopped reading when I read this..." doesn't show any investment, nor does it give us anything to talk about expect the disregard you have for what I've written. Frankly, it is rude. It is a "I'm going to take my toys and go home" attitude that doesn't further discussion, it does the opposite.
You see, it is really easy find 100 people who can tell you why something is wrong, but really hard to find just one person who will help you fix it.
So I'd like it if could you explain how I can get the Tempest could work versus Broodlords. If you explain it to me, then I'd be happy to try it on ladder. And then I would have learned something, and I love to learn.
But when you are unwilling to share your knowledge so I can't learn, I don't like that because again it is "I'm going to take my toys and go home" attitude. It also makes me question whether or not you really know what you are talking about, because you won't share.
I think you approached my article with an attitude that this guy is wrong, and your just criticizing everything, evidenced by the fact that I say "Mech need more options" and your response is "Every race and strategy could use more options"...
Well if that's how you feel or if you feel that I commented with a bias or unfairly toward you as a person, then I apologize. But know that is not the reason. I said I stopped reading in honesty and skimmed through your main points. Why? Because it's already been rehashed over and over and over. Understandably so, it can get frustrating to carry on, and to do so with a high level of interest to read the same argument again and again. I wasn't approaching your article with an "this guy is wrong attitude," but quite the opposite, I was excited to see a different argument and your opinion. That is the only reason I am here right now anyways, I took my time out of playing a sc2 match to say hey, this guy is talking about mech, awesome, let's check it out.
As for tempest to work--make 4 tempest, no more no less, don't bother getting air weapons, if you have extra money get air armor. 4 tempests on target fire will 1 shot a broordlord(20 tempest on target fire or not target fire with +3 will also 1 shot a broodlord) Obs is hard to use because of spores, overseer so you need to use revelation. Target fire the broods with tempest, they will start dying every 3.3 seconds. The corruptors will swarm in, making them viable targets for your stalkers and templar(of course you'll have an army too not just tempest.) Target fire the corruptors with stalkers and after queuing up attacks, storm the corruptors. The tempests have enough hit-points to weather some blows. It really boils down to control and micro(doesn't everything), micro back the tempest that is getting focused from the corruptor. Usually the broods will close during this and infested terrans shoot everywhere, use storms and micro back the stalkers to avoid getting hit by broodlords for as much time as possible. The important thing to note is your entire army is on hold position covering the tempest just like how zerg's entire army is covering the broordlord. Don't just attack move in, that'll always lose.
As for the evidenced portion of every race/strategy using more options. I don't know what you're hinting at here. It's inherently obvious that in a strategy game everyone would love to have a multitude of strategies to employ. Think abstractly here. That doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong for wanting to have strategy. You need to consider what tactics and changes that effect has not only on one race, but BOTH the other race and the mirror of the race being changed which I feel was not done too well.
Again, I'm just someone who was trying to weigh in input. I hope you get a lot of attention here and I was coming to +1 actually, but nevertheless good luck to you sir and go get'm with those tempests.
I attempted what you were saying, and didn't seem to have the gas, but my opponent went for a Swarm Host and Corrupter attack, and when it failed, kept doing it, so I didn't get to try what you suggest.
My experience has been (and maybe I'm just not expanding quickly enough) that I don't have enough gas for everything your talking about on 3 bases. Normally in WOL I get out 4 Colossus, two Immortals, 4-6 Sentries at the start depending on what I need to keep me safe, have a ball of Stalkers and I add in a Mothership for Vortex and 5-6 Archons. I usually open with some Stargate harrass while taking my third. A long with my upgrades I have just enough gas. And I usually have this composition come together right as the Broodlord/Infestor comes on the field (~15-17 minute mark). Adding in Storm + four Tempests needs I have to cut something, that is 1000 gas I normally don't have, and that assumes I don't use all my High Templars for Archons (generally have about 5-6 Archons), and if I do then I need 150 more gas per HT for Storm.
Previously I tried cutting out the Mothership (as I show with the pictures above), but I probably overbuilt the Tempest. The problem I ran into though was that the Mothership cost 8 supply, 4 Tempests is exactly double that, meaning I had less overall for the rest of my force.
What stage of the game are you using this during? And if the Zerg player just throws everything at your ball what do you do? That is the point where the low DPS of Tempests becomes a real problem, being the battle is going to be over in 15 seconds or less.
The mech stuff is unfocused, makes unfounded assumptions and bad conclusions. No, we're not going to increase tank DPS by 50%. And no, we're not going to nerf the shit out of immortals by removing hardened shields, cutting their HP by 17%, and reducing their damage.
There are new units, strategies and tactics in HOTS. Let's give players time to work out how to play before we break every MU in order to encourage one particular style of play in one MU.
Well I'm not sure that I agree with the solutions, but I do agree that something needs to be done about mech in TvP. I feel like the issues really boil down to a few units:
1. Tank 2. Thor, but specifically the 250MM cannons. 3. Immortal 4. Or, unit x - Bring in a unit such as the warhound to help address this issue. The problem with the warhound was it was a pretty bad design. It was the colossus of Terran. No micro, high damage.
And the two solutions they provided only help slightly, because the two units were not directly designed to help mech. Hellbat, which was designed to tank zealots. This is an issue whether you go bio or mech. Widow mines which were designed for map control. Yes, it provides a side benefit of only slightly helping mech, but IMO unless you directly fix mech with 1 or 2 of the 4 options above, I think we will continue to be in the same boat we are in right now.
BTW, I appreciate anyone that takes this much time putting together a thread. It's not easy and when people just come in here, read half of it and then dump on it... well, that's not exactly nice
BTW, I appreciate anyone that takes this much time putting together a thread. It's not easy and when people just come in here, read half of it and then dump on it... well, that's not exactly nice
Thx for the thread...
Thank you, I don't mind criticism, but don't just come in here and tell me "you're wrong" and leave. Instead explain to me why I am wrong, so I can learn too. And chances are, there are probably other people that think like me too, educate them too. I think it just an arrogant and disrespectful view point regardless of how long the OP is to tell people they are wrong without trying to educate them. If you're not going to help someone up fine, but don't stand in there way.
On October 28 2012 02:48 Qikz wrote: I like what you're saying, but I really think the widow mine is actually the best designed unit in the entire game right now.
It's definately the best designed unit in hots.
My issue with the Widow Mine is that it seems most useful for all-ins and cheese. Also, I like units that causals can understand and appreciate. I feel the Flaming Betty does that because it is simple. The Widow Mine is complicated and casuals will get tired of losing to Widow Mine rushes. I also doesn't feel that fun to me, whereas it is always fun to watch flames roast units.
On October 28 2012 02:55 MugenXBanksy wrote: I dunno bro medics and medivacs.... I don't think so maybe if they are just dropships again.
That was the idea... re-read the section, it clearly says take away the ability to heal, and drop the cost of the Medivacs to 100/0 so it doesn't take away gas from Mech.
Making Immortals cheaper does make them more accessible, and I think this is a good thing.
I think the immortal is actually fairly accessible already, but I dont disagree with you, it just feels to me like the immortal works really well in pvp and pvz for the most part. Changing it might have unexpected consequences.
The Carrier is in a bad spot because it takes way to long to build. And even when it's done, it still has to build Interceptors, and then it can't be microed properly, and the Interceptors have no way to heal. If you fix those things, I think it becomes viable. But you can't just leave the Carrier in the spot it is in and expect somehow it to work.
Agreed. And maybe the interceptor + pretty good damage overall is all that the carrier needs to be. At the moment it is such a rare beast that you don't really know what it is capable of.
Because of the nature Zerg, and how they can switch from mass Roach army to mass Corrupters in a mere 40 seconds, for Void Rays to effective counter Corrupters they would have to deal AOE damage, which is an option, but I like Void Rays where they are now.
In WoL I feel like the void ray still has potential that isnt discovered. It just feels to me like a lot of that potential is overshadowed by the tempest now. Especially with a cheaper tempest. Void rays are probably ok in small numbers versus both protoss and terran, it just feels like whatever you build to counter colossus is fairly good against VRs as well. With the new stargate options, we might see entirely colossus less play, which might indirectly make void rays and carriers better.
I do feel very strongly though that Tanks need a buff, we need to adjust the Marine in order to make that buff, and that the Colossus is so much better as an AOE long range unit that it needs to be nerfed somehow in order to make tanks viable, less every Protoss play "crosses the T" against their Terran opponent.
I agree with you to some extent. the tank is by no means weak as it is, it is just weak against protoss. It doesnt have to be that the tank is better against light, maybe just larger splash is enough to make it better overall. I think even a very small change might bring about a completely different look in TvP.
Interestingly, I have yet to lose to a Mech composition, and in one game I had an army of Immortal, Archon and Stalker and he tried to switch into Bio. The result was 1/0 Marines, Ghosts, and Marauders vs 3/3 Immortals and Stalkers. He blanketed me with EMPS, but I still rolled him, and I've never seen anything like it.
The hardest thing for me to deal with in HOTS is Bio compositions that include Widow Mines and Hellbats. Widow Mines give good map control and positional play on their own, without Tanks and Hellbats are great vs Zealots when MMM is behind, even without upgrades.
Well, as I see it, we know from WoL that immortal/archon/stalker doesnt do well versus bio if they are at least somewhat upgraded. I also seem to hear very often that upgrades are what keeps terrans from diversifying. That game of yours might have looked very different with 2/2 bio upgrades for example. Thats where I would start if I wanted to make sure mech is good in TvP, to make sure you can transition out of mech if needed without losing the game.
I also agree on the hellbat. I think it is a dumb upgrade. It takes a mobile and difficult to control unit and makes it into an a-move unit. I'd rather see a nerf to P and/or Z than that tbh.
widow mines though might just be a learning experience for us. I want to give it more time before my verdict.
On October 28 2012 03:04 Fenris420 wrote: I agree with you to some extent. the tank is by no means weak as it is, it is just weak against protoss. It doesnt have to be that the tank is better against light, maybe just larger splash is enough to make it better overall. I think even a very small change might bring about a completely different look in TvP.
Larger splash is a good idea to help combat deathballs.
Another concern about Tanks though is that a small number need to be viable defensive force against Warpgate counter attacks, the same way they are against Bio counter attacks in TvT. You can lose a lot of units quickly to Tanks in TvT, but not so in TvP. Larger splash wouldn't address this, but maybe it shouldn't.... maybe the Flaming Betty and Warhound should cover this role.
And I am not saying that one Tank should be able to hold a ton of units, it is just that Tanks are way too weak in small numbers to do anything against a Warpgate counter attack, because those units can take so many shots. Really the Flaming Betty and Warhound might cover this role more though, maybe Larger Splash is the way to go.
EDIT: Actually, I think larger splash would be a big problem for TvZ, eating up Zerglings and Banelings too quickly.
Thanks for the post OP, anyone who puts in this much effort deserves respect! I really like your changes, with the exception of the hellbat widow mine one, I believe these units have their place in the game very much so, as long as we make workers immune to blue flame upgrade, like we should've done in April 2011. Also, anyone else notice the subtle Star Wars references?
I'm really interested about what you have to say because just the amount of text, editing, and tons of pictures really shows that it would be something worth reading but sadly my head is blowing up around the third paragraph. Would it by any chance possible for you, to put some TL;DR summary to the end? Would be greatly appreciated. I think tanks need some buff in general, so I'm all with you on that.
Bane, personally want to add that I thoroughly enjoyed your comments and found some of the remarks here so far flippant. I've seen random posts with much less thought get far more traffic that too me just because you've raised brought up tanks again doesn't make it any less interesting.
I am convinced as well that tanks need an increase in damage. Mech TvP not light on gas, I don't see how getting enough ghosts and maintaining them is at all a solution (barracks?, medivacs?, upgrades?).
I really do think Protoss Stargate could do with some of your suggestions. I like the idea behind the phoenix transformation but I'm wondering if something like the pre release "overload" would fit?
I would love to come back to this thread later.
Aside: Finally because of this I ended of scouring youtube and ended up with this video I personally had never seen and I thought I had seen most of the pre release stuff.
One thing I liked about their previous direction was they actually were interested in demonstrating scale. Battleships felt like capital ships, Nexi felt like monolithic buildings. The game was damn near cinematic.
On October 28 2012 09:52 wangstra wrote: I like the idea behind the phoenix transformation but I'm wondering if something like the pre release "overload" would fit?
If Overload is going to be an ability on the Phoenix, then it couldn't be too powerful because Phoenixes are cheap and then you'd end up using a lot of supply in Phoenixes in order to counter Corrupters and that cuts into our army size. So we'd run into the same problem Phoenixes have now vs Mutalisks. Sure, they are a great counter to Mutalisks, but they can't do much else, especially when Infestors come onto the the field, so Blink Stalkers and HT/Archon is much more efficient.
With transformation, you're adding a cost to the each Phoenix individually, so they can be the powerful unit they need to be. Overload could have a role there, that is actually a really good idea, so masses of Zerg flyers would have to avoid Overloading Tempests. That would be fun.
On October 28 2012 04:19 PVJ wrote: Would it by any chance possible for you, to put some TL;DR summary to the end? Would be greatly appreciated. I think tanks need some buff in general, so I'm all with you on that.
I guess I should, I know it is really long. I'll add a TL;DR later.
On October 28 2012 02:32 kcdc wrote: The mech stuff is unfocused, makes unfounded assumptions and bad conclusions.
Care to elaborate?
I don't much meaningful connection from one paragraph to the next, and the points don't seem to build toward anything. For example, you spend a lot of time talking about how tanks are better on tiny maps, but you don't do anything with that point. Do you want the tiny maps back? If not, why talk about map size? Is it supporting some other concept? I can't tell what purpose the long map discussion serves.
i think mines are so powerful, but what i hate most is the huge cooldown what makes them a lucky unit more than a skilled one. you can´t just rely in a mine shot when u need!(i think they doesn´t have the hold position like brood war luker) the same with swarm host. thx for the thread, i like the fact u use more than feelings to look for a fix
On October 28 2012 02:32 kcdc wrote: The mech stuff is unfocused, makes unfounded assumptions and bad conclusions.
Care to elaborate?
I don't much meaningful connection from one paragraph to the next, and the points don't seem to build toward anything. For example, you spend a lot of time talking about how tanks are better on tiny maps, but you don't do anything with that point. Do you want the tiny maps back? If not, why talk about map size? Is it supporting some other concept? I can't tell what purpose the long map discussion serves.
Here is how I write: I make a statement, I then support said statement with evidence.
Here was the statement: No unit has suffered more from the ever evolving map pool than the Siege Tank. It was the very first sentence I wrote.
The evidence followed, I spent time talking about how Tanks were powerful on tiny maps and supported the statement with evidence. Do I want tiny maps back? No. The purpose was to show that Siege Tanks had become much weaker (as it put it in the statement "suffered") than the damage nerf had intended because of the changing map pool for the reasons I listed in the OP. It all ties into the statement. Then I talk about how positional play (read: Siege Tank play) should work. I then suggest a buff to fix the problem so Siege Tanks can work with current maps. Then I say it won't be enough, we'll have to change the Immortal and Colossus to make it work. And I give evidence why we need to make that change. Then I suggest changing the Marine because Marine + Tanks with a buff would be overpowered. Then I suggest adding the Medic to neutralize a Marine nerf ect...
The article builds toward an end result where Mech is balanced, viable, and fun. It also does the same for Protoss Stargate units, and allows us to remove Vortex.
I cleaned up the first section a bit, and simplified the early paragraphs while making it more obvious. Hopefully now you can understand what I wrote and we can have a discussion.
On October 27 2012 17:54 Fenris420 wrote: Your warhound with marauders would own everything.
I gave this a lot of thought before I wrote the article, and don't think it is true.
