|
The unit AI in SC2 is vastly superior to its predecessor in BW, which is a welcome change. One contentious issue with the AI is the lack of overkill with siege tanks, and the difficulties this creates in approaching a sieged tank line that is defended by a good balance of units (particularly for Zerg).
In BW, you could take advantage of siege tank overkill and swarm tank lines with good timing, good unit placement and sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, SC2 is a different story, and it does not help that terran mech has air and ground range superiority as well.
Now, in no way am I suggesting that the situation is unbalanced or cannot be overcome. The game isn't even live yet, and we can't make any assumption based on the beta alone. I do have a suggestion though that would add a bit more strategy, create more viewer tension, and make sense lore-wise.
My idea is that tanks be given a passive ability that makes it so that only tanks who are within a predetermined distance from each other exhibit smart-targeting behaviour. A separate range circle would be displayed around each sieged tank that would denote this area (and could also mark the minimum range of the tank - something that should already be in the game). Tanks who are "linked" would be able to form a chain - meaning that as long as a tank is in range of one other tank that is "linked" they would benefit from the AI boost. The "link" circle could change colour when activated, and the tank model itself could have a light on it go from say, red to green, to warn the opposing player of the tank positioning. This ability would make tank placement more important, and would also open up sieged tanks to any AoE attacks and abilities that can hit them (although there are admittedly few units with AoE that survive getting within tank range).
This wouldn't change Terran army placement too much. Tanks are usually grouped together anyways, but in the case of some tanks not being "linked", it would make a difference, and add some more strategy to tank engagement (catching opponent off-guard, force field etc.). EMP could temporarily disable the link ability as it does with cloaking, but TvT isn't really the matchup in which this is needed.
Its a little late in development to be generating new ideas for units but I think its at least an interesting concept. Correct me if I'm terribly, terribly wrong.
|
Burrowed infestors using infested terran, or unburrown them and neural parasite (after fungal growthing the rest of the army). The AI is totally teh suck when you spawn infested terrans and your infestors never actually get targeted.
Or burrowed roaches, if you don't mind them getting wasted.
|
I actually like this idea, it dosent take away much from the tanks while definatly making things a bit better for the other races. Honestly the only ONLY place i see tanks being imba currently is vs hydralisks. hydras are only 50/75/1 cheaper than a tank. A group of 4 tanks should kill 3+ hydralisks on the first volley with smartfire. Thats pretty insane to me.
|
On July 10 2010 04:56 Zoltan wrote:
I actually like this idea, it dosent take away much from the tanks while definatly making things a bit better for the other races. Honestly the only ONLY place i see tanks being imba currently is vs hydralisks. hydras are only 50/75/1 cheaper than a tank. A group of 4 tanks should kill 3+ hydralisks on the first volley with smartfire. Thats pretty insane to me.
starcraft doesn't work that way.
|
I really like these ideas.
I don't think the opposing player should be warned about the Tanks being linked, though. They should have to gauge that based on their experience.
|
On July 10 2010 05:07 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 04:56 Zoltan wrote:
I actually like this idea, it dosent take away much from the tanks while definatly making things a bit better for the other races. Honestly the only ONLY place i see tanks being imba currently is vs hydralisks. hydras are only 50/75/1 cheaper than a tank. A group of 4 tanks should kill 3+ hydralisks on the first volley with smartfire. Thats pretty insane to me. starcraft doesn't work that way.
What he said ^^
You can have less food/mineral/gas army and lose to a much greater one, this is why looking at those stats when watching/casting a game isn't amazing.
|
I'm aware, i just think that the differential between siege tanks and what they can kill is a smidgen too great when you talk about hydras.
I think its the same with storm vs terran bio tbh. just my opinion... im not on the design team yankow  , its not like im gonna go change it.
|
just give tanks projectile attax kinda like marauders, and tank imba overkill problem solved
|
The approach to terran mech as a zerg is much like in starcraft 1, you never ever attack a siege line head on, like you said they are too strong for that. try counter attacks and taking out expos where there is little defending, mech is still isn't mobile. so long as you never attack it head on, expand like crazy, and harrass him, the terran war machine will fall.
|
It's an interesting idea, and definitely adds to the lategame... Siege mode just seems too easy to get, and tanks just never die
|
if you bring in overkill for tanks then you've got to bring in overkill for banelings and all other units.
|
Siege attack should just be slower, if anything...
