|
On April 07 2010 14:49 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
I absolutely loath any idea that makes the immortal a "tank" (in the RPG sense of the word).
When do you build units for that purpose? It's going to see zero use in a role where it can take a lot of damage but not deal much in return. IMO, the immortal is the best of the three to be left as-is, with just a damage reduction to bring it in line.
The idea that dishes damage isnt the problem. It's that it does too good a job at taking damage. The hardened shields completely negate the consideration of going mech for terran.
|
On April 07 2010 14:57 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 14:49 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
I absolutely loath any idea that makes the immortal a "tank" (in the RPG sense of the word).
When do you build units for that purpose? It's going to see zero use in a role where it can take a lot of damage but not deal much in return. IMO, the immortal is the best of the three to be left as-is, with just a damage reduction to bring it in line. The idea that dishes damage isnt the problem. It's that it does too good a job at taking damage. The hardened shields completely negate the consideration of going mech for terran.
No. The fact that it kills tanks in 4 shots (3 if you have any upgrades), trashes bunkers, and blows through walls instantly, is the problem. They're very killable once then game is underway. The real issue is you usually can't get that far because you just die to immortal pushes. God forbid they catch you without EMP.
|
On April 07 2010 14:57 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 14:49 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
I absolutely loath any idea that makes the immortal a "tank" (in the RPG sense of the word).
When do you build units for that purpose? It's going to see zero use in a role where it can take a lot of damage but not deal much in return. IMO, the immortal is the best of the three to be left as-is, with just a damage reduction to bring it in line. The idea that dishes damage isnt the problem. It's that it does too good a job at taking damage. The hardened shields completely negate the consideration of going mech for terran.
No...he's right. The dishing damage IS the problem and the taking damage is what it's suppose to do. He got the idea right, he just hates that idea. Yes to damage reduction to bring it in line.
|
On April 07 2010 15:00 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 14:57 Two_DoWn wrote:On April 07 2010 14:49 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
I absolutely loath any idea that makes the immortal a "tank" (in the RPG sense of the word).
When do you build units for that purpose? It's going to see zero use in a role where it can take a lot of damage but not deal much in return. IMO, the immortal is the best of the three to be left as-is, with just a damage reduction to bring it in line. The idea that dishes damage isnt the problem. It's that it does too good a job at taking damage. The hardened shields completely negate the consideration of going mech for terran. No. The fact that it kills tanks in 4 shots (3 if you have any upgrades), trashes bunkers, and blows through walls instantly, is the problem. They're very killable once then game is underway. The real issue is you usually can't get that far because you just die to immortal pushes. God forbid they catch you without EMP.
Its a different take on what the unit should do. I think that they need to be more killable, which would mean that the damage they put out is reflective of the fact that they need to do something as the enemy focus fires it down. What you propose is making the damage less while keeping the same level of survivablility. I want the immortal to be a heavy hitter with a little bit of staying power, while you want a unit with a lot of staying power that gives up the heavy damage aspect.
|
On April 07 2010 15:04 Rucky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 14:57 Two_DoWn wrote:On April 07 2010 14:49 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
I absolutely loath any idea that makes the immortal a "tank" (in the RPG sense of the word).
When do you build units for that purpose? It's going to see zero use in a role where it can take a lot of damage but not deal much in return. IMO, the immortal is the best of the three to be left as-is, with just a damage reduction to bring it in line. The idea that dishes damage isnt the problem. It's that it does too good a job at taking damage. The hardened shields completely negate the consideration of going mech for terran. No...he's right. The dishing damage IS the problem and the taking damage is what it's suppose to do. He got the idea right, he just hates that idea. Yes to damage reduction to bring it in line.
agreed, Roach should do half DMG IMHO if it has that much health and armor...
|
On April 07 2010 02:35 Wintermute wrote:Why do people always talk about Roaches attack speed/damage as "decent" or even "high."
They have a 2 second attack delay, the longest of any ground unit save colossi or siege tanks (which of course do splash damage and have huge range). They do about the same DPS as a marine, for 3x the effective cost.
The damage that roaches do is quite low for their cost. It's the armor/HP combo that makes them a great deal.
The DPS just about doesn't matter because they are ranged (enough), durable as hell, and massable. Comparing them to Marines is pretty bs since Roaches' armor and hp let them get off way more attacks than Marines ever will under similar situations so while their DPS may be similar, the actual damage they're going to deal is significantly greater.
Specifically, consider Marines v Sieged Tank and Roaches v Sieged Tank. The Marines won't even reach it while the Roaches probably will and once they do they'll do so in sufficient numbers to one or two-shot it. If Marines do somehow manage to reach it, it will take about as much time to kill the Tank at least except that during that time they'll be dropping left and right to the Tank.
