| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
-buff ghost (longer range for nuke, maybe shorter build time for nuke) -buff hunter-seeker missile (give back splash damage) -buff yamato (increase range) -buff thor anti-air range and damage that should prevent tanks from becoming too good in tvt while making them viable in other matchups also, id like to see hydras buffed in return, and fungal range decreased again | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 09 2013 22:29 Markwerf wrote: Lol you tested immortals against siege tanks in the unit tester and found that at some high number of supply on both sides tanks actually beat immortals?? That means really little.. There are a few problems with mech in TvP two of which are: - you need a very high mass of units to be safe, even if you're in great defensive positioning. This makes it very difficult to open with mech or to defend a more open map. This is mostly because the immortal is so rediculously good against tanks - 200/200 battles usually end up with the terran only winning by a small margin at which point a round of warp-ins crushes the terran, this is also because zealot/archon/immortal is so damn effective. That there exists some theoretical point at which point siege tanks beat immortals if immortals are just a-moved into tanks is completely irrelevant. Siege tanks are just not effective enough at all against protoss which is largely a result of the immortal, a siege tank expand or small groups of well placed siege tanks are not even reliable as defense since high ground advantage is pretty much moot in the days of the MsC and immortals can easily walk in. It's bad to let mech be too reliant on EMP, first of all it's really hard to get ghosts with mech in a decent timeframe. Secondly it just makes EMP the vortex of TvP then, either you hit it and roll over or you die completely. It's not really fun gameplay that way. Besides it's really hard to use EMPs to remove hardened shields effectively as siege tanks outrange your ghost.. If P moves in immortals first your tanks already waste a volley or 2 on the hardened shield before the EMP hits and P get's to close in with his zealots/archons.. A simple hardened shield removal wouldn't affect any matchup really except mech v P, it's just a straightforward solution to the exact problem they want to solve.. I do believe that the immortal should be tuned down slightly, but a -40(tank)/-25(ultra)/-20(thor)/-10(marauder)/-6(roach) etc downgrade on its armor sounds very extreme. + Show Spoiler + A small damage adjustment 25(+20 or 15) would be nice imo I dont think immortals in particular are "the" problem for tanks in TvP. Their problem is their low dps/cost when they are fighting bigger units (immortals, colossi, archons; and in general everything protoss is statistically bigger than T/Z). What tanks need is a reasonable damage increase on their maintarget: Vs armored big units it is borderline fine (colossi, ultra, thor, immortal after shields are down) but could be better imo, vs other armored it is quite good. It's the unarmored health-focused units (zealot, archon) that really shine in tanking siege damage. Smaller unarmored are fine again, due to the splash. | ||
|
rollAdice
Germany32 Posts
So the easiest fix is reduce the damage of thors to a half and double their attack speed, we just doubled the dps of thors vs immortals. | ||
|
Duncaaaaaan
United Kingdom101 Posts
On January 09 2013 16:08 SheaR619 wrote: Believe it or not but most map are pretty good for mech. Atleast in the current map pool. This is because there has to always be an easy to access third other wise ZvP is imbalance due to the stephano 200 roach because protoss need an easy accessable third. This also help mech quiet a bit because an easy accessable/defendable third help mech secure a third more easily because of their immobility. I disagree. The maps are huge and just keep growing. Huge maps are very bad for mech. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 09 2013 23:08 Duncaaaaaan wrote: I disagree. The maps are huge and just keep growing. Huge maps are very bad for mech. I disagree. Many of the bigger maps have been quite good for mech, f.e. Metropolis, daybreak. It really "just" depends on the exact layout. And quite frankly, i don't think maps are growing these days. Sizes have been quite stable with the occasional huge (whirlwind) and small (ohana) map strayed in. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