First, they don't share upgrade trees, so it would be expensive to field both. Let's also think about what could counter Warhound/Marauder is each matchup. Immortals would destroy the combination in TvP. Siege Tanks would be the answer in TvT (in fact it wouldn't be any different than fighting Marine/Marauder really except that Warhound/Marauder is less mobile). In TvZ Fungal Growth is the answer. Because both units have the same armor type it isn't that difficult to counter, and remember you can't kite as well with Goliaths mixed with to stimmed Marauders as you can with Marines.
I havent read the whole thing, but I agreed with a lot until I came to this:
On October 27 2012 15:50 BronzeKnee wrote: ________________________________________________________
The Revenge of the Marine ________________________________________________________
There is though, one last thing standing in the way of the Siege Tank receiving a damage buff.
The Marine.
"Been waitin' on you." Yeah, well I was waiting on my HOTS key.
Marines are strong the second you get them, they require no upgrades to be powerful, though they scale wonderfully with upgrades. And since they are a mineral only unit, you can combine this powerful all-purpose mineral unit with gas units from the Factory and/or Starport to create incredibly powerful timings attacks, such as the 1-1-1 or 1-1-2, or powerful pressure builds.
Thus, we can't simply buff the Siege Tank without risking early Tank/Marine or Tank/Marine/Banshee pushes becoming too powerful. The only option then, is to nerf the Marine.
Nerfing the Marine is very problematic though. Terran depends on the Marine in combination with Bunkers for early defense, especially for gasless economic openings. Furthermore, we want to avoid reducing the power of Bio in order to make Mech viable. Trading one for another doesn't make the game better, just different.
You fail to look at WHY Marines (and Roaches and Stalkers and ...) are so strong in the first place (*1) and the reason is the same as for many other units: You can easily have LOTS of them in a rather tight clump and this maximizes their "dps per area used for the army". This is the biggest mistake Blizzard made with the game, because they only look at the individual numbers of the units and not at their "critical mass numbers".
Since tight formation is also basically the definition of "deathball" (at least for me) and since people HATE the deathball and want to get rid of it or at least have viable alternatives to it, I have personally come to the conclusion that nerfing the movement and unit selection would solve LOTS of problems and after that you could "unnerf" the Siege Tank again since it wont hit that many units anymore.
If Blizzard was feeling supercool they would make it so you could CHOOSE between super tight formation and wide open one and give the player the choice to risk having most of his force annihilated by a few Siege Tank shots.
(*1) Their combat values are roughly the same as in BW and yet they seem to be MUCH stronger.
After finishing reading I really liked everything you said. I really liked your argument for bringing back the medic. If I understood you correctly, you argued for a stronger siege tank. However, this would make 1-1-1 timings too powerful. So, we have to weaken it and one way to do that is by making the marine weaker. However, we still want Bio to remain strong. How can we do this? More available, cheaper, and earlier healing. Hmm, but we cant have earlier Medivacs, so perhaps if we have the medic fill this role. Hey! If we have the medic, we can give Mech easier access to drops by making the Medivac a plain ol' dropship that doesn't require gas! So in the end, Mech is more viable, and bio is more flexible. If that is not what you were saying, please enlighten =D
After reading through everything I really wanted to find some parts I did not like. My first instinct was to say, Why add in medics when we could alter medivacs and/or Caduceus Reactor (Medivac Upgrade) to perhaps solve the equation. But in the end, I like the Medic. it is a simple solution and I really like the idea of a mineral only dropship.
Second - The Second thing I worried about is whether slower Collosus would be a terrible thing, making them much more vulnerable. But I don't think they would be and it would give them more identity since they are the thing limiting the speed of your army.
Third - Are Early Hellions with the Flaming Betty just too powerful? We want the Flaming Betty to be decent but don't want them to be imbalanced. Perhaps that could be another upgrade, in order to delay when they enter the field. Vultures had an upgrade in order to get Spider Mines, and also had its other upgrade. So, it has precedent.
Fourth - Your change to the Immortal is simple. I am worried about whether the reduced durability of immortals makes them still worth it. But I'm sure health/shields can be tweaked to make them still viable.
Regarding Phoenix "morphing" into tempests. I think one way to make it more unique, and differentiate it from corruptor to Bloodlord transformation is to make it so it can only occur in a power field. Its a little thing that probably won't matter that much, but it adds a touch of flavor. Also could have the animation involve tapping into the pylon for energy creating an interesting visual effect.
All, in all I think that what you are proposing certainly changes alot, but is interesting and seems sound. Even if this thread is buried or someone comes (with good evidence) tearing apart your arguments, I appreciate the effort it took create it.
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.
Make sure to post this on the BNet forums, so that the dev's dont miss this. Great post and although allot of these suggestions need testing! ----> BETA!!!
I love your suggestions about Perdition Turrets/Flaming Betties. I think that would be a fantastic alternative to the current state of the Widow Mine.
Right now Widow Mines aren't working in my opinion. They're too strong, and overlap roles with the Siege Tank FAR too much, and they have a drastic impact on detection as you've already pointed out. Your usage of the word "coinflippy" feels very appropriate to describe the kind of dynamic they add to the game.
Perdition Turrets just seem like a better overall answer, and combined with a change to the way the Siege Tank deals damage, could greatly improve the positional style of Mech play vs Protoss.
I don't agree with your stance on Medics though.
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.
Long read but IMO, bloody brilliant. I want to play the game you have imagined Medics, flame turrets! Medicvacs would have to become just drop ships again but with medics in them - we are all good. You really gave it a lot of thought and I was happy reading it and playing it out in my head. Great post and great thinking.
How can a thread like this receive praise? It proposes a million changes which completely reworks the game in several different areas. Untestable. Also without inner structure.
I can not understand why kindof everyone on tl wants the tank to hard counter the immortal. The immortal was designed to be protoss answer to tanks. As it happens, protoss doesnt need an answer to tanks as every single unit they have does decently against tanks on their own and in synergy with each other, tanks are just shit. The immortal is just the topping of the tank rape cake that is protoss. 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.
Thanks for all the praise guys, I really appreciate it. I'm sorry you don't see a cohesive argument kcdc, but I can't fix that because I see one, and so do others.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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. 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
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...
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.
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 .
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...
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?
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.
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...
I think Hydras should be focused on rather than Ultras. A composition like Hydra/Viper/Ultra could be very effective.
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.
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.
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.
For what its worth, I find for the purposes of discussion balance changes like those suggested are best posted in separate threads so that the discussion in any thread is coherant and kept to changes regarding one unit.
Very radical changes proposed, i think reducing collosus movement speed to 1.2 from 2.25 would make them damn near useless - they're speed matches with stalkers and chargelots to keep army coherency, as soon as you start making adjustments like that, the mobility of the entire army becomes restricted to that of the slowest unit. I understand the problems you're stating with siege tanks, but the solution to one unit not working properly in the current map pool isnt to go and break all the other units, Perhaps a marginally reduced siege up time, or a secondary siege mode upgrade that lets you research a quicker siege or something like that.
Also, you have to understand that as the metagame continues to develop and players become more skilled, it would make sense that units which were strong at release with strategies employed then would become less dominant. Siege tanks now fill a nieche roll in the terran army instead of being a staple, and i think thats a good thing - terran have become more mobile and less reliant on tanks which has resulted in more dynamic gameplay.
On October 30 2012 09:54 Zergrusher wrote: To nerf the marine is really really simple.
Decrease the HP from 45 to 40.
Concider all the BUFFS the marine got from BW to sc2 this change makes the most logical sense
And make stim completely useless without combat shield and/or medivacs? Good idea!
Maybe a simple reduction in the damage multiplier you get from stimpack useage... that way they retain their mobility and can be micro'd and the health penalty for using stim isnt so great, but their damage output gets scaled back a little bit
Tanks are good in a lot of matchups. The fact that you can't win by building mostly tanks vs Protoss is probably just fine. Not every match should be tanks for Terran.
Tanks are crap in every matchup. They just happen to stop banelings, though, meaning some wasteful expenditure is a good idea just to get that job done. If you can remove the banelings from the equation in TvZ, marines will win the rest of the fight.
Very much like Vikings in TvP. If you can remove the Colossi from the equation, your MM will win the fight easily. Or Ghosts to remove High Templar from the equation, so your MM will crush everything.
The point I am trying to make is this: playing terran means making MMM, and then killing whatever the other guy builds that counters MMM, so you win.
Tanks in TvT are weird in the way all mirror matchups are. You are both using identical units. You make tanks in TvT purely because of their range. BECAUSE THEY REMOVE THE OTHER GUY'S TANKS FROM THE EQUATION, so your MM can kill everything. And you largely make Vikings in TvT to remove the other guy's vikings from the equation... Or to counter BC's if it gets to that point.
And you make colossi to remove MM from the equation, so your stalkers win the fight easily...
And mech play is just something of our collective imagination. Also no idea how making tanks removes the other guys tanks from the equation (in caps), it just prevents his tanks from moving ahead, but they arent in any way removed from the equation.
And you make vikings in TvT for the vision for your tanks. Not because MMM cant counter vikings, but because they cannot do it without getting owned by tanks. But really your logic makes no sense whatsoever. I can also say that stalkers are the only relevant unit for toss, with everything else just to kill the counters to stalkers.
On October 30 2012 09:40 tsango wrote: For what its worth, I find for the purposes of discussion balance changes like those suggested are best posted in separate threads so that the discussion in any thread is coherant and kept to changes regarding one unit.
Very radical changes proposed, i think reducing collosus movement speed to 1.2 from 2.25 would make them damn near useless - they're speed matches with stalkers and chargelots to keep army coherency, as soon as you start making adjustments like that, the mobility of the entire army becomes restricted to that of the slowest unit. I understand the problems you're stating with siege tanks, but the solution to one unit not working properly in the current map pool isnt to go and break all the other units, Perhaps a marginally reduced siege up time, or a secondary siege mode upgrade that lets you research a quicker siege or something like that.
Also, you have to understand that as the metagame continues to develop and players become more skilled, it would make sense that units which were strong at release with strategies employed then would become less dominant. Siege tanks now fill a nieche roll in the terran army instead of being a staple, and i think thats a good thing - terran have become more mobile and less reliant on tanks which has resulted in more dynamic gameplay.
I don't agree with the idea of having separate threads for each suggestion.
As I stated in the Closing Thoughts section: ..."because units are dependent on each other and nothing exists independently, you can't responsibly buff Siege Tanks or remove Vortex without reworking other areas of the game, which in turn effects other areas of the game."
In order to make one thing work, I have to change a lot of things. You cannot balance the game one unit at the time. It won't work.
About the Colossus specifically, You can load Colossus up into Warp Prisms with speed for more mobility. This requires good micro, and rewards it, and also introduces more risk and cost for using the Colossus. But the Colossus must be changed, it is essentially a moving Tank in siege mode, and perhaps the best example of it being too powerful is the fact that it is the core of every viable PvP army beyond the first few minutes.
I disagree about the reduced role of the Siege Tank leading to dynamic game play. As ledarsi said, they counter Infestors and Banelings so your Marines can kill everything else (literally) in TvZ. MMM is an A-move playstyle, but when you can't just a-move around because of units like the Siege Tank, then it becomes more interesting, as you try to outmaneuver your opponent.
On October 30 2012 09:54 Zergrusher wrote: To nerf the marine is really really simple.
Decrease the HP from 45 to 40.
Concider all the BUFFS the marine got from BW to sc2 this change makes the most logical sense
And make stim completely useless without combat shield and/or medivacs? Good idea!
The decrease was what I suggested, and with the introduction of Medics and Combat Shield giving +15 health, it does make sense, and is a good idea. Stim would not be completely useless without Combat Shields because of Medics.
On October 30 2012 19:08 Sissors wrote: And you make colossi to remove MM from the equation, so your stalkers win the fight easily...
I'm not sure you understand. In Marine/Marauder/Medivac, 85%+ of the supply, and 100% of the DPS is locked up in the Marines and Marauders, and Colossus can't hit air units. You make Colossus to kill anything on the ground, and it does a great job at it. And Stalkers don't win the fight for you, the Colossus wins the fight, the Stalkers are there to take damage for the Colossus and counter any Vikings.
Tanks on the other hand are there to kill the 25-35% of the Zerg army that hard counters Marines (Banelings and Infestors) because Marines are effective against the rest of the army.
The DPS of the Terran army comes from their basic units, while the DPS in a Zerg or Protoss army comes from their Tech units. This can be problematic when you try to introduce a playstyle like Mech, but again, you can combine the basic Bio units with Mech units and create very powerful builds.
Against toss you are right that the DPS comes from the most basic unit. Against zerg the majority of the DPS comes generally from siege tanks (and not only against banelings and infestors, it is the majority of the dps against all zerg ground units), same story in TvT. There the role of the marine is mainly mineral dump, and support for the siege tanks (of course assuming you arent doing bio play). Imo you really cant say in TvT that the siege tank is support for the marines, it is the other way around. And in TvZ generally I consider it the same, the marines kill the part that the siege tanks arent effective against. Although I do admit that it depends on your playstyle, some people depend more on the siege tanks, some more on the bio.
But in the end I dont think it is correct what ledarsi says, that in every matchup it is all about MM where the only role of the other units is support of the MM.
On October 30 2012 09:40 tsango wrote: For what its worth, I find for the purposes of discussion balance changes like those suggested are best posted in separate threads so that the discussion in any thread is coherant and kept to changes regarding one unit.
Very radical changes proposed, i think reducing collosus movement speed to 1.2 from 2.25 would make them damn near useless - they're speed matches with stalkers and chargelots to keep army coherency, as soon as you start making adjustments like that, the mobility of the entire army becomes restricted to that of the slowest unit. I understand the problems you're stating with siege tanks, but the solution to one unit not working properly in the current map pool isnt to go and break all the other units, Perhaps a marginally reduced siege up time, or a secondary siege mode upgrade that lets you research a quicker siege or something like that.
Also, you have to understand that as the metagame continues to develop and players become more skilled, it would make sense that units which were strong at release with strategies employed then would become less dominant. Siege tanks now fill a nieche roll in the terran army instead of being a staple, and i think thats a good thing - terran have become more mobile and less reliant on tanks which has resulted in more dynamic gameplay.
I don't agree with the idea of having separate threads for each suggestion.
As I stated in the Closing Thoughts section: ..."because units are dependent on each other and nothing exists independently, you can't responsibly buff Siege Tanks or remove Vortex without reworking other areas of the game, which in turn effects other areas of the game."
In order to make one thing work, I have to change a lot of things. You cannot balance the game one unit at the time. It won't work.
About the Colossus specifically, You can load Colossus up into Warp Prisms with speed for more mobility. This requires good micro, and rewards it, and also introduces more risk and cost for using the Colossus. But the Colossus must be changed, it is essentially a moving Tank in siege mode, and perhaps the best example of it being too powerful is the fact that it is the core of every viable PvP army beyond the first few minutes.
I disagree about the reduced role of the Siege Tank leading to dynamic game play. As ledarsi said, they counter Infestors and Banelings so your Marines can kill everything else (literally) in TvZ. MMM is an A-move playstyle, but when you can't just a-move around because of units like the Siege Tank, then it becomes more interesting, as you try to outmaneuver your opponent.
On October 30 2012 09:54 Zergrusher wrote: To nerf the marine is really really simple.
Decrease the HP from 45 to 40.
Concider all the BUFFS the marine got from BW to sc2 this change makes the most logical sense
And make stim completely useless without combat shield and/or medivacs? Good idea!
The decrease was what I suggested, and with the introduction of Medics and Combat Shield giving +15 health, it does make sense, and is a good idea. Stim would not be completely useless without Combat Shields because of Medics.
