|
On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Isn't it obvious? Blizzard (Dustin Browder) HATES anything that connects the game with BW and they do their best to phase out these units. They tried to do it with the Carrier and were prevented from removing it by the popular outcry. The "microing buff" doesnt really improve that unit to be more powerful / easier to use than the Tempest, so they dont really care anyways. They simply had to add a "mech" unit which was more powerful than the Siege Tank (the first attempt failed completely ... the Warhound) and the Widow Mine is clearly designed to be a bio support and local defense unit.
The Siege Tank has been in need of a buff for quite some time, but what happened when Blizzard said they wanted to make mech viable in TvP? They buffed anything except the "core" unit itself.
|
On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Tanks and widow mines don't fill the same purposes though. Widow mines are a defensive position for you to back into if you have speedlings on your ass while retaining the mobility of bio whereas tanks are used to control large areas and push someone into a corner.
That tanks need a buff might be true, but it remains to be seen. The metagame currently is widow mine based. Give it time.
|
On April 04 2013 21:16 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Tanks and widow mines don't fill the same purposes though. Widow mines are a defensive position for you to back into if you have speedlings on your ass while retaining the mobility of bio whereas tanks are used to control large areas and push someone into a corner. That tanks need a buff might be true, but it remains to be seen. The metagame currently is widow mine based. Give it time.
Tanks are not used to "control large areas". That is a myth and how the game worked in BW. In SC2 they do not deal nearly enough damage to control anything other than Steppes of War because you have to keep all of them together or risk being overrun on one part of the map by the whole army of the opponent. This makes it pretty clear that the have needed a buff + Show Spoiler +... probably large enough so they can one-shot Zerglings in the secondary splash radius (= 70 damage) or maybe even large enough to deal enough damage to one-shot a stimmed Marine in the secondary splash radius (= 90 damage) ...
|
On April 04 2013 21:16 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Tanks and widow mines don't fill the same purposes though. Widow mines are a defensive position for you to back into if you have speedlings on your ass while retaining the mobility of bio whereas tanks are used to control large areas and push someone into a corner. That tanks need a buff might be true, but it remains to be seen. The metagame currently is widow mine based. Give it time.
This. You don't see widow mines in TvT outside of early mid game for drop aggression. Tanks still do amazing dps once you reach critical mass and is actually effective against range units
Its definitely not 50/50
|
On April 04 2013 21:16 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Tanks and widow mines don't fill the same purposes though. Widow mines are a defensive position for you to back into if you have speedlings on your ass while retaining the mobility of bio whereas tanks are used to control large areas and push someone into a corner. That tanks need a buff might be true, but it remains to be seen. The metagame currently is widow mine based. Give it time.
I dont agree really they are both a space control unit both defensively and offensively. It seems that blizzard want to work on the stuff that good for one race and make it better, i think thats okey but wasn't what i expected. I expected them to give terran a good late game unit. If they would buff tanks it would be the standard tvz now i think it still is good and with the medivac buff i think it would be better then mines. but its interesting that make the things that one race is best at better is that a good model?
|
On April 05 2013 03:25 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 21:16 Dalavita wrote:On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Tanks and widow mines don't fill the same purposes though. Widow mines are a defensive position for you to back into if you have speedlings on your ass while retaining the mobility of bio whereas tanks are used to control large areas and push someone into a corner. That tanks need a buff might be true, but it remains to be seen. The metagame currently is widow mine based. Give it time. This. You don't see widow mines in TvT outside of early mid game for drop aggression. Tanks still do amazing dps once you reach critical mass and is actually effective against range units Its definitely not 50/50
Haven't watch any tvts but thats probably because tanks range are so good that they crush widow mines. you cant break a good terran with tanks and marines that are ready with just mines, thats just logic.
|
Some of the facts about Siege Tanks:
Quoted directly from Liquipedia: In siege mode, Siege Tanks do 35 (+15 against armored) splash damage. This damage has three different levels: units (whether hostile or friendly) within .4687 matrices of the target are dealt full damage, units between .4687 and .7812 matrices of the target receive 50% of full damage, and units between .7812 and 1.25 matrices from the target suffer just 25% of the full damage.
I would guess that "1 matric = 1 square" and this means that the primary radius is less than one tiny building square. If you have the building grid on you should see how tiny that actually is and my guess is that you can get at most 3 Zerglings into that space. Thus you kill a whooping 3 Zerglings with your primary radius and then deal 50% damage to the ones in the secondary radius and 25% to the ones in the tertiary radius. This is ridiculously low and was balanced on Steppes of War, where it was easy to have all tanks close to each other ... but maps have moved on to become bigger and the balancing of this particular unit should change because of this because there are many more places to defend or control now.
