EPTThis could be a good idea for a new spellcaster though. A 25/50 mana mini-nuke (smaller AoE, smaller damage, but much shorter delay). Possibly on the raven? Although that may be too good for harassment vs workers. Maybe +damage vs armor could fix that... The balancing could be done by someone better than myself at the game -.-.
[D] How to make Siege Tank good again? - Page 4
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
LAN-f34r
New Zealand2099 Posts
This could be a good idea for a new spellcaster though. A 25/50 mana mini-nuke (smaller AoE, smaller damage, but much shorter delay). Possibly on the raven? Although that may be too good for harassment vs workers. Maybe +damage vs armor could fix that... The balancing could be done by someone better than myself at the game -.-. | ||
|
Crawdad
614 Posts
On November 11 2012 16:06 LAN-f34r wrote: This could be a good idea for a new spellcaster though. A 25/50 mana mini-nuke (smaller AoE, smaller damage, but much shorter delay). Possibly on the raven? Although that may be too good for harassment vs workers. Maybe +damage vs armor could fix that... The balancing could be done by someone better than myself at the game -.-. So... A cheaper Seeker Missile?  | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On November 11 2012 16:06 LAN-f34r wrote: A problem I foresee is that units can get into melee too fast. Zerglings/zealots can just run up to the tanks and then your tanks can't dodge your own projectiles. This could be a good idea for a new spellcaster though. A 25/50 mana mini-nuke (smaller AoE, smaller damage, but much shorter delay). Possibly on the raven? Although that may be too good for harassment vs workers. Maybe +damage vs armor could fix that... The balancing could be done by someone better than myself at the game -.-. A new spell wont "fix" this problem unless it is an instant spell (kinda like Fungal) and they are pretty boring. Why do people think that the solution is to make the game more complex by adding more instead of taking away something? The easiest and best solution IMO is to get rid of the forced tight movement and the unlimited unit selection (in addition to increasing the AoE damage and area a bit). This will fix several problems at once (after a slight readjustment of the units maybe). 1. Siege Tanks wont die as easily as they do anymore and thus mech could become more viable. 2. The unit density for infantry will be lower and thus defensive structures and positions (like Siege Tanks and Bunkers "out in the wild") will be more viable AND the attacker will have to "work" to break through a defensive player instead of having the advantage. 3. More strategies - apart from "keep all your fighting units together and dance around the enemy until one of them blinks and makes a wrong step" - will become a necessity due to an increased defenders advantage. Things like "use hallucinations to draw tank fire" or "use Viper spells to try and break a siege line" or "try and go around the siege line with a Nydus Worm/Recall from a Mothership" or ... will finally see the light of day and make watching the game much more interesting. 4. The deathball is going to be much less efficient than it is now and this is a goal people would love to see accomplished. I consider the Siege Tank to be the best designed unit in the game, because it combines POWER with a DISADVANTAGE. There is no disadvantage to keeping your units in a tight clump with the exception of risking to lose a lot to Banelings. Thats it and Banelings are too powerful in that regard anyways. For the same reason it wouldn be a good idea to give Siege Tanks more damage. Instead of seeing a mass of units die to green goo we would just see lots of stuff die to fairly colorless explosions. Boring and OP. So "less is more" ... If anyone finds a flaw in this reasoning - other than "Blizzard wont do it" (which isnt a flaw in the reasoning at all) - let me know. | ||
|
nucLeaRTV
Romania822 Posts
| ||
|
cythaze
830 Posts
anyway i dont like the idea for sc2, because it somehow just doesn´t fit the game at all imo. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On November 11 2012 20:14 cythaze wrote: from experience with other games i think that projectiles from artillery units then should be able to be fired with a "ground attack" ability. because targeting certain units with tank shots (speedbanes) wouldnt be possible anymore with a delayed impact. anyway i dont like the idea for sc2, because it somehow just doesn´t fit the game at all imo. Being able to attack a spot on the ground would make the Siege Tank MUCH more viable by being able to create a "death zone" at a choke and to precisely target the "empty space" between sieged tanks to avoid friendly fire on the tanks). The thing is that this gain in control/power does come at a price, because you are less able to react with "emergency units" like Hellions and Marines. The ability to attack a spot on the ground does fit in very well with the Siege Tank design, because it is power that comes at a price. Due to the incredible importance of mobility in SC2 I highly doubt that it would make the Siege Tank too powerful, but if you give this ability to the Siege Tank you should also give it to other siege units like the Colossus and maybe even the Broodlord. That last bit would be enormously OP due to the generated free units which can easily be used to block an army while the BL would be even further away. Ground attack for the Colossus might be a benefit though, because it slows down that unit and decreases its mobility (if you use the attack method). | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3680 Posts
I don't think the tank itself is the problem, if there was a mech unit with a really high rate of fire and little damage you could easily use those to target fire hardened shields away from immortals and then just target fire them with tanks. | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
I don't think the tank itself is the problem, if there was a mech unit with a really high rate of fire and little damage you could easily use those to target fire hardened shields away from immortals and then just target fire them with tanks. That's what I'd like to see added to mech. Some kind of semi-mobile gatling gun turret, that once positioned, had a low damage attack but really high rate of fire. It would shred shield-based stuff like Immortal Hardened shields and Archons, and armorless light units like Mutas, but against heavier armored units it'd be very weak. | ||