On January 09 2013 23:04 rollAdice wrote: I think a lot people don't realize that the immortal is not an anti-mech unit - it's an anti high burst-damage unit. The problem with mech is that both the tank and the thor have high burst-damage with low attack speed. All units with high attack speed and low burst-damage do perfectly fine against immortals. So the easiest fix is reduce the damage of thors to a half and double their attack speed, we just doubled the dps of thors vs immortals. Practically the only units with high burst damage are mech... The only other units doing much are the tempest and the ultralisk.. Why make ugly fixes to mech units just to bypass the problem of the immortal if you can fix the problem directly.. Not even mentioning that just making the thor do half damage at double speed is a huge buff against zerg because it won't overkill as much anymore... Lings are quite effective against thors because a thor wastes nearly 50% on every shot for example.. It would probably look ugly to if the thor fires so quickly and constantly turns to acquire new targets | ||
|
rollAdice
Germany32 Posts
On January 09 2013 23:15 Markwerf wrote: Practically the only units with high burst damage are mech... The only other units doing much are the tempest and the ultralisk.. Why make ugly fixes to mech units just to bypass the problem of the immortal if you can fix the problem directly.. Not even mentioning that just making the thor do half damage at double speed is a huge buff against zerg because it won't overkill as much anymore... Lings are quite effective against thors because a thor wastes nearly 50% on every shot for example.. It would probably look ugly to if the thor fires so quickly and constantly turns to acquire new targets Well this was just a suggestion but the same could be accomplished by leaving the attack speed as is and increasing the shot count to 4. Also fixes the ling problem. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20343 Posts
-buff ghost (longer range for nuke nooooooooooooooooooooooo00000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO You want to buff mech? How about NOT extending the range of nuke which is already extremely extremely powerful with godlike potential for a 100/100 cost when it can already oneshot a tank from outside of the tanks sieged range. You can oneshot Larvae and workers from 16 range with nuke. Do you really want to extend this and make them build faster? Did you not see that IdrA game like a year and a half ago on Lost Temple where terran turtled and built half a dozen or more ghost academies and launched 10-15 nukes in the space of a minute or two? =P | ||
|
LloydPGM
85 Posts
I'll wait for a long time before POSSIBLY buying HOTS. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Mech is by far the most expensive build order production building wise. And with the increased defenders abilities the other races got I doubt it would create rush problems, when the production buildings are out abit faster. For the Immortal problem, they can make the Groundviking in one way or the other useful against the Immortal. Either the GroundViking massacres the shield with a haywire like missile, while the Viking gets melted by the Immortal cannons. Or the Viking does an Archon/Queen and loses their armor flag on the ground. That way they can peel of the Immortal shields with normal focus fire, as their attack seems to be optimized for taking down those shields. With the now shared armor upgrades, the ground Viking would also be good at tanking Zealots/Archons. And you already have some anti air with you. The Viking was supposed to harass, but they do a pretty bad job at this due to their slow morph phase. And it would really fit well as an tanking unit, without the armored flag. On the other hand it would be just a better Hellbat. | ||
|
mcmizzler
Canada1 Post
| ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On January 09 2013 23:49 mcmizzler wrote: Do siege tanks really need a buff? i mean i play T and i think 13 range and splash damage is pretty strong already I was originally off the idea that a range change shouldn't be on the table, but when you consider that everything in SC2 moves faster, and Blizzard has already introduced units with higher range than the tank (bad design choice IMO as having units with longer range than the seige tank is akin to not having marines/zealots/zerglings in that some rules shouldn't be broken) then there's kind of a power creep, however a range change is still debatable. On the other-hand the tank definitely needs a drastic damage buff (damage is absolutely pitiful given that it incurs extreme drawbacks solely to fire), and possibly some supply adjustments too. The reasoning for this is that tanks were already subpar in WoL, and HotS has introduced 3-4 new tank soft/hard counters alone. It's current state is laughable. | ||
|
dicedicerevolution
United States245 Posts
| ||
|
Elp
Netherlands86 Posts