The only reason why people still say that Siege Tanks do a decent job is that the graphics effect of the explosion looks nice and big, but in reality it doesnt do much unless you have a big number of Siege Tanks stacked upon each other ... which was never the point of having them.
On April 05 2013 03:51 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 03:25 iky43210 wrote:On April 04 2013 21:16 Dalavita wrote:On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Tanks and widow mines don't fill the same purposes though. Widow mines are a defensive position for you to back into if you have speedlings on your ass while retaining the mobility of bio whereas tanks are used to control large areas and push someone into a corner. That tanks need a buff might be true, but it remains to be seen. The metagame currently is widow mine based. Give it time. This. You don't see widow mines in TvT outside of early mid game for drop aggression. Tanks still do amazing dps once you reach critical mass and is actually effective against range units Its definitely not 50/50 Haven't watch any tvts but thats probably because tanks range are so good that they crush widow mines. you cant break a good terran with tanks and marines that are ready with just mines, thats just logic.
I wouldnt try to break the Siege Tank player in a frontal assault, but you can harrass his economy and his supply lines with Widow Mines easily and thus weaken him considerably. Part of the point of the Widow Mine is to make your opponent paranoid and afraid to move out anywhere without a full detection coverage and through this threat alone you are hindering his already slow movement with the Siege Tanks.
Siege Tanks and Widow Mines are only similar in that they are both produced in the Factory, deal AoE damage AND that they are both "supporting the rest of the army", but that is about it. The way in which they support is totally different and due to their "once in a blue moon shooting" and the friendly fire the Widow Mine doesnt really lend itself to be part of a mobile army.
|
On April 04 2013 21:15 Rabiator wrote:
Isn't it obvious? Blizzard (Dustin Browder) HATES anything that connects the game with BW
what if i told you, Chris Sigaty is the one hating the BW legacy.
|
On April 05 2013 03:51 Usernameffs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 03:25 iky43210 wrote:On April 04 2013 21:16 Dalavita wrote:On April 04 2013 20:53 YyapSsap wrote:
Im surprised this hasn't been getting much attention.. the siege tanks are a dying species superseded by widow mines. The widow mines have simply taken the tanks role in TvZ, tanks aren't used in TvP/widow mines are more useful and sort of 50/50 in TvT but bio is often the tech choice.
I tend to think that it is the time to give a tank a buff in form of an upgrade or just something to make players get them instead of being mothballed within their factories.
Thoughts?
Tanks and widow mines don't fill the same purposes though. Widow mines are a defensive position for you to back into if you have speedlings on your ass while retaining the mobility of bio whereas tanks are used to control large areas and push someone into a corner. That tanks need a buff might be true, but it remains to be seen. The metagame currently is widow mine based. Give it time. This. You don't see widow mines in TvT outside of early mid game for drop aggression. Tanks still do amazing dps once you reach critical mass and is actually effective against range units Its definitely not 50/50 Haven't watch any tvts but thats probably because tanks range are so good that they crush widow mines. you cant break a good terran with tanks and marines that are ready with just mines, thats just logic.
you also don't see widow mines against pure bio builds, because they are simply not good enough at killing marines.
one scan and marines would tear through widow mines so fast and you might just lose a couple marines
anyhow, that's completely besides the point. Mines haven't replace tanks at all
|
On April 05 2013 05:09 xuanzue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2013 21:15 Rabiator wrote:
Isn't it obvious? Blizzard (Dustin Browder) HATES anything that connects the game with BW what if i told you, Chris Sigaty is the one hating the BW legacy.
Go on...?
Anyway, i find the lack of Tanks at the pro scene, disturbing! Fucking hate mmmmmmmmm so much!
|
Did I wander into designated conspiracty theory thread?
|
On April 05 2013 04:33 Rabiator wrote:
Some of the facts about Siege Tanks:
Quoted directly from Liquipedia: In siege mode, Siege Tanks do 35 (+15 against armored) splash damage. This damage has three different levels: units (whether hostile or friendly) within .4687 matrices of the target are dealt full damage, units between .4687 and .7812 matrices of the target receive 50% of full damage, and units between .7812 and 1.25 matrices from the target suffer just 25% of the full damage.
I would guess that "1 matric = 1 square" and this means that the primary radius is less than one tiny building square. If you have the building grid on you should see how tiny that actually is and my guess is that you can get at most 3 Zerglings into that space. Thus you kill a whooping 3 Zerglings with your primary radius and then deal 50% damage to the ones in the secondary radius and 25% to the ones in the tertiary radius. This is ridiculously low and was balanced on Steppes of War, where it was easy to have all tanks close to each other ... but maps have moved on to become bigger and the balancing of this particular unit should change because of this because there are many more places to defend or control now.
The only reason why people still say that Siege Tanks do a decent job is that the graphics effect of the explosion looks nice and big, but in reality it doesnt do much unless you have a big number of Siege Tanks stacked upon each other ... which was never the point of having them.