|
aRyuujin
United States5049 Posts
On November 12 2012 01:33 awesomoecalypse wrote: That's what I'd like to see added to mech. Some kind of semi-mobile gatling gun turret, that once positioned, had a low damage attack but really high rate of fire. It would shred shield-based stuff like Immortal Hardened shields and Archons, and armorless light units like Mutas, but against heavier armored units it'd be very weak. like landed vikings or an autoturret? | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
I do think landed vikings getting a buff could be a direction for fixing mech in TvP. I think giving Terran another unit could be cool because I feel like Hellbats and Mines aren't really as cool and impactful an addition as the new units other races got. But if Blizzard doesn't want to do that, changing the landed Vikings attack from 12 every second to something like 6/6 every .8 seconds would really let them shred shields and unarmored units, while leaving them vulnerable to high armor units--the very units tanks are necessary to punch through. | ||
|
aRyuujin
United States5049 Posts
On November 12 2012 03:08 awesomoecalypse wrote: I do think landed vikings getting a buff could be a direction for fixing mech in TvP. I think giving Terran another unit could be cool because I feel like Hellbats and Mines aren't really as cool and impactful an addition as the new units other races got. But if Blizzard doesn't want to do that, changing the landed Vikings attack from 12 every second to something like 6/6 every .8 seconds would really let them shred shields and unarmored units, while leaving them vulnerable to high armor units--the very units tanks are necessary to punch through. honestly making landed vikings actually good would be like the best thing ever right now they just feel like HERE GUYS LOOK IT CAN TRANSFORMZ let it fill this hole plz blizzard! | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
| ||
|
vNmMasterT
68 Posts
Even some protoss supposed siege weapon walks fast and can go up and down cliffs for rofl sakes. Go look at BW, all these kinds of powerfull weapons are super slow and require additional baby and units to function (reaver shuttle, spider mines on flanks etc etc). | ||
|
D4V3Z02
Germany693 Posts
On November 11 2012 19:51 nucLeaRTV wrote: The hardened shields kill the Tank. I can't suggest the removal of the Immortal, but the Tank could bypass the Shield with an upgrade. Like "Flashing Projectile" or something, insinuating that the projectile is so fast the shield is unable to power up. I recommend the ghosts. It's a special elite unit which is able to destroy shields with a spell called "EMP". Would be sick if Blizzard would implement that. | ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
Makes for more micro. But blizzard isnt going to do this. Its to warcrafty ^^ | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
- Rework the pathing engine so that units don't clump into deathballs. - Remove the "smart fire" feature that makes tanks and other similar units not overkill so that they are more sensible to micro and positioning. - Double the damage of tanks (okay, double may be abit over the top, but 30-50% more damage would be ok). - ??? - PROFIT. Srsly, the worst problem of this game is the retarded pathing engine. You only need a programmer and a game designer working together for a week to fix this. | ||
|
Aelonius
Netherlands432 Posts
On November 10 2012 09:44 Fungal Growth wrote: This buff is urgently needed and long overdue. TvP has become too formulaic and one-dimensional with bio. HOTS can not survive as a an e-sport if pro's keep doing the same bio builds over and over and over and over... Now replace T with Z, and replace bio with roach/ling into GGlord/Infestor. And yes, I play Zerg. | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
| ||
|
Archeon
3253 Posts
On November 10 2012 10:44 Sawamura wrote: Well to counter the siege tank being too good for a two supply unit just check out the infestors man the spells on this unit is just too good in my opinion for it to be a two supply (probably not justified too). Fungal growth just kills everything it is casted on. the infestor are pretty much regarded as being heavily on the edge of being op/supply, and in difference to tanks are a unit which's necessary micro to make it work scales with the number of units. apart from that their dps doesnt outright stack and they are range 9 not 13. And it's the only real power unit zerg has, in difference to terran which also has the marine, and the viking and medivac to some extend. i wouldnt use the infestor as the primary example for how good a unit has to be for 2 supply, a good 2 supply non-spellcaster unit has to be somewhere between the hydra and the marauder. And the siege tank is stronger than both. On November 12 2012 08:09 Aelonius wrote: Now replace T with Z, and replace bio with roach/ling into GGlord/Infestor. And yes, I play Zerg. and replace Z with P and replace blord/infestor with colossus(/ht). And i played toss and now dota2  .On November 12 2012 07:38 BluzMan wrote: Fixing tanks is really easy. - Rework the pathing engine so that units don't clump into deathballs. - Remove the "smart fire" feature that makes tanks and other similar units not overkill so that they are more sensible to micro and positioning. - Double the damage of tanks (okay, double may be abit over the top, but 30-50% more damage would be ok). - ??? - PROFIT. Srsly, the worst problem of this game is the retarded pathing engine. You only need a programmer and a game designer working together for a week to fix this. they wont fix the pathing, it's too much of a core design. they would have to recreate the game from zero again if they did that. and i wouldnt see the problem with smart fire if the pathing was fixed. i just think the way it is now is stupid. btw blocking banes already requires micro. | ||
|
Freeborn
Germany421 Posts
Units are just choosing the shortest path and since you click on one point they will clump up. This cannot really be fixed, but unit size could be increased, range decreased (as someone was suggesting to decrease all ranges by 1) or make units have a set small amount of spacing between each other. | ||
| ||