On October 30 2012 19:08 Sissors wrote: And you make colossi to remove MM from the equation, so your stalkers win the fight easily...
I'm not sure you understand. In Marine/Marauder/Medivac, 85%+ of the supply, and 100% of the DPS is locked up in the Marines and Marauders, and Colossus can't hit air units. You make Colossus to kill anything on the ground, and it does a great job at it. And Stalkers don't win the fight for you, the Colossus wins the fight, the Stalkers are there to take damage for the Colossus and counter any Vikings.
Tanks on the other hand are there to kill the 25-35% of the Zerg army that hard counters Marines (Banelings and Infestors) because Marines are effective against the rest of the army.
The DPS of the Terran army comes from their basic units, while the DPS in a Zerg or Protoss army comes from their Tech units. This can be problematic when you try to introduce a playstyle like Mech, but again, you can combine the basic Bio units with Mech units and create very powerful builds.
I still dont think its fair to nerf collosus by comparing them to siege tanks. Sure they're better, but they're also a tier 3 unit, which costs 300 200, instead of 150 125, and 6 supply vs 3. They also take 30 seconds longer to build than tanks... so yes, they should be vastly superior to tanks. By suggesting to nerf their speed you make a warp prism a requirement to micro them properly which adds another 200minerals to their effective cost and another 2 food which when coupled with the required extra micro would probably make them the least cost effective unit in the game. You're effectively left with a unit that to be used costs 500 200 8food, and requires very high micro - nobody would ever make them.
Also, it isnt the go to unit in PvP because its too strong, its the go to unit because every lategame protoss army has to have splash damage, and storms tend to do well against low hp units, and collosus tend to do better overall against higher hp units. That and HT's would be sniped by the other teams range 9 collosus before they were in range to get decent storms off anyway - it just becomes a dominant strategy due to mechanics in that specific matchup.
Edit: I forgot to also mention, immortals are probably the hardest counter in the game to siege tanks, so its really not a good unit to use when refering to how bad you think they are. In the same way you wouldnt try and illustrate how bad a mutalisk is by pointing out that groups of marines tend to destroy them.
1 Colossus is objectively better than 2 Siege Tanks, it is both cheaper and builds faster and is only slightly higher in the tech tree. Not to mention it is significantly stronger and mobile.
The only advantage a Siege Tank has is that it has longer range.
If Mech is to ever work, the Siege Tank needs to annihilate everything on the ground. There cannot be any ground unit that trades cost effectively against it. This is why Mech in TvT is seen more often than not, as there is not a single unit on the ground that can contest siege tanks. And also why Mech is a solid composition in TvZ since Ultralisks are really the only ground unit that can go toe to toe with Tanks and they are only seen in the late game. In TvP basically almost all of Protoss' ground units trade cost effectively with Siege Tanks, which makes them obsolete.
Good post, thanks to BronzeKnee for his hard thoughts about the game.
One idea that I think is particularly good is the shield-link between units from the mothership, replacing the good old vortex.
Regarding every other change in numbers, I don't agree with the method. You can't, I will never repeat it enough, simply throw numbers in play since they are all linked. If you propose a new number for any unit or structure, or tech, time, etc. you must obviously adress all the issues that this change will raise. From the marine to the mule, even if it's to say it doesn't affect this unit, which you may say only after testing.
Your post should rely more on ideas (like ItWhoSpeaks does), like your love for tank. Your love for tanks is the real reason of the changes you make, and should be the real matter discussed.
In fact, an amusing fact is that due to the link between BW, SC2 and HOTS, if you keep even one single unit from SC2 to HOTS, people will try to make the other ones come again into play. How many posts simply propose to add an "old good unit from BW" as a solution, since they want to apply the same mechanics of gameplay, they are tempted to do so cause both games look alike.
I think that the real turning point will be when people will discuss ideas and not numbers from the game. Don't discuss tanks HP, attack, etc. : discuss tank as an idea. I think the tank was "nerfed" so hard (regarding maps and DPS) simply because people had an other IDEA for the game, and this IDEA was to reward more mapcontrol than mapseizing. That's all.
On October 30 2012 09:40 tsango wrote: For what its worth, I find for the purposes of discussion balance changes like those suggested are best posted in separate threads so that the discussion in any thread is coherant and kept to changes regarding one unit.
Very radical changes proposed, i think reducing collosus movement speed to 1.2 from 2.25 would make them damn near useless - they're speed matches with stalkers and chargelots to keep army coherency, as soon as you start making adjustments like that, the mobility of the entire army becomes restricted to that of the slowest unit. I understand the problems you're stating with siege tanks, but the solution to one unit not working properly in the current map pool isnt to go and break all the other units, Perhaps a marginally reduced siege up time, or a secondary siege mode upgrade that lets you research a quicker siege or something like that.
Also, you have to understand that as the metagame continues to develop and players become more skilled, it would make sense that units which were strong at release with strategies employed then would become less dominant. Siege tanks now fill a nieche roll in the terran army instead of being a staple, and i think thats a good thing - terran have become more mobile and less reliant on tanks which has resulted in more dynamic gameplay.
I don't agree with the idea of having separate threads for each suggestion.
As I stated in the Closing Thoughts section: ..."because units are dependent on each other and nothing exists independently, you can't responsibly buff Siege Tanks or remove Vortex without reworking other areas of the game, which in turn effects other areas of the game."
In order to make one thing work, I have to change a lot of things. You cannot balance the game one unit at the time. It won't work.
About the Colossus specifically, You can load Colossus up into Warp Prisms with speed for more mobility. This requires good micro, and rewards it, and also introduces more risk and cost for using the Colossus. But the Colossus must be changed, it is essentially a moving Tank in siege mode, and perhaps the best example of it being too powerful is the fact that it is the core of every viable PvP army beyond the first few minutes.
I disagree about the reduced role of the Siege Tank leading to dynamic game play. As ledarsi said, they counter Infestors and Banelings so your Marines can kill everything else (literally) in TvZ. MMM is an A-move playstyle, but when you can't just a-move around because of units like the Siege Tank, then it becomes more interesting, as you try to outmaneuver your opponent.
On October 30 2012 09:54 Zergrusher wrote: To nerf the marine is really really simple.
Decrease the HP from 45 to 40.
Concider all the BUFFS the marine got from BW to sc2 this change makes the most logical sense
And make stim completely useless without combat shield and/or medivacs? Good idea!
The decrease was what I suggested, and with the introduction of Medics and Combat Shield giving +15 health, it does make sense, and is a good idea. Stim would not be completely useless without Combat Shields because of Medics.
On October 30 2012 19:08 Sissors wrote: And you make colossi to remove MM from the equation, so your stalkers win the fight easily...
I'm not sure you understand. In Marine/Marauder/Medivac, 85%+ of the supply, and 100% of the DPS is locked up in the Marines and Marauders, and Colossus can't hit air units. You make Colossus to kill anything on the ground, and it does a great job at it. And Stalkers don't win the fight for you, the Colossus wins the fight, the Stalkers are there to take damage for the Colossus and counter any Vikings.
Tanks on the other hand are there to kill the 25-35% of the Zerg army that hard counters Marines (Banelings and Infestors) because Marines are effective against the rest of the army.
The DPS of the Terran army comes from their basic units, while the DPS in a Zerg or Protoss army comes from their Tech units. This can be problematic when you try to introduce a playstyle like Mech, but again, you can combine the basic Bio units with Mech units and create very powerful builds.
Combat shield gives 10 health not 15. And no, you don't have medivacs before you tech up to them. The earliest you are going to get a medivac out is around 6:30-7min and that's if you are rushing for them with a 1/1/1. Basically the change would kill off stim pushes (no medivacs) and any sort of early aggression without marauders or stim because stalkers can kite a marine in 4 shots instead of 5 and 1 speedling would probably be able to kill off a marine.
Bio + Mech...you mean marine tank? That composition becomes significantly weaker as the game goes on.
I love to read balance solutions proposal People always thinks in awesome ideas when the have passion and love for a game.... unlike Blizzard !! I feel bad that this will just stay here and not implemented anywhere T_T ... or be popular Keep it up !!
On October 30 2012 19:08 Sissors wrote: And you make colossi to remove MM from the equation, so your stalkers win the fight easily...
And mech play is just something of our collective imagination. Also no idea how making tanks removes the other guys tanks from the equation (in caps), it just prevents his tanks from moving ahead, but they arent in any way removed from the equation.
And you make vikings in TvT for the vision for your tanks. Not because MMM cant counter vikings, but because they cannot do it without getting owned by tanks. But really your logic makes no sense whatsoever. I can also say that stalkers are the only relevant unit for toss, with everything else just to kill the counters to stalkers.
The Protoss is making colossi to counter MM, true. However if you "remove the MM from the equation" then you won the battle because the enemy army is gone. This is quite different from killing a few target key units, and once they are gone (or neutralized with EMP) then the main fight is incredibly one-sided.
The difference is that stalkers don't kill everything by themselves. MM does, and quite efficiently. In fact, so efficiently that you can suffer massive casualties in the first few seconds of a battle against colossi, HTs, banelings, fungal, siege tanks, or what have you, and still win the battle if you can deal with those units immediately. I have lost count of the number of battles by terran against zerg or protoss that the start off very badly, and then once the key units from the opponent are gone, the MM (despite how small the army is) still wins. Or, conversely, the key units don't die, and the terran gets wiped.
With respect to TvT- if you only needed vision for tanks, Medivacs work. Vikings kill the medivacs, and you need to make vikings to kill the vikings that are killing your medivacs. Tanks are acting as key units, sort of like colossi in TvP. If they can be eliminated (or unsieged) then MM will clean up. And since it is a mirror, both sides have the same unit.
On October 30 2012 21:30 Zombo Joe wrote: 1 Colossus is objectively better than 2 Siege Tank..
If Mech is to ever work, the Siege Tank needs to annihilate everything on the ground...
Could not have said it better myself. The Colossus fills the same basic role as the Siege Tank, and the results of which unit is used more than the other speaks for itself about which is better. The Colossus is used in all three match ups, while the Siege Tank isn't.
The Colossus is objectively better.
In many ways this is like discussing whether the Marine is better than the Hydralisk. They both fill the same roles, and it should be obvious that the Marine is far superior. And if the Hydralisk is ever to be viable in TvZ, then it needs a buff.
Now if you replace Marine with Colossus and Hydralisk with Siege Tank and Tvz with TvP in paragraph, the argument is just as strong and valid.
On October 30 2012 22:21 GARcher wrote: Combat shield gives 10 health not 15. And no, you don't have medivacs before you tech up to them. The earliest you are going to get a medivac out is around 6:30-7min and that's if you are rushing for them with a 1/1/1.
Buddy, read the OP. Yes I know you can't heal right now without Medivacs, and I know right now Combat Shield gives 10 not 15. This thread isn't about what exists now, this is about what could exist. You're way off in left field talking about something that is totally unrelated.
I suggested reducing Marine health from 45 to 40 and to make Combat Shield give 15 instead of 10 health. I also suggested that Medics are added into the game as a Barracks Tech Lab units to compensate for the Marine health nerf. I agree that reducing Marine health alone would be a bad idea. But the point of this thread is that you can't make Siege Tanks viable without changing a bunch of things about the game and those changes all need to be considered as a package, and not individually.
So please, read the OP then post.
On October 30 2012 21:59 Glorfindel21 wrote: Good post, thanks to BronzeKnee for his hard thoughts about the game.
One idea that I think is particularly good is the shield-link between units from the mothership, replacing the good old vortex.
Regarding every other change in numbers, I don't agree with the method. You can't, I will never repeat it enough, simply throw numbers in play since they are all linked. If you propose a new number for any unit or structure, or tech, time, etc. you must obviously adress all the issues that this change will raise. From the marine to the mule, even if it's to say it doesn't affect this unit, which you may say only after testing.
Your post should rely more on ideas (like ItWhoSpeaks does), like your love for tank. Your love for tanks is the real reason of the changes you make, and should be the real matter discussed.
In fact, an amusing fact is that due to the link between BW, SC2 and HOTS, if you keep even one single unit from SC2 to HOTS, people will try to make the other ones come again into play. How many posts simply propose to add an "old good unit from BW" as a solution, since they want to apply the same mechanics of gameplay, they are tempted to do so cause both games look alike.
I think that the real turning point will be when people will discuss ideas and not numbers from the game. Don't discuss tanks HP, attack, etc. : discuss tank as an idea. I think the tank was "nerfed" so hard (regarding maps and DPS) simply because people had an other IDEA for the game, and this IDEA was to reward more mapcontrol than mapseizing. That's all.
I am thinking there is language barrier here that is preventing me from fully understanding. I throw numbers around to give people an idea of what I am talking about, they are not set in stone, and should be used a framework for my ideas. I also don't love Siege Tanks, but I do love positional play.
Also, map control and map seizing to me are the same thing. Right now, map control isn't worth as much as it should be in my opinion. If an opponent sieges up my expansion like in the pictures in the OP, that should be checkmate, lost expansion. I should not have let my opponent get in that position, and should have been more out on the map and challenging him for space. But instead I have enough a-move Immortals that I walked through him, even if he has the better position and map control.
And that is one of the problems with SC2 regarding counters. They require very little skill to use and the game becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors, where the real skill is in scouting so you can know what your opponent is going to throw, and adjust accordingly. That isn't a bad game, but it is less interesting in my opinion than something like the Immortal countering the Siege Tank when out of Siege Mode, while the Siege Tank counters the Immortal while in Siege Mode, which leads to interesting positional play.
Something that wasnt really raised was the notion that protoss tech is usually very strong, because gateway units on their own are terrible.
I dont think the solution to siege tank problems is nerfing collosus, if tanks have problems adjustments made to tanks should be the solution. You have to remember that tanks are balanced around use with bio (terran bio is very good), if tanks were balanced for mech to be viable in TvP, then TvZ would be completely broken. Similarly, collosus are balanced around being used with gateway units (which suck), if you go and haphazardly slap nerfs on units like it then that might balance a particular tech tree in one matchup, but makes collosus completely useless in PvZ. If terran bio performed similarly in cost effectiveness to gateway units, then you could make a real arguement for tanks not being properly balanced, but given pure mech builds are a not uncommon thing, buffing tanks to that degree would result in nobody playing bio.
On October 31 2012 06:42 tsango wrote: Something that wasnt really raised was the notion that protoss tech is usually very strong, because gateway units on their own are terrible.
I dont think the solution to siege tank problems is nerfing collosus, if tanks have problems adjustments made to tanks should be the solution. You have to remember that tanks are balanced around use with bio (terran bio is very good), if tanks were balanced for mech to be viable in TvP, then TvZ would be completely broken. Similarly, collosus are balanced around being used with gateway units (which suck), if you go and haphazardly slap nerfs on units like it then that might balance a particular tech tree in one matchup, but makes collosus completely useless in PvZ. If terran bio performed similarly in cost effectiveness to gateway units, then you could make a real arguement for tanks not being properly balanced, but given pure mech builds are a not uncommon thing, buffing tanks to that degree would result in nobody playing bio.
This is why balancing the game is so difficult
Well I thought of all that honestly. I believe Zerg got two new good units in the Swarm Host and Viper, that emphasize positional play, so it is hard to talk about TvZ with them, especially since I play Protoss. I also mentioned that Centrifugal Hooks might need to Banelings a +1 armor upgrade if Tanks becomes too strong vs Banelings, as with the changes mentioned, it would mean Banelings don't die in one Tank hit.
I don't see adding range and hit points and reducing build time to the Colossus as a nerf. And again, you can load them in and out Speed Prisms to make up for their speed reduction. In general, I'm adjusting the role of Protoss Robotics units, rather than nerfing them. They won't be a-move units anymore, but they will still be very powerful, but they'll emphasize and allow for positional play. I also mentioned buffing the Archon's DPS to give Protoss better mobile AOE.