There's tons that needs to be changed with T with respect to the TvZ matchup. The only way a Zerg can "win" is if the Terran does a stupid strat or completely messes up one of the 5-10 different variations of strategies they can do.
|
On July 10 2010 05:56 tarsier wrote:
if you bring in overkill for tanks then you've got to bring in overkill for banelings and all other units.
this.
Of units that benefit from smart-fire tanks are just the ones that you stupidly run at the most.
|
On July 10 2010 05:59 Amber[LighT] wrote:
Siege attack should just be slower, if anything...
There's tons that needs to be changed with T with respect to the TvZ matchup. The only way a Zerg can "win" is if the Terran does a stupid strat or completely messes up one of the 5-10 different variations of strategies they can do.
Explain why zerg and protoss are winning all the top tournies if terran is so tough. Balance tweaks definitely need to be made, but IMO terran is the weakest race right now. They have no mobility and that is abused repeatedly by the high level players. Listen to the pros talk, none claim that their own race is the strongest ever.
|
On July 10 2010 04:10 Frobert wrote:
The unit AI in SC2 is vastly superior to its predecessor in BW, which is a welcome change. One contentious issue with the AI is the lack of overkill with siege tanks, and the difficulties this creates in approaching a sieged tank line that is defended by a good balance of units (particularly for Zerg).
In BW, you could take advantage of siege tank overkill and swarm tank lines with good timing, good unit placement and sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, SC2 is a different story, and it does not help that terran mech has air and ground range superiority as well.
Now, in no way am I suggesting that the situation is unbalanced or cannot be overcome. The game isn't even live yet, and we can't make any assumption based on the beta alone. I do have a suggestion though that would add a bit more strategy, create more viewer tension, and make sense lore-wise.
My idea is that tanks be given a passive ability that makes it so that only tanks who are within a predetermined distance from each other exhibit smart-targeting behaviour. A separate range circle would be displayed around each sieged tank that would denote this area (and could also mark the minimum range of the tank - something that should already be in the game). Tanks who are "linked" would be able to form a chain - meaning that as long as a tank is in range of one other tank that is "linked" they would benefit from the AI boost. The "link" circle could change colour when activated, and the tank model itself could have a light on it go from say, red to green, to warn the opposing player of the tank positioning. This ability would make tank placement more important, and would also open up sieged tanks to any AoE attacks and abilities that can hit them (although there are admittedly few units with AoE that survive getting within tank range).
This wouldn't change Terran army placement too much. Tanks are usually grouped together anyways, but in the case of some tanks not being "linked", it would make a difference, and add some more strategy to tank engagement (catching opponent off-guard, force field etc.). EMP could temporarily disable the link ability as it does with cloaking, but TvT isn't really the matchup in which this is needed.
Its a little late in development to be generating new ideas for units but I think its at least an interesting concept. Correct me if I'm terribly, terribly wrong.
Tanks are already weak. They are extremely slow, immobile, cannot attack air, and countered hard by melee. They need buffs if anything.
|
|
|
On July 10 2010 05:56 tarsier wrote:
if you bring in overkill for tanks then you've got to bring in overkill for banelings and all other units.
Agreed. Either it applies to all races or none at all.
|
On July 10 2010 05:56 tarsier wrote:
if you bring in overkill for tanks then you've got to bring in overkill for banelings and all other units.
This is already the case. Please get your facts straight before throwing around wild suggestions.
Every ranged unit in starcraft 2 does already overkill. (Try shooting a zergling with 20 stalkers, they will all shoot if in range)
Banelings don't because they are considered melee, and considering that they suicide themselves just to kill 1 zergling ... we could call this overkilling.
The reason that tanks are the only unit not overkilling is that their shots hit instantly.
Their shots hit the target at exactly the same point in time they shoot. The other tanks then "recognize" that the target is dead before shooting at it themselves.
They are not in any way smarter than the other units, their projectiles are just instantly hitting the target.
The "solution" to delay the impact for just a fraction of a second, and tanks would overkill again.
|
On July 10 2010 06:19 Sabresandiego wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 04:10 Frobert wrote:
The unit AI in SC2 is vastly superior to its predecessor in BW, which is a welcome change. One contentious issue with the AI is the lack of overkill with siege tanks, and the difficulties this creates in approaching a sieged tank line that is defended by a good balance of units (particularly for Zerg).