On April 07 2010 05:20 StarBrift wrote:I can't for the life of me understand why the siege tank doesn't do extra dmg to armored in siege mode. What would that make imbalanced? Immortals? They have their shield and will thus only lose hard if they are EMPed or hurt beforehand. Thors? Who goes mass thors TvT? Marauders allready rape tanks 1v1 in an open area. Roaches harcore counter tanks also with a good flank. If tanks did extra vs armored in siege it would be viable to do mech vs zerg.
The most immediate reason I see is Stalkers. However, "Chargelots" and Immortals imo should really be the immediate counters to Siege Tanks with Blink Stalkers being more suicide mission support as necessary. Otherwise, it seemed like Blizzard wanted mass Marauders to be able to bust through Siege Tank lines in TvT but imo they would be better served there by using a more creative solution such as allowing Hellions to transport one infantry unit, a bit of a throwback to Spider Mine Vultures using their speed to get right next to Siege Tanks and then dropping a Spider Mine that then kills the Tank- except here you'd drop off a Marauder that's below the Tank's minimum range and meanwhile since the focus then shifts to just getting Marauders in close to Tanks instead of having Marauders be their own kinds of tanks, their hp can be toned down significantly; in other match-ups, all Marauders really need to do is provide support to Marines imo, ala slow v Zerglings + Zealots + Banelings, extra firepower against Ultralisks and Collossi (speaking of which, "Hellion Drop" could provide an interesting although less effective ground alternative to Vikings for dealing with Collossi).
And yeah, for Thors, earlier in the beta I actually had a game on Blistering Sands that started out as proxy 'rax rush by my opponent (built a 'rax on the other side of my rocks, then lifted it over the rocks and landed it in the reeds; I scouted the landed 'rax right as it landed and managed to fend the rush off) but turned into a 30+ minute long Thor v Siege Tank TvT (I went Siege Tanks  ). Thors just flat-out can't move fast enough to be any serious counter to Medivac-dropping Siege Tanks and since Siege Tanks' advantage over Thors is that they out-range them there is no need to drop on the Thors. Good Siege Tank positioning and aggressive Tank drops to harass won me the game. Specifically, the game came to a massive head over the gold mineral expos and I managed to set-up a Tank + Turret defense that prevented him from being able to drop on all my Tank positions, so he dropped on one then went to drop on the CC and really had no success with any of those drops as my well-positioned Tanks out-ranged the Thors perfectly and their slow movement screwed them over. Of course, it also helped that while he was attacking my gold expo I managed to get a really sweet drop in at his gold expo for about the fourth or fifth time for the gg xD But besides the Medivac element of that, whenever our main forces engaged, my Siege Tanks won because of firepower + range. Drop play was the only thing that made the Thors remotely viable.
On April 07 2010 10:23 verrater wrote:
they can't remove roaches, if they do helion harrass is going go to destroy zerg in 5 minutes
If they remove Roaches then they're going to fill that gap somehow. They're either going to introduce a new unit that could deal with Hellions among other things in T1 or they're going to move Hydras back down to T1 so you'll be able to get Hydras earlier and in larger numbers. While Hellions are great against Hydralisks, it's really situational. First, the Infernal Preigniter upgrade is almost requires for Hellions v Hydras imo which is going to slow the arrival of the first Hellions, and second if you spread your Hydralisks out and/or slap down Spine Crawlers defensively and leverage your Queen to defend, you can help protect the Hydralisks from getting surrounded and flamed. As for blocking your ramp, Spine Crawlers can... crawl... so slap down some Creep Tumors (omg invest in something other than mutant larva!?) and have them crawl to the ramp to block it off if you feel you need to. Have them crawl away later to unblock. Aka, be creative.
|
On April 07 2010 15:04 Rucky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 14:57 Two_DoWn wrote:On April 07 2010 14:49 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
I absolutely loath any idea that makes the immortal a "tank" (in the RPG sense of the word).
When do you build units for that purpose? It's going to see zero use in a role where it can take a lot of damage but not deal much in return. IMO, the immortal is the best of the three to be left as-is, with just a damage reduction to bring it in line. The idea that dishes damage isnt the problem. It's that it does too good a job at taking damage. The hardened shields completely negate the consideration of going mech for terran. No...he's right. The dishing damage IS the problem and the taking damage is what it's suppose to do. He got the idea right, he just hates that idea. Yes to damage reduction to bring it in line.
I'm not liking the idea that it would be some kind of "lead the charge against the tanks" unit. That just doesn't seem feasible. Zeals are going to run ahead of the big thing regardless of how much damage it can take. Tanks are going to be micro'd to hit favorable targets. There is just no place for a unit that deals pitiful damage, but takes a beating, in this game.