So these nerfs and buffs certainly are not haphazardly done with no regard for different matchups. And if you read the entire OP you'd understand that.
If you have specific issues with any change, let's talk about it, I know the changes need work. But labeling them haphazardly done with no examples and then saying balancing is hard is meaningless.
On October 31 2012 06:42 tsango wrote: Something that wasnt really raised was the notion that protoss tech is usually very strong, because gateway units on their own are terrible.
I dont think the solution to siege tank problems is nerfing collosus, if tanks have problems adjustments made to tanks should be the solution. You have to remember that tanks are balanced around use with bio (terran bio is very good), if tanks were balanced for mech to be viable in TvP, then TvZ would be completely broken. Similarly, collosus are balanced around being used with gateway units (which suck), if you go and haphazardly slap nerfs on units like it then that might balance a particular tech tree in one matchup, but makes collosus completely useless in PvZ. If terran bio performed similarly in cost effectiveness to gateway units, then you could make a real arguement for tanks not being properly balanced, but given pure mech builds are a not uncommon thing, buffing tanks to that degree would result in nobody playing bio.
This is why balancing the game is so difficult
Well I thought of all that honestly. I believe Zerg got two new good units in the Swarm Host and Viper, that emphasize positional play, so it is hard to talk about TvZ with them, especially since I play Protoss. I also mentioned that Centrifugal Hooks might need to Banelings a +1 armor upgrade if Tanks becomes too strong vs Banelings, as with the changes mentioned, it would mean Banelings don't die in one Tank hit.
I don't see adding range and hit points and reducing build time to the Colossus as a nerf. And again, you can load them in and out Speed Prisms to make up for their speed reduction. In general, I'm adjusting the role of Protoss Robotics units, rather than nerfing them. They won't be a-move units anymore, but they will still be very powerful, but they'll emphasize and allow for positional play. I also mentioned buffing the Archon's DPS to give Protoss better mobile AOE.
So these nerfs and buffs certainly are not haphazardly done with no regard for different matchups. And if you read the entire OP you'd understand that.
If you have specific issues with any change, let's talk about it, I know the changes need work. But labeling them haphazardly done with no examples and then saying balancing is hard is meaningless.
Yes we really need to watch more free units killing other free units in ZvZ and a unit that picks up the other plays units that are making the free units soo one player has more free units then the other player meanwhile killing your money made units with free units giving you a free unit advantage.....
On October 30 2012 21:30 Zombo Joe wrote: 1 Colossus is objectively better than 2 Siege Tank..
If Mech is to ever work, the Siege Tank needs to annihilate everything on the ground...
Could not have said it better myself. The Colossus fills the same basic role as the Siege Tank, and the results of which unit is used more than the other speaks for itself about which is better. The Colossus is used in all three match ups, while the Siege Tank isn't.
The Colossus is objectively better.
In many ways this is like discussing whether the Marine is better than the Hydralisk. They both fill the same roles, and it should be obvious that the Marine is far superior. And if the Hydralisk is ever to be viable in TvZ, then it needs a buff.
Now if you replace Marine with Colossus and Hydralisk with Siege Tank and Tvz with TvP in paragraph, the argument is just as strong and valid.
On October 30 2012 22:21 GARcher wrote: Combat shield gives 10 health not 15. And no, you don't have medivacs before you tech up to them. The earliest you are going to get a medivac out is around 6:30-7min and that's if you are rushing for them with a 1/1/1.
Buddy, read the OP. Yes I know you can't heal right now without Medivacs, and I know right now Combat Shield gives 10 not 15. This thread isn't about what exists now, this is about what could exist. You're way off in left field talking about something that is totally unrelated.
I suggested reducing Marine health from 45 to 40 and to make Combat Shield give 15 instead of 10 health. I also suggested that Medics are added into the game as a Barracks Tech Lab units to compensate for the Marine health nerf. I agree that reducing Marine health alone would be a bad idea. But the point of this thread is that you can't make Siege Tanks viable without changing a bunch of things about the game and those changes all need to be considered as a package, and not individually.
On October 30 2012 21:59 Glorfindel21 wrote: Good post, thanks to BronzeKnee for his hard thoughts about the game.
One idea that I think is particularly good is the shield-link between units from the mothership, replacing the good old vortex.
Regarding every other change in numbers, I don't agree with the method. You can't, I will never repeat it enough, simply throw numbers in play since they are all linked. If you propose a new number for any unit or structure, or tech, time, etc. you must obviously adress all the issues that this change will raise. From the marine to the mule, even if it's to say it doesn't affect this unit, which you may say only after testing.
Your post should rely more on ideas (like ItWhoSpeaks does), like your love for tank. Your love for tanks is the real reason of the changes you make, and should be the real matter discussed.
In fact, an amusing fact is that due to the link between BW, SC2 and HOTS, if you keep even one single unit from SC2 to HOTS, people will try to make the other ones come again into play. How many posts simply propose to add an "old good unit from BW" as a solution, since they want to apply the same mechanics of gameplay, they are tempted to do so cause both games look alike.
I think that the real turning point will be when people will discuss ideas and not numbers from the game. Don't discuss tanks HP, attack, etc. : discuss tank as an idea. I think the tank was "nerfed" so hard (regarding maps and DPS) simply because people had an other IDEA for the game, and this IDEA was to reward more mapcontrol than mapseizing. That's all.
I am thinking there is language barrier here that is preventing me from fully understanding. I throw numbers around to give people an idea of what I am talking about, they are not set in stone, and should be used a framework for my ideas. I also don't love Siege Tanks, but I do love positional play.
Also, map control and map seizing to me are the same thing. Right now, map control isn't worth as much as it should be in my opinion. If an opponent sieges up my expansion like in the pictures in the OP, that should be checkmate, lost expansion. I should not have let my opponent get in that position, and should have been more out on the map and challenging him for space. But instead I have enough a-move Immortals that I walked through him, even if he has the better position and map control.
And that is one of the problems with SC2 regarding counters. They require very little skill to use and the game becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors, where the real skill is in scouting so you can know what your opponent is going to throw, and adjust accordingly. That isn't a bad game, but it is less interesting in my opinion than something like the Immortal countering the Siege Tank when out of Siege Mode, while the Siege Tank counters the Immortal while in Siege Mode, which leads to interesting positional play.
First of all how often a unit is used does not say how 'good' a unit is per se. How often a unit is made is the combined results of it's quality, the metagame and what situations it's good in. A unit can be really good (have great stats) but never be used because the scenario you need it for just doesn't come up. The scout in BW is a good example of this, it's quite good against battlecruisers but just never made because BCs are never made either in TvP.
You just can't say colossi are better than siege tanks really, in fact if i could keep all protoss units and exchange the colossus for the siege tank i'd definately do so, most probably would.
Besides I don't get what the fuzz about mech viability is now, it's already awesome in HotS now. It's the best option in TvT and TvZ at the moment and indeed not viable in TvP but that may come soon, one or two specific buffs to beat zealot/archon/immortal and carriers a bit easier could go a long way already, drastic changes as in this thread are a bit unrealistic at this point probably. For example putting putting detection back on revelation instead of the MsC and just buffing the thor a bit (better ability and/or more damage against armored air) would do enough probably.
On November 01 2012 05:08 Markwerf wrote: Besides I don't get what the fuzz about mech viability is now, it's already awesome in HotS now. It's the best option in TvT and TvZ at the moment and indeed not viable in TvP but that may come soon, one or two specific buffs to beat zealot/archon/immortal and carriers a bit easier could go a long way already, drastic changes as in this thread are a bit unrealistic at this point probably. For example putting putting detection back on revelation instead of the MsC and just buffing the thor a bit (better ability and/or more damage against armored air) would do enough probably.
Yes, I want more damage to non-light air for the Thor, and maybe let it hit Colossi.
With the changes to the immortal you propose, you will once again see both players 4 gate every game in PvP. This is a problem. But you had some good ideas.
On October 30 2012 21:30 Zombo Joe wrote: 1 Colossus is objectively better than 2 Siege Tank..
If Mech is to ever work, the Siege Tank needs to annihilate everything on the ground...
Could not have said it better myself. The Colossus fills the same basic role as the Siege Tank, and the results of which unit is used more than the other speaks for itself about which is better. The Colossus is used in all three match ups, while the Siege Tank isn't.
The Colossus is objectively better.
In many ways this is like discussing whether the Marine is better than the Hydralisk. They both fill the same roles, and it should be obvious that the Marine is far superior. And if the Hydralisk is ever to be viable in TvZ, then it needs a buff.
Now if you replace Marine with Colossus and Hydralisk with Siege Tank and Tvz with TvP in paragraph, the argument is just as strong and valid.
On October 30 2012 22:21 GARcher wrote: Combat shield gives 10 health not 15. And no, you don't have medivacs before you tech up to them. The earliest you are going to get a medivac out is around 6:30-7min and that's if you are rushing for them with a 1/1/1.
Buddy, read the OP. Yes I know you can't heal right now without Medivacs, and I know right now Combat Shield gives 10 not 15. This thread isn't about what exists now, this is about what could exist. You're way off in left field talking about something that is totally unrelated.
I suggested reducing Marine health from 45 to 40 and to make Combat Shield give 15 instead of 10 health. I also suggested that Medics are added into the game as a Barracks Tech Lab units to compensate for the Marine health nerf. I agree that reducing Marine health alone would be a bad idea. But the point of this thread is that you can't make Siege Tanks viable without changing a bunch of things about the game and those changes all need to be considered as a package, and not individually.
On October 30 2012 21:59 Glorfindel21 wrote: Good post, thanks to BronzeKnee for his hard thoughts about the game.
One idea that I think is particularly good is the shield-link between units from the mothership, replacing the good old vortex.
Regarding every other change in numbers, I don't agree with the method. You can't, I will never repeat it enough, simply throw numbers in play since they are all linked. If you propose a new number for any unit or structure, or tech, time, etc. you must obviously adress all the issues that this change will raise. From the marine to the mule, even if it's to say it doesn't affect this unit, which you may say only after testing.
Your post should rely more on ideas (like ItWhoSpeaks does), like your love for tank. Your love for tanks is the real reason of the changes you make, and should be the real matter discussed.
In fact, an amusing fact is that due to the link between BW, SC2 and HOTS, if you keep even one single unit from SC2 to HOTS, people will try to make the other ones come again into play. How many posts simply propose to add an "old good unit from BW" as a solution, since they want to apply the same mechanics of gameplay, they are tempted to do so cause both games look alike.
I think that the real turning point will be when people will discuss ideas and not numbers from the game. Don't discuss tanks HP, attack, etc. : discuss tank as an idea. I think the tank was "nerfed" so hard (regarding maps and DPS) simply because people had an other IDEA for the game, and this IDEA was to reward more mapcontrol than mapseizing. That's all.
I am thinking there is language barrier here that is preventing me from fully understanding. I throw numbers around to give people an idea of what I am talking about, they are not set in stone, and should be used a framework for my ideas. I also don't love Siege Tanks, but I do love positional play.
Also, map control and map seizing to me are the same thing. Right now, map control isn't worth as much as it should be in my opinion. If an opponent sieges up my expansion like in the pictures in the OP, that should be checkmate, lost expansion. I should not have let my opponent get in that position, and should have been more out on the map and challenging him for space. But instead I have enough a-move Immortals that I walked through him, even if he has the better position and map control.
And that is one of the problems with SC2 regarding counters. They require very little skill to use and the game becomes a game of rock-paper-scissors, where the real skill is in scouting so you can know what your opponent is going to throw, and adjust accordingly. That isn't a bad game, but it is less interesting in my opinion than something like the Immortal countering the Siege Tank when out of Siege Mode, while the Siege Tank counters the Immortal while in Siege Mode, which leads to interesting positional play.
First of all how often a unit is used does not say how 'good' a unit is per se. How often a unit is made is the combined results of it's quality, the metagame and what situations it's good in. A unit can be really good (have great stats) but never be used because the scenario you need it for just doesn't come up. The scout in BW is a good example of this, it's quite good against battlecruisers but just never made because BCs are never made either in TvP.
You just can't say colossi are better than siege tanks really, in fact if i could keep all protoss units and exchange the colossus for the siege tank i'd definately do so, most probably would.
Besides I don't get what the fuzz about mech viability is now, it's already awesome in HotS now. It's the best option in TvT and TvZ at the moment and indeed not viable in TvP but that may come soon, one or two specific buffs to beat zealot/archon/immortal and carriers a bit easier could go a long way already, drastic changes as in this thread are a bit unrealistic at this point probably. For example putting putting detection back on revelation instead of the MsC and just buffing the thor a bit (better ability and/or more damage against armored air) would do enough probably.
Mech is the best option in TvT right now not because of how good mech is, but because Bio is not viable.
On November 01 2012 05:54 esprsjsalvz wrote: With the changes to the immortal you propose, you will once again see both players 4 gate every game in PvP. This is a problem. But you had some good ideas.
I don't even know what to say to this...
4 Gate is dead in PvP WOL unless someone is being greedy, and that fact has nothing to do with the Immortal, it has to do with the Sentry or Two gate openings (like the 3 Stalker Rush). 4 Gate isn't even close to being viable vs even greedy builds in HOTS with Purify and because pylons don't give a powerfield on the high ground (except 4 Gate can work on the stupid map with the huge ramp). I've been incredibly greedy in HOTS because Purify is so powerful defensively. Hit one button, and you hold a two rax! It is skilless and dumb but that is a different story...
But anyway, faster building and cheaper Immortals would actually help hold off a 4 Gate. I'm thinking you are a lower league player who doesn't fully grasp the game yet...
I agree with a good amount of it. I wrote a thread a long while ago that talks about how silly late game PvZ is right now - either infestors or Corruptors need to change in order to make it an even field again.
As far as mech goes, though, I really do think that either one of buffing tanks or nerfing marines is the way to go in order to fix things. If we're going to be given these enormous maps, then the slow, position based units that are supposed to say "get the f*ck off my lawn" really need to have the firepower to make shit melt when they get in range. I barf a little whenever I see a pack of marines run up to a few tanks and focus fire them down. I include Tempests and Carriers as well as Siege Tanks in this statement.
At the same time, we can't have the cheapest and most basic units like marines having the insane DPS that they do along with ridiculous mobility. It makes it worse that you don't have to choose between allocating supply to make your units durable versus adding extra punch to your drops - having dropships heal lets you have your cake and eat it too.
On November 01 2012 14:42 TGalore wrote: I agree with a good amount of it. I wrote a thread a long while ago that talks about how silly late game PvZ is right now - either infestors or Corruptors need to change in order to make it an even field again.
As far as mech goes, though, I really do think that either one of buffing tanks or nerfing marines is the way to go in order to fix things. If we're going to be given these enormous maps, then the slow, position based units that are supposed to say "get the f*ck off my lawn" really need to have the firepower to make shit melt when they get in range. I barf a little whenever I see a pack of marines run up to a few tanks and focus fire them down. I include Tempests and Carriers as well as Siege Tanks in this statement.
At the same time, we can't have the cheapest and most basic units like marines having the insane DPS that they do along with ridiculous mobility. It makes it worse that you don't have to choose between allocating supply to make your units durable versus adding extra punch to your drops - having dropships heal lets you have your cake and eat it too.
It's the other guy's problem not supporting his tanks. If you need to barf, barf at how bad he is.
As of right now, mech just doesn't work outside of TvT. In TvP it is completely shut down by pretty much anything and in TvZ, the Viper is probably going to make a lot of people go back to bio.