In BW, you could take advantage of siege tank overkill and swarm tank lines with good timing, good unit placement and sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, SC2 is a different story, and it does not help that terran mech has air and ground range superiority as well.
Now, in no way am I suggesting that the situation is unbalanced or cannot be overcome. The game isn't even live yet, and we can't make any assumption based on the beta alone. I do have a suggestion though that would add a bit more strategy, create more viewer tension, and make sense lore-wise.
My idea is that tanks be given a passive ability that makes it so that only tanks who are within a predetermined distance from each other exhibit smart-targeting behaviour. A separate range circle would be displayed around each sieged tank that would denote this area (and could also mark the minimum range of the tank - something that should already be in the game). Tanks who are "linked" would be able to form a chain - meaning that as long as a tank is in range of one other tank that is "linked" they would benefit from the AI boost. The "link" circle could change colour when activated, and the tank model itself could have a light on it go from say, red to green, to warn the opposing player of the tank positioning. This ability would make tank placement more important, and would also open up sieged tanks to any AoE attacks and abilities that can hit them (although there are admittedly few units with AoE that survive getting within tank range).
This wouldn't change Terran army placement too much. Tanks are usually grouped together anyways, but in the case of some tanks not being "linked", it would make a difference, and add some more strategy to tank engagement (catching opponent off-guard, force field etc.). EMP could temporarily disable the link ability as it does with cloaking, but TvT isn't really the matchup in which this is needed.
Its a little late in development to be generating new ideas for units but I think its at least an interesting concept. Correct me if I'm terribly, terribly wrong. Tanks are already weak. They are extremely slow, immobile, cannot attack air, and countered hard by melee. They need buffs if anything.
No, tanks are very powerful and should not need buffs. Your points are only valid if you mass only tanks, any player would have a mix of units that complement the tanks. There is no better offensive support unit than the tank.
|
Please stop taking away things that makes starcraft the great game it is.
|
How would the close distance improved AI link be explained lorewise? I don't like the idea.
Instead, as other people have said, having the tank's projectile take time to travel would be the right approach. The speed of the projectile is a matter of balance; it correlates to how well tanks distribute their firepower.
|
I don't understand how this helps the situation at all. As it is, the smart AI only affects units that are close together, so this changes absolutely nothing... a tank that is positioned far from another tank won't suffer from overkill... as the unit will be dead before it reaches the range of the further back tank....
|
When playing Zerg I have a lot of difficulty with tank lines, but I don't think that's something that needs to be fixed. I hate to see tanks no longer overkill just because we find it hard to deal with. It's a lot more frustrating to see your tanks overkill than it is to see your units die because your opponent's tanks don't overkill.
Plus - I see a lot of replays where players successfully break down the Terran opponent even through a fortress of tanks.
Terran are characteristically less mobile. I feel that's good and brings variety to the game, but they should be rewarded with a stronger defense to balance it out.
|
On July 10 2010 06:55 Amprophet wrote:
When playing Zerg I have a lot of difficulty with tank lines, but I don't think that's something that needs to be fixed. I hate to see tanks no longer overkill just because we find it hard to deal with. It's a lot more frustrating to see your tanks overkill than it is to see your units die because your opponent's tanks don't overkill.
Plus - I see a lot of replays where players successfully break down the Terran opponent even through a fortress of tanks.
Terran are characteristically less mobile. I feel that's good and brings variety to the game, but they should be rewarded with a stronger defense to balance it out.
I think overkill adds a lot more depth to the tank though... overkill completely kills or dramatically reduces the effectiveness of getting your units within close proximity of tanks, completely ruins zealot bombs, drops, etc. and quite frankly doesn't make much sense.
Tanks have one of the longest ranges, but roaches can still overkill easily. I see almost no reason for tanks not to have overkill, as in a realistic sense I would think the siege tank would overkill before ANY other unit in the game, but maybe I'm just reminiscing about SC1.
Also overkill increases the advantage of spamming pure tanks, taking out strategic depth imo.
|
On July 10 2010 06:39 101TFP wrote:
The reason that tanks are the only unit not overkilling is that their shots hit instantly.