The immortal's shield is highly ineffective against marines, hydras, lings, zeals, and other basic low-damage fodder. Not to mention, it's completely negated by emp. IMO the immortal is the least deadly of the three (along with most expensive, and hardest to mass) and in the most reasonable place regarding overall balance. I'd wager it would be more than fine loosing a bit of it's non-armor damage, but tuning down the shield and it's damage would render the unit worthless. We have to keep in mind here that stalkers don't scale well vs. armored targets. Immortals would certainly be one of our only answers if thor/tank became common-place (as a lot of terran would enjoy, i'm sure) units in PvT.
It's not that I don't sympathise with terran who are afraid of their factory being countered by a single unit, but I really don't think you all quite grasp just how ineffective it would be against mech with significant loss to it's shield and damage. Assuming the roach is toned down, zerg won't even need to worry about the immo, since roaches were about the only thing immos were ever used for against them.
|
On April 07 2010 16:04 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
There is just no place for a unit that deals pitiful damage, but takes a beating, in this game.
The Ultralisks in SC1 has the role of taking a beating but it did decent damage for it to be made. So yeah, pretty much agree that Immortal's bonus damage should be nerfed a bit.
|
On April 07 2010 16:08 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 16:04 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
There is just no place for a unit that deals pitiful damage, but takes a beating, in this game. The Ultralisks in SC1 has the role of taking a beating but it did decent damage for it to be made. So yeah, pretty much agree that Immortal's bonus damage should be nerfed a bit.
Problem is: You can't just nerf the Bonus-DMG, that way you would only make the unit weaker, but what most ppl want I guess are more versatile Units and not just counter-units, so just nerfing the Bonus-DMG would be kinda useless. Say it would get changed from +30 to +25, the usage of Immortals wouldn't be changed at all, it would just be weaker, so you would therefore had to make Roaches and Marauders weaker as well and we're back to square one with the three Units being weaker, but massed like before.
It really needs a complete change of the Units to make the game more versatile and enjoyable, tweaking the numbers on DMG and health just won't cut it IMHO.
|
On April 07 2010 16:24 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 16:08 lolaloc wrote:On April 07 2010 16:04 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
There is just no place for a unit that deals pitiful damage, but takes a beating, in this game. The Ultralisks in SC1 has the role of taking a beating but it did decent damage for it to be made. So yeah, pretty much agree that Immortal's bonus damage should be nerfed a bit. Problem is: You can't just nerf the Bonus-DMG, that way you would only make the unit weaker, but what most ppl want I guess are more versatile Units and not just counter-units, so just nerfing the Bonus-DMG would be kinda useless. Say it would get changed from +30 to +25, the usage of Immortals wouldn't be changed at all, it would just be weaker, so you would therefore had to make Roaches and Marauders weaker as well and we're back to square one with the three Units being weaker, but massed like before. It really needs a complete change of the Units to make the game more versatile and enjoyable, tweaking the numbers on DMG and health just won't cut it IMHO.
Well, yes and no really.
The immortal really isn't just the anti-marauder, it's also the anti-thor and the anti-tank. You really cannot combat mech + emp without the immortal. Zealots and stalkers melt beneath thors, and sentries (obviously) do very little in that setting. Blink makes stalkers nice for tanks, but not as much for thors, and stalkers (as i mentioned eariler) do not have their armor bonus damage scale with upgrades. Left with the stalker and air units as our only answer to mech, we would be in a very bad place.
I think a nerf to the immortal's base damage would bring it in-line, and make it a very niche unit, primarily to stop thors. Honestly, i'm not sure what other role it would fill. Toss don't lack ground anti-air, we have more than enough to deal with light units on the ground. Perhaps there is some kind of support role to be explored.
|
On April 07 2010 16:24 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 16:08 lolaloc wrote:On April 07 2010 16:04 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
There is just no place for a unit that deals pitiful damage, but takes a beating, in this game. The Ultralisks in SC1 has the role of taking a beating but it did decent damage for it to be made. So yeah, pretty much agree that Immortal's bonus damage should be nerfed a bit. Problem is: You can't just nerf the Bonus-DMG, that way you would only make the unit weaker, but what most ppl want I guess are more versatile Units and not just counter-units, so just nerfing the Bonus-DMG would be kinda useless. Say it would get changed from +30 to +25, the usage of Immortals wouldn't be changed at all, it would just be weaker, so you would therefore had to make Roaches and Marauders weaker as well and we're back to square one with the three Units being weaker, but massed like before. It really needs a complete change of the Units to make the game more versatile and enjoyable, tweaking the numbers on DMG and health just won't cut it IMHO.
ultras in sc1 did 20 dmg melee, why can't immortals do 20 dmg ranged? and that's not pitiful. we're talking about a big nerf not your +30 bonus to +25. Either immortals have this insane +30 to tanks, but take away the shield to take full 60 damage from tanks (glass cannon) or take less from tanks and deal less to tanks) you can't have it both ways.
|
Problem is that the marauders hardened shield are just not worth it, because it literally get's raped by EMP. Either make the hardened shield work differently, don't just nerf the DMG or change the Unit completely.