Well despite the fact the Galaxy editor is terrible (compared to the WC3 editor for me at least...) I was able to put my Wc3 editing skills to use and have a completed the Terran changes I listed in the OP, as well as changing the Immortal, Colossus and Archon, so we can test the TvP changes. I really think I hit a nice balance with the units, though the Siege Tank might be too much. I also worry that Immortal will still be too strong. I'm going to put it up tomorrow after I do one more run through to make sure it all works right.
I didn't add in the Tempest (since it only effects PvZ really) or the Goliath AOE anti-air upgrade, but I did reduce Carrier build time and made Interceptors cost 10 minerals.
Any Masters/Diamond Terran want to play me tomorrow (BronzeKnee.303 on NA)? I actually have vetoed Daybreak every season but I made the changes for that map. I'll probably put up another map too if it is actually fun.
So with regards to the tank if we give it a damage boost to mechanical we can buff it against P (which it needs) and against mech terran which can allow at least a marine tank style against P. Might also allow mech versus P but probably not since the main problem is the chargelots.
On November 03 2012 10:49 Sircoolguy wrote: So with regards to the tank if we give it a damage boost to mechanical we can buff it against P (which it needs) and against mech terran which can allow at least a marine tank style against P. Might also allow mech versus P but probably not since the main problem is the chargelots.
On November 01 2012 14:42 TGalore wrote: I agree with a good amount of it. I wrote a thread a long while ago that talks about how silly late game PvZ is right now - either infestors or Corruptors need to change in order to make it an even field again.
As far as mech goes, though, I really do think that either one of buffing tanks or nerfing marines is the way to go in order to fix things. If we're going to be given these enormous maps, then the slow, position based units that are supposed to say "get the f*ck off my lawn" really need to have the firepower to make shit melt when they get in range. I barf a little whenever I see a pack of marines run up to a few tanks and focus fire them down. I include Tempests and Carriers as well as Siege Tanks in this statement.
At the same time, we can't have the cheapest and most basic units like marines having the insane DPS that they do along with ridiculous mobility. It makes it worse that you don't have to choose between allocating supply to make your units durable versus adding extra punch to your drops - having dropships heal lets you have your cake and eat it too.
Have you ever wondered WHY the Marines have such high dps? They do so because they are packed tightly together and this maximises the dps. 3-4 Marines arent going to do much, but if you have 20+ of them in a tight clump they can be awesome ... especially against anything in the air. Blizzard noticed this and then invented hard-counters of Banelings and Forcefield to make their game work at all (Terrans didnt really get any hard-counter at all since the Siege Tank had been watered down to "ohh I dont even kill a Marine in one shot anymore" status because it got "balanced" on Steppes of War). Sadly hard-counters are the wrong way to do it.
So the Marine is FINE as a unit, but the clumping up screws up the whole thing because you can have a MUCH higher concentration of Marines in an area to attack with ... and this is valid for all units. A fix for this problem is easy: - just stop the auto-clumping and replace it with auto-spreading instead, but add a way to force units into tight formations AND - limit the number of units selected to 12 AND - increase the area and damage of AoE attacks (with the exception of Fungal Growth, which is already far too powerful). This way there would be a clear defenders advantage again, because they could have tight formations while waiting for the attack and the ridiculous importance of mobility (which is another reason why mech isnt viable) would be gone.
Basically the problem all boils down to what Paracelsus said 500 years ago: "All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." Units in SC2 are simply too concentrated [the definition of the deathball ... which we dont like to see as the only viable tactic] to be good for the game. This concentration was probably added to the game without thinking about the consequences and because they could AND because they thought that "more bigger battles" would be "better battles"; they were totally wrong there.
On November 03 2012 19:12 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: That's just stupid...
Who matches into a battlefield single file?! This is a strategy game set in the future...
Clumps are efficient to a point, I do like have either single file and "clump" formation available.
"Automatic" formations are stupid, because they are not in the style of Starcraft and fit more to games like Total War or such ... and if you are honest the armies nowadays rush into battle in "3-5 file" already. Just watch a horde of Zerglings rush into battle and you will see it.
Btw. ... I am just assuming that you are commenting on my proposal to reduce the density of units ... which is NOT the same as "marching into battle single file". The big problem is the "density of units", which requires for AoE to be nerfed while maximising the dps of that clump. No one has argued with this mathematical fact and I believe this causes huge problems.
The whole point is that clumps are TOO EFFICIENT for their own dps and require that any AoE used against them has to be nerfed or it will make the clump totally useless.
The only part I disagree with is the Medic. We can't fix SC2 by using what worked in SC1.
Medivacs are fine as they are, and the fact that their energy allows more units to counter them is a good thing.
I'd rather adjust Marines a different way: Reduce damage by 1, HP by 5. All terran buildings are bunkers with 1 slot, for marines only.
This will allow terran players to safely - albeit slowly - defend against Zerglings in Zealots that need to have better stats because they are melee. The extended possibility of playing "musical chairs" with your Marines further raises the APM limit.
Bronzeknee, this is probably the best written suggestion I have read on sc2 forums. You make sense and Its easy to follow your reasoning.
The suggestions themselves are also sound, although there is a lot of changes you propose its obviously they all is meant to achieve a better positional game play. I agree that you can´t just change one thing without thinking on how that affect other matchups and army compositions therefore all these changes are connected
I also want to commend you on your reasoning skills where you keep a cool head and listen to peoples opinions and answer in a proper manner. It really makes this thread stand out from a lot of other threads witch involves more bashing and biased trash talking.
As for the suggestions themselves, I would also love a more position based gameplay and with that in mind I have always been a bit worried about the tempest, the long range forces Terran tank play to engage protoss witch basically removes all form a position play from tanks. You mention a ground attack on the "new" tempest, what range do you suggest on that ground attack?
Just wanna say Great OP!!! Some things I already debate for a long time (Colossus too mobile; Siegetank lines can be overwhelmed way too easy; Marines have too high dps, but are needed that way atm or Terrans will crumble). Noone ever listened tome though. I hope this well written post will get a lot of attention, which it deserves!
A for effort, but the changes are too radical. You have now proposed an alpha build. How long do you think Blizzard would need to tweak this in order to make it into the beta? 2 months? 3? In the meantime the beta had to stop of course. Then we would need to beta test it to at least get to the state which we are now. How many months? 1? 2? Sorry to tell this, but it is just too unrealistic. The scope is too big and Blizzard will definitely not throw their careful testing of the current SC2 Ecosystem overboard to make your proposed changes.
On November 04 2012 01:16 D4V3Z02 wrote: increasing siege tank dmg is stupid, they wont just deal too much dmg to lings also to roaches.
So if increasing the damage is stupid, why wont they deal too much damage to lings and roaches?
The point is that the tight clumping maximizes the damage of "infantry" and because of that formation the damage of the siege tank has been nerfed to a point where it is just a minor nuisance instead of a serious threat. With some proper micro you could probably take out a lone sieged tank with 4 Marines, because he doesnt even kill a Marine in one shot and has the immobility/transformation to deal with.
On November 04 2012 01:25 Existor wrote: Use marauders to kill Immortals, stop play with one tech-path, it's very boring
Marauders aren't cost efficient versus my Immortal, I already showed the math to someone. One Immortal kills 2 stimmed Marauders (costs are 175/75 for the Immortal versus 200/50 for the Marauders) with 18 HP left.
Compare that to the old Immortal, who loses to three stimmed Marauders (costs are 250/100 vs 300/75).
Even still, the Immortal isn't the answer to a Bio player because Marines are very strong vs the Immortal. Archon/High Templar/Zealot/Colossus is still the answer.
And there is no reason for a Mech player to switch over to Marauders when Tanks handle Immortals in Siege Mode just fine, and then the Terran won't have to commit gas to a new set of upgrades or Medics. Upgraded Immortals would mince unupgraded Marauders if a Terran player tried to switch over...
On November 03 2012 20:47 Beppe wrote: As for the suggestions themselves, I would also love a more position based gameplay and with that in mind I have always been a bit worried about the tempest, the long range forces Terran tank play to engage protoss witch basically removes all form a position play from tanks. You mention a ground attack on the "new" tempest, what range do you suggest on that ground attack?
6 range for the ground attack on the Tempest. Since it deals AOE damage to air units, it would be a specialized unit to deal specifically with mass Muta, Phoenix, Voids, Banshee, and Corrupters, and you'd only transform 3-4 of them from Phoenixes. Without something to handle mass Corrupters in late game PvZ, you can't remove Vortex.
With the Carrier buffs, it becomes the long range answer to Mech play, and can be handled by Warhounds or Marines in combination with Vikings.
On November 04 2012 00:28 kochujang wrote: Sorry to tell this, but it is just too unrealistic. The scope is too big and Blizzard will definitely not throw their careful testing of the current SC2 Ecosystem overboard to make your proposed changes.
To honest, I don't think this needs as much testing as you think it would.
Good ideas work. Bad ideas don't. It doesn't matter how much balancing you do. The original Warhound was never going to work.
On November 03 2012 20:18 anon734912 wrote: Great post, OP.
The only part I disagree with is the Medic. We can't fix SC2 by using what worked in SC1.
Medivacs are fine as they are, and the fact that their energy allows more units to counter them is a good thing.
I'd rather adjust Marines a different way: Reduce damage by 1, HP by 5. All terran buildings are bunkers with 1 slot, for marines only.
This will allow terran players to safely - albeit slowly - defend against Zerglings in Zealots that need to have better stats because they are melee. The extended possibility of playing "musical chairs" with your Marines further raises the APM limit.
I dont think changing the combat values for Marines will solve anything, because the true problem is the "critical mass" of them. The speed in which units are dying is MUCH higher if you have 20 Marines shooting an opponents forces compared to having only 5-6 shoot something. With a lower amount of units fighting each other you might be able to react in time and/or targetfire opposing units.
Sadly the "proponents of unit clumping and unlimited unit selection" dont seem to understand this problem and how "less is more" [microability and control] in this case.
So to solve the "mass Marines problem" [you can replace Marine with basically any Infantry unit IMO] you can tackle it from two sides: 1. You can force the infantry to spread out as the "standard positioning" and only allow clumping through micro, plus limiting the number of units per control group. 2. You can take out the economy and production speed boosts, which will result in more expensive units becoming worth more, because "production cycles" would become a sort of resource as well.
Fiddling with the unit values of specific units wont work, because ALL infantry units have that same problem and to deter clumping there needs to be a "penalty" in the form of dangerous AoE damage.
On November 03 2012 20:18 anon734912 wrote: Great post, OP.
The only part I disagree with is the Medic. We can't fix SC2 by using what worked in SC1.
Medivacs are fine as they are, and the fact that their energy allows more units to counter them is a good thing.
I'd rather adjust Marines a different way: Reduce damage by 1, HP by 5. All terran buildings are bunkers with 1 slot, for marines only.
This will allow terran players to safely - albeit slowly - defend against Zerglings in Zealots that need to have better stats because they are melee. The extended possibility of playing "musical chairs" with your Marines further raises the APM limit.
I dont think changing the combat values for Marines will solve anything, because the true problem is the "critical mass" of them. The speed in which units are dying is MUCH higher if you have 20 Marines shooting an opponents forces compared to having only 5-6 shoot something. With a lower amount of units fighting each other you might be able to react in time and/or targetfire opposing units.
Sadly the "proponents of unit clumping and unlimited unit selection" dont seem to understand this problem and how "less is more" [microability and control] in this case.
So to solve the "mass Marines problem" [you can replace Marine with basically any Infantry unit IMO] you can tackle it from two sides: 1. You can force the infantry to spread out as the "standard positioning" and only allow clumping through micro, plus limiting the number of units per control group. 2. You can take out the economy and production speed boosts, which will result in more expensive units becoming worth more, because "production cycles" would become a sort of resource as well.
Fiddling with the unit values of specific units wont work, because ALL infantry units have that same problem and to deter clumping there needs to be a "penalty" in the form of dangerous AoE damage.
The proposed changes here aren't supposed to "fix" this "problem" you have with unit clumping. Reducing their HP by 5, allow Terran to build Medics with slow heal to compensate early, and then returning the HP with Combat Shields mean that unupgraded Marines from a Reactor mixed into the 1-1-1 or 1-1-2 are less powerful, allowing us to buff Tanks. So Bio isn't losing anything, and Mech is gaining.
On November 03 2012 20:18 anon734912 wrote: Great post, OP.
The only part I disagree with is the Medic. We can't fix SC2 by using what worked in SC1.
Medivacs are fine as they are, and the fact that their energy allows more units to counter them is a good thing.
I'd rather adjust Marines a different way: Reduce damage by 1, HP by 5. All terran buildings are bunkers with 1 slot, for marines only.
This will allow terran players to safely - albeit slowly - defend against Zerglings in Zealots that need to have better stats because they are melee. The extended possibility of playing "musical chairs" with your Marines further raises the APM limit.
I dont think changing the combat values for Marines will solve anything, because the true problem is the "critical mass" of them. The speed in which units are dying is MUCH higher if you have 20 Marines shooting an opponents forces compared to having only 5-6 shoot something. With a lower amount of units fighting each other you might be able to react in time and/or targetfire opposing units.
Sadly the "proponents of unit clumping and unlimited unit selection" dont seem to understand this problem and how "less is more" [microability and control] in this case.
So to solve the "mass Marines problem" [you can replace Marine with basically any Infantry unit IMO] you can tackle it from two sides: 1. You can force the infantry to spread out as the "standard positioning" and only allow clumping through micro, plus limiting the number of units per control group. 2. You can take out the economy and production speed boosts, which will result in more expensive units becoming worth more, because "production cycles" would become a sort of resource as well.
Fiddling with the unit values of specific units wont work, because ALL infantry units have that same problem and to deter clumping there needs to be a "penalty" in the form of dangerous AoE damage.
The proposed changes here aren't supposed to "fix" this "problem" you have with unit clumping. Reducing their HP by 5, allow Terran to build Medics with slow heal to compensate early, and then returning the HP with Combat Shields mean that unupgraded Marines from a Reactor mixed into the 1-1-1 or 1-1-2 are less powerful, allowing us to buff Tanks. So Bio isn't losing anything, and Mech is gaining.
Your proposed fixes wont solve anything, because the clumping remains. I just watched Leenock vs Rain (game 1) and there was "a clump of Roaches" vs "a clump of Stalkers" and the Stalkers were easily nibbled to death over time by the "superior mobility" of the Roaches (burrow) and managed to 1-shot one or two Stalkers every few seconds while running backwards and forwards. That totally looked wrong, because Stalkers shouldnt die that easily to Roaches. Shields are basically useless in such a 1-shot-situation and again it boils down to the concentration of the units.
So - while I think your effort might bring *some* good - I do believe you are focusing on the wrong target for the effort of fixing the uselessness of mech. Mech did work in BW, so that should be the baseline to start from. Sadly Blizzard didnt do that and rather started with a clean sheet and simply imported some units from BW.
On November 03 2012 20:18 anon734912 wrote: Great post, OP.
The only part I disagree with is the Medic. We can't fix SC2 by using what worked in SC1.
Medivacs are fine as they are, and the fact that their energy allows more units to counter them is a good thing.
I'd rather adjust Marines a different way: Reduce damage by 1, HP by 5. All terran buildings are bunkers with 1 slot, for marines only.
This will allow terran players to safely - albeit slowly - defend against Zerglings in Zealots that need to have better stats because they are melee. The extended possibility of playing "musical chairs" with your Marines further raises the APM limit.
I dont think changing the combat values for Marines will solve anything, because the true problem is the "critical mass" of them. The speed in which units are dying is MUCH higher if you have 20 Marines shooting an opponents forces compared to having only 5-6 shoot something. With a lower amount of units fighting each other you might be able to react in time and/or targetfire opposing units.
Sadly the "proponents of unit clumping and unlimited unit selection" dont seem to understand this problem and how "less is more" [microability and control] in this case.