Their shots hit the target at exactly the same point in time they shoot. The other tanks then "recognize" that the target is dead before shooting at it themselves.
They are not in any way smarter than the other units, their projectiles are just instantly hitting the target.
You have proof of this, yes?
|
Interesting idea. Here are my thoughts:
I'm not sure how to interpret the impact this level of complexity would add. I fear (only my initial reaction) this would add much complexity to people's thoughts, where it actually has little affect.
Secondly, as Blizzard also mentioned, I think tanks are only OP in TvT (although probably not after the nerf, although I haven't been able to play enough since then). Both toss and zerg have extremely powerful anti tank strategies. (Just off the top of my head toss have various uses of VR, and immortals and zerg have ultralisk map control (exploiting immobility) with super-expanding, as well as bling and ultra doom drops). So any adjustments should be made with consideration of TvT, rather than the other races, where tanks do not overwhelm every other strategy. (Remember this is not about balance, but gameplay)
|
On July 10 2010 07:09 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 06:55 Amprophet wrote:
When playing Zerg I have a lot of difficulty with tank lines, but I don't think that's something that needs to be fixed. I hate to see tanks no longer overkill just because we find it hard to deal with. It's a lot more frustrating to see your tanks overkill than it is to see your units die because your opponent's tanks don't overkill.
Plus - I see a lot of replays where players successfully break down the Terran opponent even through a fortress of tanks.
Terran are characteristically less mobile. I feel that's good and brings variety to the game, but they should be rewarded with a stronger defense to balance it out. I think overkill adds a lot more depth to the tank though... overkill completely kills or dramatically reduces the effectiveness of getting your units within close proximity of tanks, completely ruins zealot bombs, drops, etc. and quite frankly doesn't make much sense. Tanks have one of the longest ranges, but roaches can still overkill easily. I see almost no reason for tanks not to have overkill, as in a realistic sense I would think the siege tank would overkill before ANY other unit in the game, but maybe I'm just reminiscing about SC1. Also overkill increases the advantage of spamming pure tanks, taking out strategic depth imo.
Balance. If you watch any high level games, "spamming pure tanks" not only doesn't happen, but lots of tanks doesn't mean insta-win.
Plus, like it's been said a million times, YOU DON'T LET TERRAN GET A 200/200 MECH ARMY.
How many fucking times do we have to have this thread?
|
If Terrans were forced to clump tanks together it would make them pretty much terrible in high level play as that would make them far too susceptible to stuff that they're already very weak against, such as Zealots w/charge, burrowing Roaches, Zergling/Baneling drops and so on.
There's nothing wrong with Siege Tanks as they are; and SC2 isn't BW, saying they had overkill in BW so it should be the way in SC2 too makes absolutely no sense.
|
On July 10 2010 07:17 psion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 06:39 101TFP wrote:
The reason that tanks are the only unit not overkilling is that their shots hit instantly.
Their shots hit the target at exactly the same point in time they shoot. The other tanks then "recognize" that the target is dead before shooting at it themselves.
They are not in any way smarter than the other units, their projectiles are just instantly hitting the target. You have proof of this, yes?
Well, it's right there. Look at a Tank shooting something. There is no delay between the shot and the impact. If you have 3 Tanks sieged up and run a hostile Zergling towards them, they will all turn their turret towards the Zergling, but only the Tank which has its turret pointed at the Zergling first will shoot.
There is probably evidence of this to be found in the editor, but since you have to log in now to use the editor, i cannot look for it, because the beta is still down here in europe.
|
On July 10 2010 07:28 DanielD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2010 07:09 FabledIntegral wrote:On July 10 2010 06:55 Amprophet wrote:
When playing Zerg I have a lot of difficulty with tank lines, but I don't think that's something that needs to be fixed. I hate to see tanks no longer overkill just because we find it hard to deal with. It's a lot more frustrating to see your tanks overkill than it is to see your units die because your opponent's tanks don't overkill.
Plus - I see a lot of replays where players successfully break down the Terran opponent even through a fortress of tanks.