People keep bringing this up and it's just not true. The SC2 siege tank is extremely good, the reason it seems bad compared to the BW tank is because the overpowered support units (Vultures) that kept them safe aren't there anymore. Compare the SC2 tank to the BW tanks. The BW siege tank did 35 damage to small/light and 70 damage to large/armored with a 5 second cooldown. The SC2 tank does 35 damage to small/light and 50 damage to large/armored with a 3 second cooldown. It does much more damage to large/armored and does almost double the damage the BW tank did to light units. This is especially pronounced against units like zerglings, both the BW and SC2 tank one shot them but the SC2 tank fires almost twice as fast, with smarter AI and never misses shots like the BW tank does. It kills over twice as many lings per unit of time.
|
On April 05 2013 21:25 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 04:33 Rabiator wrote:
Some of the facts about Siege Tanks:
Quoted directly from Liquipedia: In siege mode, Siege Tanks do 35 (+15 against armored) splash damage. This damage has three different levels: units (whether hostile or friendly) within .4687 matrices of the target are dealt full damage, units between .4687 and .7812 matrices of the target receive 50% of full damage, and units between .7812 and 1.25 matrices from the target suffer just 25% of the full damage.
I would guess that "1 matric = 1 square" and this means that the primary radius is less than one tiny building square. If you have the building grid on you should see how tiny that actually is and my guess is that you can get at most 3 Zerglings into that space. Thus you kill a whooping 3 Zerglings with your primary radius and then deal 50% damage to the ones in the secondary radius and 25% to the ones in the tertiary radius. This is ridiculously low and was balanced on Steppes of War, where it was easy to have all tanks close to each other ... but maps have moved on to become bigger and the balancing of this particular unit should change because of this because there are many more places to defend or control now.
The only reason why people still say that Siege Tanks do a decent job is that the graphics effect of the explosion looks nice and big, but in reality it doesnt do much unless you have a big number of Siege Tanks stacked upon each other ... which was never the point of having them. People keep bringing this up and it's just not true. The SC2 siege tank is extremely good, the reason it seems bad compared to the BW tank is because the overpowered support units (Vultures) that kept them safe aren't there anymore. Compare the SC2 tank to the BW tanks. The BW siege tank did 35 damage to small/light and 70 damage to large/armored with a 5 second cooldown. The SC2 tank does 35 damage to small/light and 50 damage to large/armored with a 3 second cooldown. It does much more damage to large/armored and does almost double the damage the BW tank did to light units. This is especially pronounced against units like zerglings, both the BW and SC2 tank one shot them but the SC2 tank fires almost twice as fast, with smarter AI and never misses shots like the BW tank does. It kills over twice as many lings per unit of time.
I really like those pseudo-informed posts filled with numbers. In reality things are simpler, tanks don't work because now we have stuff like marauders, immortals, roaches and lings that move faster than you can click.
Approaching a tank line and breaking a tank line in BW wasn't a simple a-move task.
|
On April 05 2013 21:25 Xequecal wrote:
People keep bringing this up and it's just not true. The SC2 siege tank is extremely good, the reason it seems bad compared to the BW tank is because the overpowered support units (Vultures) that kept them safe aren't there anymore. Compare the SC2 tank to the BW tanks. The BW siege tank did 35 damage to small/light and 70 damage to large/armored with a 5 second cooldown. The SC2 tank does 35 damage to small/light and 50 damage to large/armored with a 3 second cooldown. It does much more damage to large/armored and does almost double the damage the BW tank did to light units. This is especially pronounced against units like zerglings, both the BW and SC2 tank one shot them but the SC2 tank fires almost twice as fast, with smarter AI and never misses shots like the BW tank does. It kills over twice as many lings per unit of time.
Comparing the units' statistics this way is completely pointless. It doesn't matter at all if the SC2 Tank is stronger on paper than its BW counterpart because you have to factor what is against the Tank, including production. Do Marauders flanks exist in BW? Do Zergs have 6.11 movespeed Zerglings on creep on BW? Can Zergs move 120 Zerglings at once with two clicks in BW? Can Zergs have 40 Roaches before you have 10 Tanks in BW? Do Immortals exist in BW? Do Zealots auto-scatter and close in the distance super fast with their speed upgrade in BW? Do Tanks deal full damage to Archons' shields in SC2? Etc., etc. And last but not least, Tanks cost +25 gas and 3 supply instead of 2.
|
The only reason why people still say that Siege Tanks do a decent job is that the graphics effect of the explosion looks nice and big, but in reality it doesnt do much unless you have a big number of Siege Tanks stacked upon each other ... which was never the point of having them.