So to solve the "mass Marines problem" [you can replace Marine with basically any Infantry unit IMO] you can tackle it from two sides: 1. You can force the infantry to spread out as the "standard positioning" and only allow clumping through micro, plus limiting the number of units per control group. 2. You can take out the economy and production speed boosts, which will result in more expensive units becoming worth more, because "production cycles" would become a sort of resource as well.
Fiddling with the unit values of specific units wont work, because ALL infantry units have that same problem and to deter clumping there needs to be a "penalty" in the form of dangerous AoE damage.
The proposed changes here aren't supposed to "fix" this "problem" you have with unit clumping. Reducing their HP by 5, allow Terran to build Medics with slow heal to compensate early, and then returning the HP with Combat Shields mean that unupgraded Marines from a Reactor mixed into the 1-1-1 or 1-1-2 are less powerful, allowing us to buff Tanks. So Bio isn't losing anything, and Mech is gaining.
Your proposed fixes wont solve anything, because the clumping remains. I just watched Leenock vs Rain (game 1) and there was "a clump of Roaches" vs "a clump of Stalkers" and the Stalkers were easily nibbled to death over time by the "superior mobility" of the Roaches (burrow) and managed to 1-shot one or two Stalkers every few seconds while running backwards and forwards. That totally looked wrong, because Stalkers shouldnt die that easily to Roaches. Shields are basically useless in such a 1-shot-situation and again it boils down to the concentration of the units.
I don't disagree that this is a problem. The solution is better AOE damage in my opinion, and increasing the DPS Tanks provides that. Also we need to slow down the Colossus, so you can't make a clump of relatively fast moving, high damage, AOE damage dealers. That encourages deathball play.
Some interesting suggestion I agree with, but also some that sound horrible. But everyone lets their tastes and preferences flow into their suggestions. Just like the Tempest vs Widow Mine, you describe as anti-climatic. I don't know I always was pretty hyped when 6 ghosts intercepted a group of carriers. Which is basically what happened there. Just way easier to avoid for the Protoss player. And they put a weakness into Immortals, but they made a few mistakes in their design and at the end there was a high attack speed unit missing for mech to work on the Immortal shields (Vikings would work if Immortals wouldn't massacre them). Which was not a problem, but then they did this fatal mistake of catering to the communities inability to use Immortals and upping the range, which resulted in destroying the Hellion Immortal dynamic, where Hellions could keep Immortals away from the Siege Tanks without exposing themself to the AoE units of Toss. And of course that was after TvT destroyed the Siege tanks ability to deal with Archons. The Hellbat fixes the Immortal range 6 issue to some extend, because they survive AoE damage better and also deal with Chargelots fairly well. But there is still no high aspd unit that deals with the Immortals shield, so you have to rely on Ghosts. (Works fairly well with mech since their cost rework) But you shouldn't forget that 250mm was basically a soft conter to Immortals. (now an Immortal can easily avoid 250mm though, thanks to range 6) It is pretty easy to rework it into a way to get rid of the Immortal shields if the toss isn't careful. And of course Feedback would be the way to deal with careless Terrans.
for the Marine and clumping discussion. It is easier to clump then to unclump. If you make units unclump by default you will just make the game easier, so yes encourage people to don't be lazy and unclump their units. The Marine is actually the best example on how to encourage unclumping lol. Atleast I head an easier time in BW with my marine control, because they spread out so nicely by default and clumping them up was easy as pie. Of course the duck line forming was something horrible unless you abused it to form a perfect attack line.
I don't understand, why "mech" as a standalone should ever need to work. Protoss all-Robotics armies also don't work.
Furthermore, I don't think it is fair or interesting, if one race can just turtle up and force the other player to be much better than him to win. Saying a mech army should be unbeatable head on is saying exacly that. It is already quite hard to do so, as you can see on protoss trying to beat back a good 111.
Bottom line: Terran is one race, not two.
About your protoss "suggestions" I wonder why you want to kill the immortal so much. If is already very vulnerable to EMP. Immortals are very expensive and can be easily killed by any race cost-effetive.
Then your comment about being able to force an opponent to build something different is bad, isn't well thought out. Do you really enjoy zergs just massing roaches? Immortals are an option to reduce single-unit armys. Immortals don't mean you can't build roaches. It means you must add zerglings to buffer.
Basically: The game without your changes sounds alot better than your version.
Testthewest, you simply have no bloody idea what you are talking about. Install Brood War, and just TRY to go mech. It is HARD. Bio is much easier. Saying that "one race can just turtle and force the other player to be much better than him to win" is mind-blowingly ignorant. There is a strong case to be made that mech is the most difficult composition to use effectively in the entire game.
Furthermore, Terran's upgrade structure forces specialization. Bio upgrades do not apply to mech, and vice versa. So unless you want to spend twice as much on upgrades as zerg or protoss, you are going to have to lean heavily on one or the other. This is intentional.
Protoss Robotics never was a complete structure. Observer, Shuttle, and Reaver? Only one of those units can actually attack. Protoss Robotics is a supporting tech path for strong Gateway units. Totally different from the Factory, which has its own complete line of upgrades from the Armory.
I think the immortal/colossus suggestions, ultralisk suggestions, and the flaming betty/perdition turret idea are fantastic ideas that would really open up more possibilities than the game currently has.
Its funny that you started to write about making mech viable, and in the process also laid out a really solid solution to the stagnating meta game issues of PvZ/ZvP.
On October 27 2012 15:50 BronzeKnee wrote: ________________________________________________________
The Map Pool Menace ________________________________________________________
Yeah. Its hard to balance a game where a different game is played every time. Think of ohana for protoss with sentry/immortal. Think of Steppes of war where cheese is impossible to hold off.
On November 11 2012 08:47 testthewest wrote: I don't understand, why "mech" as a standalone should ever need to work. Protoss all-Robotics armies also don't work....
Different races are different, and Terran has a distinct set of upgrades for Bio and Mech while Protoss Robo units share the same ones with Gateway units. That is why it should need to work.
More variety = More fun.
As a Protoss player, I find the change to the Immortal as a buff not a nerf. It isn't nearly as expensive (so you can afford more), builds faster and has nearly the same DPS, thus your army has more DPS now, and has more overall hit points. The only real loss is Hardened Shields, which are very effective vs Siege Tanks and Ultralisks, units that are weak vs Protoss. If anything, I think the new Immortal could be too strong vs Mech because it can be massed so easily, and Terran can only handle them with Siege Tanks in siege mode and some units to buffer.
Try out the map, and let me know what you think.
On November 11 2012 10:28 imJealous wrote: Great write up.
I think the immortal/colossus suggestions, ultralisk suggestions, and the flaming betty/perdition turret idea are fantastic ideas that would really open up more possibilities than the game currently has.
Its funny that you started to write about making mech viable, and in the process also laid out a really solid solution to the stagnating meta game issues of PvZ/ZvP.
Thanks for the kind comments. I really hope Blizzard at least reads it...
On November 11 2012 08:52 ledarsi wrote: Testthewest, you simply have no bloody idea what you are talking about. Install Brood War, and just TRY to go mech. It is HARD. Bio is much easier. Saying that "one race can just turtle and force the other player to be much better than him to win" is mind-blowingly ignorant. There is a strong case to be made that mech is the most difficult composition to use effectively in the entire game.
Well, BW tanks all fired their shot on the first zealot in range, the rest could march throu, isn't it? Before you say someone else has no idea, please try to imagine what that person was thinking. Sieging up 3 tanks would be enough to push back a much bigger force under this scenario. So defending becomes alot easier for a race that's already quite good at it. So fast expanding, getting 2 tanks should not be enough, if the opponent wants to break it.
On November 11 2012 08:52 ledarsi wrote: Furthermore, Terran's upgrade structure forces specialization. Bio upgrades do not apply to mech, and vice versa. So unless you want to spend twice as much on upgrades as zerg or protoss, you are going to have to lean heavily on one or the other. This is intentional.
Well, that's quite simplistic. First: You don't need mech armor upgrades, if you just getting some tanks. Then you are basically down to 3 upgrades, just like protoss (weapons/armor/shields) or zerg (melee/range/armor).
You can see this "upgrade-behaviour" already now in TvT. Example: Those Polt vs Ganzi games some hours ago.
On November 11 2012 08:52 ledarsi wrote: Protoss Robotics never was a complete structure. Observer, Shuttle, and Reaver? Only one of those units can actually attack. Protoss Robotics is a supporting tech path for strong Gateway units. Totally different from the Factory, which has its own complete line of upgrades from the Armory.
This is not SC1. There is no reaver, but an immortal and colossus.
I only made this example to point out: Protoss also lack the option to just ignore their basic units, and go for something different instead. There is no reason why terran players should be able to ignore marines/marauders after minute 4.
On November 11 2012 08:52 ledarsi wrote: Protoss Robotics never was a complete structure. Observer, Shuttle, and Reaver? Only one of those units can actually attack. Protoss Robotics is a supporting tech path for strong Gateway units. Totally different from the Factory, which has its own complete line of upgrades from the Armory.
This is not SC1. There is no reaver, but an immortal and colossus.
I only made this example to point out: Protoss also lack the option to just ignore their basic units, and go for something different instead. There is no reason why terran players should be able to ignore marines/marauders after minute 4.
Why shouldnt they be able to do it? The reason why they should be is the upgrades and the style of units.
A mech unit is different from a bio unit in that it is mechanical and not biological and less mobile instead of fast and able to sprint. These two styles dont mix well and immobile units dont really "support" very mobile ones well enough. So the only reasonable way is to focus much more on mech ... and this should be viable, because you need to have both upgrades for mech to make them survive long enough. If you do that your bio portion of the army will suck due to a lack of upgrades AND numbers. "A few" Marines dont cut it, but sadly there is no mech AA that is viable because the Thor sucks against armored air units, so mech needs to go air as well against Corrupter/Broodlords AND invest into upgrades to make those Vikings more efficient. They are already needed as spotters anyways, but wouldnt need upgrades for that job alone.
Protoss has been designed as an "integrated army" and thus the units got a similar movement speed to form a tight ball of death. That isnt what mech + bio could do, so your argument has a huge hole in it.
Very thought-out post. I like your suggestions. I specially like the fact that you took the time to analyse the consequences of changing A and not stopping there. If you will get a version of the map on Europe i'd be glad to test it.
Well, after testing I believe Vikings can receive a slight nerf, reducing their movespeed to 2.50 in the air. They are too mobile vs slower Colossus play.
On November 11 2012 21:07 Kakaru2 wrote: Very thought-out post. I like your suggestions. I specially like the fact that you took the time to analyse the consequences of changing A and not stopping there. If you will get a version of the map on Europe i'd be glad to test it.
I'd be happy to send you the latest version of the map unlocked so you could publish it on Europe. PM me your email if you're interested.
On November 12 2012 03:35 BronzeKnee wrote: Well, after testing I believe Vikings can receive a slight nerf, reducing their movespeed to 2.50 in the air. They are too mobile vs slower Colossus play.
If you nerf Vikings for the sake of Colossi you nerf them against Mutalisks and "Fungal" (making targeting Vikings even easier) as well. Neither of those parts are really good and this clearly shows the problem of trying to fix it from the unit side.
Stalkers are supposed to be used against Vikings anyways and you could even do what I think Seed did against one EG Zerg in the IPTL: Just build ZERO Colossi and hallucinate some to provoke your opponent into building those AA air units. Getting a few hallucinated ones in addition to the real ones will also help against Vikings ... but no one does it.
On November 11 2012 10:28 imJealous wrote: Great write up.
I think the immortal/colossus suggestions, ultralisk suggestions, and the flaming betty/perdition turret idea are fantastic ideas that would really open up more possibilities than the game currently has.
Its funny that you started to write about making mech viable, and in the process also laid out a really solid solution to the stagnating meta game issues of PvZ/ZvP.
On November 12 2012 03:35 BronzeKnee wrote: Well, after testing I believe Vikings can receive a slight nerf, reducing their movespeed to 2.50 in the air. They are too mobile vs slower Colossus play.
If you nerf Vikings for the sake of Colossi you nerf them against Mutalisks and "Fungal" (making targeting Vikings even easier) as well. Neither of those parts are really good and this clearly shows the problem of trying to fix it from the unit side.
Stalkers are supposed to be used against Vikings anyways and you could even do what I think Seed did against one EG Zerg in the IPTL: Just build ZERO Colossi and hallucinate some to provoke your opponent into building those AA air units. Getting a few hallucinated ones in addition to the real ones will also help against Vikings ... but no one does it.
Well, Vikings are never the answer to Mutalisks, they aren't cost effective at all, but your point about Fungal is important. I do believe Fungal needs to be reworked in general, and I believe Blizzard will do so soon. I think if Fungal did a 50% movespeed reduction and still inhibited Blink Stalkers from Blinking it would be better. Perhaps even that is too much, maybe 30% movespeed reduction.
Anyway, I used to hallucinate Colossus all the time vs Terran, but a lot of Terrans will scan your army just before an big engagement, and it always gives away the fact I had hallucinated units, and I had to give up that strategy.
On November 11 2012 10:28 imJealous wrote: Great write up.
I think the immortal/colossus suggestions, ultralisk suggestions, and the flaming betty/perdition turret idea are fantastic ideas that would really open up more possibilities than the game currently has.
Its funny that you started to write about making mech viable, and in the process also laid out a really solid solution to the stagnating meta game issues of PvZ/ZvP.
Don't stroke his ego.
Don't tell people what to do. If you have a problem with me, my post, or my ego, take it up with me. Otherwise, you can find a different thread.
On November 12 2012 03:35 BronzeKnee wrote: Well, after testing I believe Vikings can receive a slight nerf, reducing their movespeed to 2.50 in the air. They are too mobile vs slower Colossus play.
If you nerf Vikings for the sake of Colossi you nerf them against Mutalisks and "Fungal" (making targeting Vikings even easier) as well. Neither of those parts are really good and this clearly shows the problem of trying to fix it from the unit side.
Stalkers are supposed to be used against Vikings anyways and you could even do what I think Seed did against one EG Zerg in the IPTL: Just build ZERO Colossi and hallucinate some to provoke your opponent into building those AA air units. Getting a few hallucinated ones in addition to the real ones will also help against Vikings ... but no one does it.
Well, Vikings are never the answer to Mutalisks, they aren't cost effective at all, but your point about Fungal is important. I do believe Fungal needs to be reworked in general, and I believe Blizzard will do so soon. I think if Fungal did a 50% movespeed reduction and still inhibited Blink Stalkers from Blinking it would be better. Perhaps even that is too much, maybe 30% movespeed reduction.
Anyway, I used to hallucinate Colossus all the time vs Terran, but a lot of Terrans will scan your army just before an big engagement, and it always gives away the fact I had hallucinated units, and I had to give up that strategy.
On November 11 2012 10:28 imJealous wrote: Great write up.
I think the immortal/colossus suggestions, ultralisk suggestions, and the flaming betty/perdition turret idea are fantastic ideas that would really open up more possibilities than the game currently has.
Its funny that you started to write about making mech viable, and in the process also laid out a really solid solution to the stagnating meta game issues of PvZ/ZvP.
Don't stroke his ego.
Don't tell people what to do. If you have a problem with me, my post, or my ego, take it up with me. Otherwise, you can find a different thread.
The suggestion I like most is the one about immortals, but hardened shield is a nice ability. Early on it forces target fire on tanks and protoss players can do some nice play trying to make big hitting units fire on them first. Maybe hardened shield could be reworked to tank less damage, by having less shield or reducing the damage to more than 10.
Edit : Also since I see some talking about fungal, if hopefully Blizzard nerfs fungal a bit it would allow to tweak other units like the viking.