Terran are characteristically less mobile. I feel that's good and brings variety to the game, but they should be rewarded with a stronger defense to balance it out. I think overkill adds a lot more depth to the tank though... overkill completely kills or dramatically reduces the effectiveness of getting your units within close proximity of tanks, completely ruins zealot bombs, drops, etc. and quite frankly doesn't make much sense. Tanks have one of the longest ranges, but roaches can still overkill easily. I see almost no reason for tanks not to have overkill, as in a realistic sense I would think the siege tank would overkill before ANY other unit in the game, but maybe I'm just reminiscing about SC1. Also overkill increases the advantage of spamming pure tanks, taking out strategic depth imo. Balance. If you watch any high level games, "spamming pure tanks" not only doesn't happen, but lots of tanks doesn't mean insta-win. Plus, like it's been said a million times, YOU DON'T LET TERRAN GET A 200/200 MECH ARMY. How many fucking times do we have to have this thread?
I said it increases the advantage of doing so, rather than mixing in more units. It is considered imbalanced by many at the moment, and was most likely the reason for the -10 dmg nerf, whether or not it accomplished anything. Furthermore, spamming a plentiful amount of tanks does happen. And to continue, it is very hard to prevent a Terran from getting a 200/200 army. It is also a terrible way to look at the game.
Your posting quality is absolutely horrendous by the way.
|
This is a poor idea. It doesn't make sense, it's confusing, and it doesn't accomplish anything.
|
I don't like the odd conditions to this idea. Weird unintuitive rules won't help make the game more interesting for existing players or easy to pick up for the new players. I think the more important question is "do tanks need any nerfs?" Every time I see people rallying to nerf the tanks the thread is full of Zerg players. Maybe instead of weaker tanks you need to find a new way to fight tanks. Think about it, they aren't anything special when they aren't in siege mode, and don't move when in siege mode. Protoss players still complain about SC1 tanks, but time has shone that they can be beaten. I have a feeling that SC2 Zergs will soon figure out how to deal with them.
|
SC2 needs new solutions that don't involve gimping the interface. You can't expect Blizzard to make their interface for a game in 2010 similar to its predecessor in 1997. It'd hurt the game critically and impact upon sales, which they won't do.
And honestly, is the best we can do as a community just rehashing old ideas? Surely there's a crazy solution that no-one's seen before that will work.
|
On July 11 2010 03:21 Zack1900 wrote:
I don't like the odd conditions to this idea. Weird unintuitive rules won't help make the game more interesting for existing players or easy to pick up for the new players. I think the more important question is "do tanks need any nerfs?" Every time I see people rallying to nerf the tanks the thread is full of Zerg players. Maybe instead of weaker tanks you need to find a new way to fight tanks. Think about it, they aren't anything special when they aren't in siege mode, and don't move when in siege mode. Protoss players still complain about SC1 tanks, but time has shone that they can be beaten. I have a feeling that SC2 Zergs will soon figure out how to deal with them.
Agreed. While there may be a legitimate complaint, I feel a lot of people are just upset that a mechanic they mastered in BW is no longer applicable in SC2.
|
On July 11 2010 03:27 SiNiquity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 03:21 Zack1900 wrote:
I don't like the odd conditions to this idea. Weird unintuitive rules won't help make the game more interesting for existing players or easy to pick up for the new players. I think the more important question is "do tanks need any nerfs?" Every time I see people rallying to nerf the tanks the thread is full of Zerg players. Maybe instead of weaker tanks you need to find a new way to fight tanks. Think about it, they aren't anything special when they aren't in siege mode, and don't move when in siege mode. Protoss players still complain about SC1 tanks, but time has shone that they can be beaten. I have a feeling that SC2 Zergs will soon figure out how to deal with them. Agreed. While there may be a legitimate complaint, I feel a lot of people are just upset that a mechanic they mastered in BW is no longer applicable in SC2.
Took the words out of my mouth. Exactly. SC2 is a different game with a different UI and therefore mechanics of controlling units will be different. I know we all love BW and its a very very good game - the top 5 games of all time would easily have SC:BW at #1,2, or 3. We will have to learn to work around the AI of SC2 to get the behavior we want just like we did in BW - just in different areas.
You CAN bug the current tank AI, its just different than before. In BW you basically ran some fodder in and then used the 1-2 second cool down on every tank to take some out. In SC2 - especially as Zerg - the race who has the most problems with tanks, you can 'dodge' the tank fire, that is to say, if you run a very fast unit past the line of fire (i.e. Zerglings) the tanks will pick a spot and fire, and your lings will have moved out of that spot by the time the damage hits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