That is actually a good point. Kinda like how Impalers in HotS campaign are similar to siege tanks, yet do a better job. No AoE indeed, they just dish out raw DPS at long range :D
|
On April 04 2013 21:15 Rabiator wrote:
The Siege Tank has been in need of a buff for quite some time, but what happened when Blizzard said they wanted to make mech viable in TvP? They buffed anything except the "core" unit itself.
Well, Seige Tanks did get their research given to them, imagine if Stalkers got their Blink. It's true though that + shield should have went to Seige. However, the bio-mech interaction power struggle ends up with needing to match mech to the Marine in viability, and then its more viable to just Marine + pseudo Marine. It really seems like the Marine is too viable. Always liked the idea of lategame armor inflation to soften stalks, lings, and rines.
|
On April 05 2013 21:46 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 21:25 Xequecal wrote:
People keep bringing this up and it's just not true. The SC2 siege tank is extremely good, the reason it seems bad compared to the BW tank is because the overpowered support units (Vultures) that kept them safe aren't there anymore. Compare the SC2 tank to the BW tanks. The BW siege tank did 35 damage to small/light and 70 damage to large/armored with a 5 second cooldown. The SC2 tank does 35 damage to small/light and 50 damage to large/armored with a 3 second cooldown. It does much more damage to large/armored and does almost double the damage the BW tank did to light units. This is especially pronounced against units like zerglings, both the BW and SC2 tank one shot them but the SC2 tank fires almost twice as fast, with smarter AI and never misses shots like the BW tank does. It kills over twice as many lings per unit of time. Comparing the units' statistics this way is completely pointless. It doesn't matter at all if the SC2 Tank is stronger on paper than its BW counterpart because you have to factor what is against the Tank, including production. Do Marauders flanks exist in BW? Do Zergs have 6.11 movespeed Zerglings on creep on BW? Can Zergs move 120 Zerglings at once with two clicks in BW? Can Zergs have 40 Roaches before you have 10 Tanks in BW? Do Immortals exist in BW? Do Zealots auto-scatter and close in the distance super fast with their speed upgrade in BW? Do Tanks deal full damage to Archons' shields in SC2? Etc., etc. And last but not least, Tanks cost +25 gas and 3 supply instead of 2.
That is true, but he is trying to say that there are bunch of people that says Tanks are bad in comparison to the BW Tank, but as you said, you can't compare it because games are quite different. If anything those units are a lot stronger against the Tanks, it is not like that the Tanks is nerfed to the ground, as many are saying...
|
The BW siege tank did 35 damage to small/light and 70 damage to large/armored with a 5 second cooldown. The SC2 tank does 35 damage to small/light and 50 damage to large/armored with a 3 second cooldown. It does much more damage to large/armored and does almost double the damage the BW tank did to light units
I feel like I'm missing something here
|
On April 05 2013 21:46 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 21:25 Xequecal wrote:
People keep bringing this up and it's just not true. The SC2 siege tank is extremely good, the reason it seems bad compared to the BW tank is because the overpowered support units (Vultures) that kept them safe aren't there anymore. Compare the SC2 tank to the BW tanks. The BW siege tank did 35 damage to small/light and 70 damage to large/armored with a 5 second cooldown. The SC2 tank does 35 damage to small/light and 50 damage to large/armored with a 3 second cooldown. It does much more damage to large/armored and does almost double the damage the BW tank did to light units. This is especially pronounced against units like zerglings, both the BW and SC2 tank one shot them but the SC2 tank fires almost twice as fast, with smarter AI and never misses shots like the BW tank does. It kills over twice as many lings per unit of time. Comparing the units' statistics this way is completely pointless. It doesn't matter at all if the SC2 Tank is stronger on paper than its BW counterpart because you have to factor what is against the Tank, including production. Do Marauders flanks exist in BW? Do Zergs have 6.11 movespeed Zerglings on creep on BW? Can Zergs move 120 Zerglings at once with two clicks in BW? Can Zergs have 40 Roaches before you have 10 Tanks in BW? Do Immortals exist in BW? Do Zealots auto-scatter and close in the distance super fast with their speed upgrade in BW? Do Tanks deal full damage to Archons' shields in SC2? Etc., etc. And last but not least, Tanks cost +25 gas and 3 supply instead of 2.
Well, comparing to BW is the only way the argument makes any sense. You say the damage is too low. Well, too low compared to what? Why is this a problem? Is Terran unfavored against Zerg?
|
On April 05 2013 22:27 Nekovivie wrote:Show nested quote +The BW siege tank did 35 damage to small/light and 70 damage to large/armored with a 5 second cooldown. The SC2 tank does 35 damage to small/light and 50 damage to large/armored with a 3 second cooldown. It does much more damage to large/armored and does almost double the damage the BW tank did to light units I feel like I'm missing something here
I think he means dps rather than flat damage like you may have interpreted, I believe his point still stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