On October 30 2012 00:55 BronzeKnee wrote: Thanks for all the praise guys, I really appreciate it. I'm sorry you don't see a cohesive argument kcdc, but I can't fix that because I see one, and so do others.
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.
haha. I'm not doing the same thing. It's like comparing a watermelon to a strawberry really. The small set of things i suggested are few, very easily testable and implementable.
On November 15 2012 22:30 CYFAWS wrote: haha. I'm not doing the same thing. It's like comparing a watermelon to a strawberry really. The small set of things i suggested are few, very easily testable and implementable.
"open your mind" argument = not an argument.
It is an argument, check the definition. Regardless, increasing unit radius is more game changing than anything I've suggested. It would literally change every single unit the game and their interaction with every other unit, as well as how they fit between structures, up and down ramps, how effective FF's are (they'd be more effective if units can't fit between small gaps), melee units would be increasing less effective in large numbers (think about how Ultras work right now...), while ranged units would be increasing less effective in small numbers vs melee units because they couldn't clump as well (more surface area), AOE damage and effects would be far less effective (which means Protoss which depends so heavily on damage from Storm and Colossus would need to be adjusted).
And those are just the things I can think of off the top of my head right now. Increasing unit radius is a massive change.
And your other changes are very similar to mine. You want to buff Tanks, and give Protoss a way to deal with early Marines, just as I've done.
In this age, where the maps and units available to the other races are just so favorable against tanks, tanks need some type of buff. Swarm host, viper, brood lords, tempests, immortals, and protoss in general besides non blink stalkers, all crush tanks, especially with current map designs. There is so much ground to hold, and tanks have so many hard counters now that they are very inneffective past a certain window
I can't see why people only accuse Infestor as most OP spell caster in the game. Well of course, one fungal shuts down all of the micro you intend to do. However, there are some problems that will come up EVEN THOUGH we finish this fix.
For example, the one main thing that Terran and Zerg is suffering from is the Immortals. Terran because of killing Tanks so fast with taking little to no damage. Zerg because shuts down Ultralisk play completely.
I just want to say that Infestor is NOT the only unit that breaks ( if you think so ) the game. Many other aspects such as clumped up unit pathways and super cost effective marines can be a problem also.
If you want to see the whole post about "How to make Mech and Stargate play viable" by BronzeKnee, be my guest. It's a very good post about other balance changes.
On November 16 2012 04:38 Valerian wrote: I can't see why people only accuse Infestor as most OP spell caster in the game. Well of course, one fungal shuts down all of the micro you intend to do. However, there are some problems that will come up EVEN THOUGH we finish this fix.
For example, the one main thing that Terran and Zerg is suffering from is the Immortals. Terran because of killing Tanks so fast with taking little to no damage. Zerg because shuts down Ultralisk play completely.
I just want to say that Infestor is NOT the only unit that breaks ( if you think so ) the game. Many other aspects such as clumped up unit pathways and super cost effective marines can be a problem also.
If you want to see the whole post about "How to make Mech and Stargate play viable" by BronzeKnee, be my guest. It's a very good post about other balance changes.
In PvZ really how common is it for players to be making Immortals at most usually only 2 robos and even then unless the retention of your immortals are really good its shouldn't really be a probably the only time I have ever more robos was in a weird PvT that I played the same guy on ladder a couple times in a row back to back doing this weird mech play and lots of planetaries and I had 3 robos chrono'ing immortals out with a zealot archon immortal army with ht support to feedback banshees, ravens and thors.
By the time the late late ultra tech switch unless the player just wanted to go ultras which in this case most would call people retarded Nestea would go ultras for the lawlz. Ultras aren't bad because of immortals especially when zealots and archons which are what usually accompanies the immortals in the first place lings.
And the winfestors' OP growth is a bigger problem then anything else right now. If you question it not being op you must play zerg right? They are the only ones who don't have a problem with it currently unless all you play is zvz and then its like hey lets throw each other's free units at each other which is a pretty bad concept in and of it's self.
On November 16 2012 04:38 Valerian wrote: I can't see why people only accuse Infestor as most OP spell caster in the game. Well of course, one fungal shuts down all of the micro you intend to do. However, there are some problems that will come up EVEN THOUGH we finish this fix.
For example, the one main thing that Terran and Zerg is suffering from is the Immortals. Terran because of killing Tanks so fast with taking little to no damage. Zerg because shuts down Ultralisk play completely.
I just want to say that Infestor is NOT the only unit that breaks ( if you think so ) the game. Many other aspects such as clumped up unit pathways and super cost effective marines can be a problem also.
If you want to see the whole post about "How to make Mech and Stargate play viable" by BronzeKnee, be my guest. It's a very good post about other balance changes.
In PvZ really how common is it for players to be making Immortals at most usually only 2 robos and even then unless the retention of your immortals are really good its shouldn't really be a probably the only time I have ever more robos was in a weird PvT that I played the same guy on ladder a couple times in a row back to back doing this weird mech play and lots of planetaries and I had 3 robos chrono'ing immortals out with a zealot archon immortal army with ht support to feedback banshees, ravens and thors.
By the time the late late ultra tech switch unless the player just wanted to go ultras which in this case most would call people retarded Nestea would go ultras for the lawlz. Ultras aren't bad because of immortals especially when zealots and archons which are what usually accompanies the immortals in the first place lings.
And the winfestors' OP growth is a bigger problem then anything else right now. If you question it not being op you must play zerg right? They are the only ones who don't have a problem with it currently unless all you play is zvz and then its like hey lets throw each other's free units at each other which is a pretty bad concept in and of it's self.
You should format your post better, it is difficult to understand fully. Even when you did your dumb one liners that got you warned, at least you used proper punctuation and capitalization.
Anyway, his point about Immortals is the same one I made in the original post. Immortals are incredibly powerful, and their presence shuts down Mech and Ultralisk play to such an extent that people rarely use those units against Protoss. Thus, we rarely get to see many Immortals built, because the units they counter aren't built because if people did build them, Immortals would crush them. And this is the problem with certain unit counters that I pointed out in the section "Attack of the Counters." Immortals don't allow you to handle certain units, they force your opponent to not build them, and this limits viable selection in the game and variety.
This is a different situation than Infestors. Fungal Growth is effective versus everything. It is good against light units, armored units, air units, massive units, cloaked units, whatever. So Infestors can be seen and used in every matchup. If the Immortal was as effective against every target as is it against armored ground target, it would clearly be overpowered. But as it is, it is only overpowered vs armored units, so people just avoid making big expensive armored units (Mech and Ultralisks) vs Protoss, and thus we don't see many Immortals. There is nothing you can build that can avoid the power of Infestors, they are effective versus any unit combination.
what if you switched the immortal and sentry and made gateway build units faster (near current warpgate rates) and made warpgates build slightly slower (near current gateway build times)? with your suggestion could make it even more of a desirable simple tanking unit.
also what about with your warhound taking the thor's anti air role in a way removing the thor's anti air attack in favor of a slower stronger ground attack to deal large single target damage? really shove the thor into that role?
Not many people realize but the best counter to tempest/templar composition is hellion and viking. You use hellion to quickly get close to templar and kill them with bonus damage to light. And the templar can storm hellion effectively. And then the viking can kill tempest. 2 Vikings beat 1 tempest. It's very cost-effective.
I think Tanks are in a great place in SC2 right now. Mech's shortcomings are not due to the Tank. Its everything else in the factory. Hellbats are an incredibly heavy counter unit -- awesome vs everything light on the ground, sucks vs everything else. Tanks are an incredibly heavy counter -- awesome vs everything armored on the ground (except Immortals), and sucks vs everything else.
So the factory handles ground light and ground armored units very well. But it still has a few weaknesses. Namely "untyped units" like HT/Archon, all air units, and Immortals. The Thor is supposed to fill these three roles, but it fails all of them.
I think the most logical solution to fix mech is to alter the Thor and Immortal.
Thor: 1. Increase its antiair attack base damage by X 2. Decrease its antiair attack bonus vs Light damage by X 3. Decrease the damage on its ground attack by X 4. Remove the energy bar, and make Strike Cannon an ability on a X second cooldown 5. Allow Strike Cannon to hit air units
Immortal: 1. Increase its base Shield Armor by X 2. Nerf Hardened Shields to trigger only once per X seconds
I really like the idea of making Immortals tougher vs units like Marines, Zerglings, and Zealots, while making them weaker vs units like Siege Tanks, Ultralisks, and Tempests.
On November 18 2012 05:16 larse wrote: Not many people realize but the best counter to tempest/templar composition is hellion and viking. You use hellion to quickly get close to templar and kill them with bonus damage to light. And the templar can storm hellion effectively. And then the viking can kill tempest. 2 Vikings beat 1 tempest. It's very cost-effective.
On November 18 2012 05:16 larse wrote: Not many people realize but the best counter to tempest/templar composition is hellion and viking. You use hellion to quickly get close to templar and kill them with bonus damage to light. And the templar can storm hellion effectively. And then the viking can kill tempest. 2 Vikings beat 1 tempest. It's very cost-effective.
You sir sound like a troll.
I dunno about the viking part as every game I've played so far as mech I've been demolished by tempests, but hellions alone destroy templars who are stood on their own.
On November 18 2012 05:16 larse wrote: Not many people realize but the best counter to tempest/templar composition is hellion and viking. You use hellion to quickly get close to templar and kill them with bonus damage to light. And the templar can storm hellion effectively. And then the viking can kill tempest. 2 Vikings beat 1 tempest. It's very cost-effective.
You sir sound like a troll.
I dunno about the viking part as every game I've played so far as mech I've been demolished by tempests, but hellions alone destroy templars who are stood on their own.
No one goes HT Tempest alone. There will be some other Gateway support under that that will eat the Hellions.
Pretty sure he meant that response for another thread.
i disagree with the OP solutiosn proposed, and feel they don't address many things well; but one thing I wnated to ask abotu map pool changes (i was out of it fo a year in the middle so i may've missed some maps): looking at xel'naga caverns and shattered temple, both feature mesas; high ground areas in the middle areas of the map that have limited or NO ramp access; i didn't follow the scene in BW later on; but i know there were originally a lot of maps that also features such areas. spots like that matter a lot to the viability of tanks; even if not completely secure; some only had a ramp on the defended side, or had a xel'naga tower nexrt to them and only one ramp entrance, so were quite defensible and covered a lot of major area.
On November 18 2012 15:25 zlefin wrote: i disagree with the OP solutiosn proposed, and feel they don't address many things well; but one thing I wnated to ask abotu map pool changes (i was out of it fo a year in the middle so i may've missed some maps): looking at xel'naga caverns and shattered temple, both feature mesas; high ground areas in the middle areas of the map that have limited or NO ramp access; i didn't follow the scene in BW later on; but i know there were originally a lot of maps that also features such areas. spots like that matter a lot to the viability of tanks; even if not completely secure; some only had a ramp on the defended side, or had a xel'naga tower nexrt to them and only one ramp entrance, so were quite defensible and covered a lot of major area.
Finally some one who gets it my god about damn time (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
On October 29 2012 22:04 CYFAWS wrote: The immortal was designed to be protoss answer to tanks. As it happens, protoss doesnt need an answer to tanks as every single unit they have does decently against tanks on their own and in synergy with each other, tanks are just shit. The immortal is just the topping of the tank rape cake that is protoss.
I agree with this. With the risk of robbing them of individuality, I don't think Immortals really need the Hardened Shield.
Maybe just increase the total shield HP.
Units like Tanks, Thors, Banelings, Immortals, DT's would kill Immortals much more easily, while other units that do only 10-20 damage could have their increased attack cancelled out by a shield with more HP.
This change would obviously have countless implications for other units. It's certainly not the kind of thing you just throw at the game, but it would help Mech, that's for sure.
Any thoughts on an armory-level upgrade to the tank that would permit firing while moving (not in siege mode, obviously)? Could make for some more dynamic plays, and may eliminate the need for a warhound as well.
On November 21 2012 00:45 TheSymbiont wrote: Any thoughts on an armory-level upgrade to the tank that would permit firing while moving (not in siege mode, obviously)? Could make for some more dynamic plays, and may eliminate the need for a warhound as well.
I think simply nerfing the immortal with respect to siege tanks would probably be all that the Terrans need. I definitely think implementing all of OP's suggested changes would shake up balance between all the match ups way too much. It's been said here before and I totally agree with it: Protoss have so many soft counters and tools to beat seige tanks (e.g chargelots, blink stalkers, storm, colussus) , it really doesn't make sense to have something that counters siege tanks so hard. Not only is it an unnecessary hard counter, it's a really freaking boring hard counter. It's painful to watch a small number of immortals decimate a well placed siege tank position, with absolutely no micro coming from the Protoss. How is it fair that Terran's have to slowly leap frog their tanks to make sure they don't get owned harder then they normally do while Protoss get two really powerful robo units that require no micro whatsoever. I feel at best immortals should trade 50/50 with tanks that are completely sieged.
So the question is what should we change on the immortal without fucking up the other match ups? I think they are fine for PvP and PvZ. Hell they are fine for PvT when T goes bio. Perhaps changing hardened shields to not work against splash damage? Making spider mines ignore hardened shields?
Your suggested nerf to immortals is too severe, I agree with perhaps removing hardened shields, but to reduce hitpoints, that's just overkill, immortals are gonna go from amazing vs mech, to a 2x stalker that moves slower (we all know how that goes). But then I feel the immortal need something, maby similar to the thor AA attack to compensate. Right now it is not an amazing units vs anything but mech and static, though it has the advantage of still being better than the stalker at pure dps vs bio. Roaches still roll immortals without good ff remember, they are far from imba.
How about changing the Immortal's ability from Hardened Shield to Regenerative Shield. RS would work by absorbing half (the percentage can be changed based on balance) of any incoming damage and turning it back into shields on the Immortal, after the damage has been done. So if a tank hits an Immortal with RS, it will lose 50 shields and then regen 25 shields leaving it with 75 shields. Since the damage happens first and then it regens, you have the possibility of overwhelming the shields and doing hull damage with sufficiently strong or numerous attacks.
For examples, if 2 sieged tanks and 1 Thor all fire on an RS Immortal at the same time, it will take 160 damage, destroying its shield and doing 60 hull damage (technically 58 given the Immortals base armor, and with the tanks being considered "first"). After that its shields will regen leaving it at 80/142, instead of 60/200 as would happen with an HS Immortal. The Immortal remains a tough unit worthy of the name, but it doesn't get to just ignore the first 10 enemy attacks.
On November 21 2012 06:34 AfricanPsycho wrote: Your suggested nerf to immortals is too severe, I agree with perhaps removing hardened shields, but to reduce hitpoints, that's just overkill, immortals are gonna go from amazing vs mech, to a 2x stalker that moves slower (we all know how that goes). But then I feel the immortal need something, maby similar to the thor AA attack to compensate. Right now it is not an amazing units vs anything but mech and static, though it has the advantage of still being better than the stalker at pure dps vs bio. Roaches still roll immortals without good ff remember, they are far from imba.
Well the idea here isn't just to nerf Immortals and leave it at that. I want to nerf their durability and DPS slightly, but also greatly reduce their build time and cost. So a nerf is balanced with a buff.
If you just remove Hardened Shields alone, then you can't really justify the big cost or build time reduction I am suggesting. And then the unit is left is a weird place. Fact is, Immortals are bad when they aren't faced with expensive armored units (and they are so good vs said units that people don't build them), or being used in the Immortal/Sentry all-in before Zerg has a lot of Infestors. Instead my suggestion makes an Immortal essentially equal in many respects to two Marauders, and it would fill the same role. This would make the unit more usable in general. Heck, two Immortals loaded into a Warp Prism would be just as effective in the harassment role as two Immortals are now, but they would build faster and be cheaper.