Because as soon as 1 EMP-round comes flying your way, the Immortals are gone against any Unit Terrans throw at them, especially Marauders.
I really have stopped using Immortals against Terran, because you can't win in the Midgame when the Terran has stimmed Marauders and EMP. But EMP isn't really the problem, it's the stimmed Marauders that suddenly do double DMG against the Unit which is supposed to be good against them and you can't even run away to regen your shields because your pinned down by the Marauders.
Against Zerg, nerfing Immos by 5 DMG less against Armored Units wouldn't do anything either, because if you didn't drastically change the Roaches, you'd still would want to use Immortals against them.
Immortals really aren't the biggest Problem compared with Roaches and Marauders IMHO, because you can easily go without building Immorals in every MU, whereas you see Roaches and Marauders in every single game just being massed to the point it hurts to even watch...
|
well... we could come up with another attribute
call it "assault" or whatever and give it to roach, marauder and immortal as well as a damage bonus each towards it (and reduce their normal damage - or at least those of roach and marauder)
and/or reduce their HP since they're not fully being hit by e.g. stalkers anymore.
it'd be like taking the game-breakers out of the game without taking them out of the game -.-
let them battle it out among each other
|
whoever said roach is OP should look the drunkbobby and idra replay, roach has a deadly blindspot, the range is only 3. only really zvz is a problem, but people do get win with fast ling opening.
|
Immortals force marauders TvP though because they cut through tanks so quickly. Therefore, because the immortal exists, marauder spam happens. Because the roach exists, marauders must be strong. Because marauders are strong, they make spamming them viable.
|
great op. roaches/marauders/immortals define sc2 and they are all pretty dull units imo.
|
On April 07 2010 17:46 diehilde wrote:
great op. roaches/marauders/immortals define sc2 and they are all pretty dull units imo.
Yeah, atm, I would even be more happy with SC2 if you just cut out all those 3 Units. You don't even have to change or replace them - just taking them out of the game would make the game more enjoyable IMHO.
|
@kickinhead:
I think the key point of the thread is that just altering the Immortal or the Marauder or the Roach isn't going to be enough. If the Immortal gets nerfed I think you should safely assume that the Marauder is going to get nerfed, preferably in such a way that it isn't really a threat to the Immortal because that role of bio would overlap massively with the Marine's and the Ghost's support role there. Or, at a bare minimum, the hp of the Marauder should get toned down plenty enough to make the decreased Immortal damage still plenty fine versus Marauders.
|
I think blizzard needs to decide which direction they want to go with their "hard counter" system before changing the triad specifically.
As seen in previous patches, most units seem to lose damage on their +type in favour of their regular attack (thor, stalker, baneling, sunken (25+5 lolbigdiff) and so on), which indicates that blizzard is gradually straying away from the "hard counter" system (which imo is a good thing).
What I believe blizzard should be working on (aside from looking into the tri-force) is making more units (especially for terran and zerg) useful in more contexts. The hellion and reaper comes out as incredibly underwhelming in my eyes, for example.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On April 07 2010 15:00 Floophead_III wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 14:57 Two_DoWn wrote:On April 07 2010 14:49 WorkersOfTheWorld wrote:
I absolutely loath any idea that makes the immortal a "tank" (in the RPG sense of the word).
When do you build units for that purpose? It's going to see zero use in a role where it can take a lot of damage but not deal much in return. IMO, the immortal is the best of the three to be left as-is, with just a damage reduction to bring it in line. The idea that dishes damage isnt the problem. It's that it does too good a job at taking damage. The hardened shields completely negate the consideration of going mech for terran. No. The fact that it kills tanks in 4 shots (3 if you have any upgrades), trashes bunkers, and blows through walls instantly, is the problem. They're very killable once then game is underway. The real issue is you usually can't get that far because you just die to immortal pushes. God forbid they catch you without EMP.
I dno. Every time I've played against Mech and tried to go Immortal it always works out that my Colossi are farrrrr more effective and useful. EMP just rapes immortals so hard its not funny and once that's down the Splash from tanks is just ridiculous - stalker and shieldless immortals stand no chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