Tanks: They should be reverted back to their state before patch 1.1.0. Meaning 50 damage in siege mode to all targets. With the bigger maps and the other Terran nerfs over the years, I think it's worth it to at least test this. BC: Remove the energy bar. Put Yamato on a timer or remove it. An ability is supposed to make a unit better, not worse (HT Feedback..) Raven: -Turrets should work like Infested Terrans, meaning you can put them down anywhere. Right now, 9 out of 10 times you can't put them down because enemy units are blocking the ground. The current Turret mechanic is just silly. -Seeker Missile: Keep the HotS range but change it back to the WoL splash missile. Also, the energy cost is too high. I'd be more than happy to see a splash missile that does less damage but is 75 or 100 energy. (60 damage for 75 energy, or 80 damage for 100 energy, for example). Reaper: The current role of the Reaper is impossible to balance, as it will always be a rush unit. It will either be too good (see early WoL and current HotS), or not good at all and it will not be used (see WoL now). The only way to give them more general use is to make them better against non-light units. I don't see any way in doing this without making them overpowered. Unless the Cliffjump ability is removed, but that really takes away the essence of the Reaper. | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Tanks do full damage to Shields, regardless of unit type. Increases damage to Zealots and Archons but does not affect much of anything else. Tanks to 150/100/2 from 150/125/3, allowing for more tanks to be fielded or more support be provided for the same tank count. It might still have trouble dealing with the same armies but it might be a good place to start. | ||
|
Telenil
France484 Posts
On January 09 2013 20:26 Rabiator wrote: If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies.The "factory style" you describe has enough difficulty on its own due to the immobility, but "forcing" this style to rely upon units from other buildings too much is a terrible thing, because it makes it too complicated and in the end not worthwile. Against the Tempest you basically NEED the Viking, but WHY should it be necessary? Blizzard dont want to admit that they screwed up with the Tempest (and the Broodlord/Infestor combo) and change these units and so they are falling back to the "we dont intend to do this" option and just tell us to build other stuff too to make it work. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? | ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
That is a hugh issue because the terran takes a huge risk to unsieged. Yet, even if they get tanks sieged and in position, it is still 50/50. I think this is mainly due to maps. All the GSL maps have hugh open areas in the middle which means that tanks simply cannot trade cost effectively even when they get in position (except for 3 base turtle). If you look at PL maps, there are much more areas where tanks can siege where they will at least trade decently vs Z. This also plays out in TvT as well where a smaller number of tanks at a choke can hold position vs a larger number of enemy units. That is the entire point of the tank. You sacrifice mobility for zone control. Otherwise, they are like a colossus which needs to siege in order to fire their lasers. | ||
|
Sithril
Slovakia169 Posts
| ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote: If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? I agree somewhat. But then I think they need to look at the gas cost of tanks/thors/vikings. Because all 3 units are very gas intensive per supply. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On January 10 2013 00:14 Telenil wrote: If I remove the usual "I would design this game better than Blizzard" crap (sorry but that's what it is), the actual argument is "mech shouldn't have to rely on other buildings because, combined with its lack of mobility, it would make it too complicated". That sounds a bit... flimsy. Bio use barracks + vikings + medevacs, PvT protoss use gateway + robo, and if you want tanks involved, the compositions required to face zerglings/banelings/mutas were even more diverse. Factory + vikings is not more complicated than those strategies. In other words, why shouldn't players have to build vikings when TvZ involving marine/tank/medevacs/thors into vikings were considered fine? Mech - IMMOBILITY Bio - MOBILITY You notice the difference? Adding "mobile" units to get around the fact that mech is immobile is stupid, because it simply shows that mobility is too important in SC2 because the developers make these decisions. Its basically cheating and the merging of one upgrade for mech and air already blurs the lines between the races, because you are basically down to three upgrades to do it all ... just like Zerg and Protoss have it. Thats not good. Its all about the additional option of being able to play a "static" game of positioning and slowly creeping ahead. Sadly SC2 is all about mobility and thats a big part of the reason why mech doesnt work / works badly. The only solution to this - in Blizzards framework - is to buff the Siege Tank in such a way to make them SCARY to any kind of infantry; both other races have sufficient numbers of "tricks" to deal with static big targets that cant shoot air ... | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g6941 Liquid`RaSZi2648 Grubby2373 FrodaN848 fl0m847 Beastyqt652 shahzam421 mouzStarbuck390 IndyStarCraft  114RotterdaM92 ToD74 ArmadaUGS30 Chillindude22 |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