So please, consider both sides of this here, too many people I think are just looking at what the Immortal is losing, and not consider that you can afford more and they build faster, meaning you can field more.
I like these changes, but I dont like the betties. Have tempest require twilight because you would see proxy tempest every game. Some need to be tweaked though. Change immortal to 200/100 Nerf its damage to 45 (+4) Medics would need to have slow regeneration and an upgrade Zerg need something to. Mabye an abduct buff?
On November 21 2012 00:45 TheSymbiont wrote: Any thoughts on an armory-level upgrade to the tank that would permit firing while moving (not in siege mode, obviously)? Could make for some more dynamic plays, and may eliminate the need for a warhound as well.
Terrible idea and it is what we all dont want to ever see. How does it lead to more dynamic play? It just lead to the tank becoming a 1-A unit. It a really lazy solution and really bad fix. Atleast with marauder you can stim and split while this new upgraded tank just 1-A. I feel like I got trolled because this was such a pretty bad suggestion -.- lol.
Either way, I disagree with ops to a extent. And honestly, I do not think Mech will ever work in HOTS (atleast the mech we all want to see) and if blizzard find a way without completely altering how protoss or terran works, I will be shocked. The widowmine looked promising but they are just too powerful early game and too weak late game. I though it might be the solution but further testing just lead to the same conclusion. I truly dont know how to fix it anymore :/
On November 21 2012 00:45 TheSymbiont wrote: Any thoughts on an armory-level upgrade to the tank that would permit firing while moving (not in siege mode, obviously)? Could make for some more dynamic plays, and may eliminate the need for a warhound as well.
Terrible idea. Watch QXC's video about how units should be designed and there you can learn that every advantage should be balanced by a disadvantage and for mech that is IMMOBILITY. This has to stay for the style alone.
Never ever sacrifice STYLE for EFFICIENCY (not in SC2 and not IRL either).
On November 21 2012 15:55 DontNerfInfestors wrote: I like these changes, but I dont like the betties. Have tempest require twilight because you would see proxy tempest every game. Some need to be tweaked though. Change immortal to 200/100 Nerf its damage to 45 (+4) Medics would need to have slow regeneration and an upgrade Zerg need something to. Mabye an abduct buff?
The Tempest upgrade for Phoenixes would require a Fleet Beacon, as it says in the OP. And it has a 6 range anti-air attack that deals 35 AOE damage to non-massive targets, and 20 damage to massive targets every 2 seconds and a 6 range ground attack that can hit single units for 25 (perhaps 20 would be better though) damage every 1.5 seconds.
If you went for Proxy Tempest with those stats, you'd be a fool since they don't do much damage to ground units, and the time it would take to get them would absurd. Proxy Void Ray would still be far more effective.
Medics already have a slow regeneration rate, and then an upgrade that brings their healing to the same rate as the Medivac has now currently. I suggested it in the OP and my test map has it.
I'm thinking there is a language barrier or something that is preventing you from fully understanding my post.
On November 21 2012 00:45 TheSymbiont wrote: Any thoughts on an armory-level upgrade to the tank that would permit firing while moving (not in siege mode, obviously)? Could make for some more dynamic plays, and may eliminate the need for a warhound as well.
Terrible idea and it is what we all dont want to ever see. How does it lead to more dynamic play? It just lead to the tank becoming a 1-A unit. It a really lazy solution and really bad fix. Atleast with marauder you can stim and split while this new upgraded tank just 1-A. I feel like I got trolled because this was such a pretty bad suggestion -.- lol.
Either way, I disagree with ops to a extent. And honestly, I do not think Mech will ever work in HOTS (atleast the mech we all want to see) and if blizzard find a way without completely altering how protoss or terran works, I will be shocked. The widowmine looked promising but they are just too powerful early game and too weak late game. I though it might be the solution but further testing just lead to the same conclusion. I truly dont know how to fix it anymore :/
Try out my map with someone. I think you'll find that Mech is viable in TvP. More powerful tanks, a Warhound/Goliath unit, and the Flaming Betty combined with the changes to the Colossus and Immortal have truly made Mech viable. And fun.
awesome suggestions, i srsly like every changes in op's post. thumbs-up! marines and marauders with medic, would be able to hold early game allins like blink stalkers and stuff like that easyer, since you dont need to rush to medivac, i think these changes would make sc2 alot more strategic. Both bio and mech becomes more fun and balanced.
Personally what I think Mech need is for Thors to be made into Mini 2 food versions that are more mobile, and a Zero Food mine, to help deal with drops and flanks.
Hellbats are a dull and hard counter light units too well. Personally I feel that the chargelot issue isn't real. People just don't like using EMP because it doesn't kill stuff. Also Bio + Mines are really good. You can kite around minefields and kill tons of enemy units. It creates space between the bio and the Zealots. Much more creative and fun then Helbats.
Oh - my - fucking - god. Why aren't you on the development team? Someone needs to make sure Blizzard sees this. I am very impressed by you understanding, and holistic perspective on the effects of changing units across match-ups. My hat goes off to you sir!
On November 30 2012 17:41 foxj wrote: Tanks need got enough damage to get rid of immortals imo
Hmmm ... that would make the hardened shield pointless. How about "Tanks need to deal enough damage to kill the OTHER Protoss units fast enough so the units supporting the Tanks can deal with the Immortals quicker"? Dropping 2 Immortals onto a pure Siege Tank position would punish the Terran for leaving his achilles heel unguarded, so Immortals wouldnt really become useless.
Anybody can tell me how to find the map? EU WoL server or the HotS server??? I am very interested in playing TvP and so frustrated to not be able for now in WoL...
On November 30 2012 17:41 foxj wrote: Tanks need got enough damage to get rid of immortals imo
That have no sense. You cant buff a unit to destroy a hard-counter. The role of inmortals is to counter tanks.
The issue is that Immortals HARDcounter tanks.Its too onesided. Marines can split and try counter banelings,but what can Siege Tanks do? Chargelots and blink also counter tanks.Tempest counter tanks.Its too much.Sure you cant leave tanks alone and expect them to do the job,but its too hard.You need good EMPs and lot of vikings for TEmpest.But when they die and you still got 20 Vikings,20gate P will warp Zealots and archons and you still die.Not only this,on big maos you just cant move.Protoss will go around and snipe all your bases because the moment you unsieged,he attacks you and you die.As Morrow said,he just cant expand as quick as P,so P got endless eco.
This would bring so much more interesting dynamics in the game instead of the one dimensional, lopsided garbage we tend to play/see most of the time especially when infestors are involved. Immortals dont help the case either with being extremely effective (to the point to rendering them entirely useless) against a few units (high burst damage units) and being typically useless against others (rapid damage dealing units).
On November 30 2012 17:41 foxj wrote: Tanks need got enough damage to get rid of immortals imo
That have no sense. You cant buff a unit to destroy a hard-counter. The role of inmortals is to counter tanks.
Yea but like people above already said, Protoss has many units to tanks and immortals are just overwhelming hard-counter to tanks. I didn't mean over buff that tanks take down immortals in a few shots but not the current atm like some immortals a move and walk over 16+ siege tanks it's the point. ^^ Thus i think immortals should be designed to not hard-counter siege units but normal movement units like : Marauders, Roach, stalkers ...
Well about Terran mech, I feel that you are not just trying to make mech play viable vs P but trying to make it OP. No ground army composition can beat mech and you also want to be able to defend your base while you are besieging opponent's base? Considering stargate play is not viable against terran in almost any situation that can make mech OP as hell.
On November 30 2012 22:38 mantequilla wrote: Well about Terran mech, I feel that you are not just trying to make mech play viable vs P but trying to make it OP. No ground army composition can beat mech and you also want to be able to defend your base while you are besieging opponent's base? Considering stargate play is not viable against terran in almost any situation that can make mech OP as hell.
I think you're exaggerating a bit. I've played mech in SC2 since the release and I'm pretty sure I've been destroyed by pretty much every composition at least once. Also with protoss usually a composition comprising entirely of Archons/Immortals just rolls through mech (seriously, it's not even close, even with EMP (since you'll never have enough to hit everything)) which is the entire point of this thread.
Well if Stargate tech becomes more usable than just building 4 phoenixes to snipe Zerg's overlords, I'd support Terran mech becoming viable Naniwa's embarrasing defeat by Liquid Sea at IPL showed that mech is still somewhat viable if tanks reach critical number and well, P is not geared exclusively against mech.
I'm waiting for a similar quality post from a knowledgeable P about phoe, void and carrier rework. Until then, no, stick to your MMM ball P is already the side that reacts, T just decides to go mech, P has to react. T decides to go bio, P has to react. And by reacting it becomes a head-to-head game, not an auto win for P. Terran player does not decide to go bio because Protoss is going for immortals, right?
Sky Terran is viable vs P, stargate is not vs T. I think we are equal on that one
My favorite thing about the widow mine right now is countering early cloak banshee in TvT. This is simply an improvement in the matchup. And the example with the 6-7 widow mines taking out a bunch of tempest is actually a pretty cool use of the mines, similar to big burrowed baneling hits. I agree that Terran needs something else to help mech, some sort of tank support unit because right now tanks are more hardcountered than ever. In TvP you can go pure stalker/immortal against terran mech and theres not much they can do about it. As well as mixing in just a few tempests makes it even more difficult and wastes money trading vikings for tempests while your ground force gets stomped. Similar situation in TvZ where the new units, especially blinding cloud on the viper, completely negate siege tanks. More unit spawners help to take tank fire for good zerg engagements as well.
On November 30 2012 23:33 HardCorey wrote: My favorite thing about the widow mine right now is countering early cloak banshee in TvT. This is simply an improvement in the matchup. And the example with the 6-7 widow mines taking out a bunch of tempest is actually a pretty cool use of the mines, similar to big burrowed baneling hits
Dont you think they might become "too powerful" and maybe even "more powerful (useful) than Siege Tanks"? The consequence would be a nerf and it would be back to square 1 ...
The Widow Mine wont make mech more viable, but it could replace it or give more power to bio because there is about zero synergy with the Thor and the Siege Tank.
I am considering reverting or changing the Colossus nerf. I really how like it works in PvP, but in PvT not quite as much.
On November 30 2012 22:38 mantequilla wrote: Well about Terran mech, I feel that you are not just trying to make mech play viable vs P but trying to make it OP. No ground army composition can beat mech and you also want to be able to defend your base while you are besieging opponent's base? Considering stargate play is not viable against terran in almost any situation that can make mech OP as hell.
That is exactly what I am trying to do. No ground army composition should be able to beat Mech in a straight up fight. And that is okay because Mech play based around Siege Tanks is the most immobile force in the game. Force Mech players to fight divided or catch them unsieged and you'll win. Alternatively, use air units.
And I did buff Stargate play. Carriers build 30 seconds faster, heal any hull damage done to interceptors when they return, and are able to be microed the same way they were in BW. I also put in a more powerful anti-air unit for Mech in the Goliath to help combat Carriers.
On November 30 2012 23:33 HardCorey wrote: My favorite thing about the widow mine right now is countering early cloak banshee in TvT. This is simply an improvement in the matchup. And the example with the 6-7 widow mines taking out a bunch of tempest is actually a pretty cool use of the mines, similar to big burrowed baneling hits
Dont you think they might become "too powerful" and maybe even "more powerful (useful) than Siege Tanks"? The consequence would be a nerf and it would be back to square 1 ...
The Widow Mine wont make mech more viable, but it could replace it or give more power to bio because there is about zero synergy with the Thor and the Siege Tank.
This is exactly the issue I pointed out in the OP. The fifth to last paragraph reads: + Show Spoiler +
The power of Mech should not come from the Widow Mine, it should come from the Siege Tank. The Siege Tank should hit hard, not the Widow Mine. If Siege Tanks do enough damage then Mech will work. If they don't, then we'll constantly be looking for something that will do big damage and that we can combine with Siege Tanks so we can say "See Siege Tanks work when you use them with X!" X being the very hard hitting Warhound that was removed or Widow Mine. And in both cases, the Widow Mine and Warhound are better used alone or with other Terran play styles, than in conjunction with Siege Tanks in TvP.
Nice read, you obviously put a lot of time and thought into it, thanks. Game play is the most important thing but, overall design and lore is also important and that's why I don't like this
Instead of making the Tempest a unit built from the Stargate though, let's make it a transformation of the Phoenix that requires the Fleet Beacon.
because that's a Zerg feature (although the mother ship core does something similar). Maybe a unit that can combine with the phoenix?
the ability for Ultralisks to walk over Zerglings, Broodlings, and Locusts
So true, thought this one up myself and probably a lot of other people too. It's so obvious, it's hard to believe that Blizzard can't come with this one themselves.
On December 01 2012 02:54 Penev wrote: So true, thought this one up myself and probably a lot of other people too. It's so obvious, it's hard to believe that Blizzard can't come with this one themselves.
May the force be with you
Thanks. I think like most people who try to give Blizzard ideas at this point I'm standing around so I can tell Blizzard "told ya so" because they don't listen, rather than expecting them to listen to me.
nice opening post, sadly i am too whiny to contribute anything worthwhile, i just hate that mech aint really viable in tvp T_T; or at least i cant make it happen, have like under 10% winrate in tvp in beta lol~
i dont feel the new terran units, 2 supply for widow launcher who gets obsolete mid/lategame is kinda not so good <:
Good post and an ambitious write-up, but some changes I feel does not really fit well with starcraft 2, mainly the medic.
To reintroduce the medic: To reintroduce medics would have vast complications to the late game, where a good chunk of your army would be in healers that take up space from your ground army. Which could render some of your army units to not be firing because the medics is in the way. So the late game terran bio army could be significally weaker. Also your healers would now also be under fire by the colossus, so they would get killed more easily. Also this necessitate a higher barrack count since you have to reproduce healers, since you lose them more easily. I think you accounted for this by introducing upgrades that would make them stronger than medivacs but I feel that those upgrades do not break even with the downside of a ground healer(medic). Against zerg it would have same problem since fungal and banelings will now kill off your healers aswell. However there is a big con with having a healer from the barracks which is the time you can get healers onto the battlefield. Building and gas investment for medivacs is quite hefty for them to be out on the battlefield for any early game push.
Perhaps buffing the tanks is unnecessary: When it comes to tanks I do not believe you have to buff them to make them viable in TvP. I think you nailed it with the re-designed immortals. By adjusting the immortal to not be a complete counter to mech, will make mech viable and not as useless in the midgame. Of course mech will still suffer from immobility but that is your sacrifice for having an inbreakable army. There is just one thing I would change with your immortal, which is that hardened shield would not be removed but it should be tweaked so that it reduce all damage greater than 25 to 25. So its shield would absorb 2 siege shots or one thor shot. Which would make better against siege tanks but not change them against low tier units, and thors still kill them i 3 shots. In large army battles they still be not as great, since you would have critical number of tanks to take them down.
The rest of your purposals I do not have a well-defined opinion on yet so I will not discuss them for now.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2263/stonsteppes.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6818/stonentombed.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3361/tlo1l.png)
![[image loading]](http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6818/tlo2j.png)
![[image loading]](http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/4701/startnf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/7896/finishgd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/1457/draon.png)
![[image loading]](http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/315/crossthet1.png)
![[image loading]](http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/5527/crossthet2.png)
![[image loading]](http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6186/marine.png)
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/7/74/Medic_SC2_Rend1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8507/screenshot2012102013361.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9250/screenshot2012102013365.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2213/dragonclearsmineralline.png)
![[image loading]](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100817170504/starcraft/images/4/4b/FlamingBetty_SC2_Game1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/2916/betty1n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/7020/betty3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2091/betty2os.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/5596/nowyouseeem.png)
![[image loading]](http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/3664/nowyoudont.png)
![[image loading]](http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/8264/tempestsdevestated.png)
