|
On April 05 2013 22:19 Ramiz1989 wrote:
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...
People are comparing the relative strength of the Tank in both games (their position in the food chain, to sum up things).
On April 05 2013 22:30 Xequecal wrote:
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?
Not if your comparison omits virtually all relevant elements. And I am unsure how you came up with the bolded parts from reading my post, in which I said nothing about Tanks' damage or the state of TvZ.
|
On April 05 2013 22:19 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 21:46 TheDwf wrote: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...
You can compare what the unit could do in BW and what it can do in SC2. The reasons for why Tanks in BW performed so much better then they do in SC2 are details really.
|
Big problem about tanks here vs. BW is actually Protoss shields and not much else.
Tank damage is lower than in BW, but their rate of fire is quicker and their AI is better so there is no overkill. In isolation, they're actually BETTER (and quite good vs. Zerg and other Terrans).
They're terrible vs. Protoss compared to BW because zealots, archons and other non-armored units don't take full damage from tank shots to their shields. The difference is most felt with archons, which also deal bonus damage to hellbats (the primary blocking unit) and bio. Compare the number of tank shots needed to kill a zealot in BW vs. HotS and you will see a major difference.
|
On April 05 2013 23:03 farseerdk wrote:
Compare the number of tank shots needed to kill a zealot in BW vs. HotS and you will see a major difference.
... 4 in both cases with +3 attack Tanks (unless I don't remember correctly how damage overlapping health was dealt in BW).
|
Gotta feel they added the widow mine to help make mech viable, and instead it just replaced the tank so far.
|
On April 05 2013 23:12 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 23:03 farseerdk wrote:
Compare the number of tank shots needed to kill a zealot in BW vs. HotS and you will see a major difference. ... 4 in both cases with +3 attack Tanks (unless I don't remember correctly how damage overlapping health was dealt in BW).
BW Zealot --> 60 shields, 100 hp, 1 armor, 0 shield armor.
Tank --> 70 damage, 35 to small
1st shot --> zealot = 91 hp
2nd shot --> zealot = 57
3rd shot --> zealot = 23 hp
4th shot --> dead
HotS zealot -->50 shields, 100 hp, 1 armor, 0 shield armor
Tank --> 50 damage, 35 to light
1st shot --> zealot 100 hp, 15 shield
2nd shot --> zealot 81 hp
3rd short --> zealot 47 hp
4th shot --> zealot 13 hp
5th shot --> dead
Archon --> 350 shields, 10 hp
HotS tank --> 35 damage
BW tank --> 70 damage
BW --> 6 shots (including shield regen)
HotS --> 11 shots (o.0)
|
Awesome research farseerdk. Seige tank takes 11 shots to kill an archon! As the shock cannon has a 3sec cooldown, it takes 30 seconds to kill an archon.
That's longer than it takes to build a marine, or to warp in 2 rounds of zealots. That basically means that one archon can tank damage while a protoss sends in zealots, loses them, warps in a new wave, loses those, and then warps in a third wave of zealots. Hoping that the terran has balls of steel, the archon will die together with that third wave of zealots.
Don't know where that knowledge might be useful in any way, but the wow factor is pretty big with this one. Also, when I scout an archon all-in, I'm not building any tanks 
|
You'd never have a game-case where there's one archon vs. 1 tank (and if there were, the archon would just get inside the tank's minimum range). But a single archon can shrug off 2-3 volleys from a sizable group of tanks. That's the take-away 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.
Basically you have to compare the dps of the Tank with the "incoming hit points" and compare that to the BW values. The "damage per incoming unit" is far lower in SC2 simply because there are FAR MORE units in a far tighter clump and I also think the area of the shot is smaller in SC2 compared to BW.
The Siege Tank deals similar damage to Zerglings in both games, BUT the absolutely massive amount of Zerglings and the "perfect pathing" of SC2 means that there will be wayy more Zerglings actually reaching the Siege Tank compared to BW and even an injured Zergling will be able to hit Siege Tanks and trigger splash damage attacks from other Siege Tanks further away. Now you could try and circumvent a part of this problem by having 4-5 Barracks around your Siege Tanks to block the Zerglings (or rather build a maze like a tower defense game), but that doesnt really work well if the Zerg is good at spreading creep. You cant land a barracks on creep, right? ... and it recedes just as slowly as it grows, so you are forced into a snails pace with such a strategy which the Zerg would abuse by killing your base in the meantime.
The whole point of the Siege Tank is to have spread out positions and to cut the map into two pieces, but due to the concentrated damage of the unlimited unit selection, the tight unit movement and the massive amount of units in SC2 you cant do it. So there is no point to build it anymore and the only way to make it viable again would be to increase the damage to be a threat to the deathball in small numbers already.
|
On April 06 2013 02:35 farseerdk wrote:
You'd never have a game-case where there's one archon vs. 1 tank (and if there were, the archon would just get inside the tank's minimum range). But a single archon can shrug off 2-3 volleys from a sizable group of tanks. That's the take-away here.
or make it even more simple: Tanks don't kill archons unless they outnumber them massively.
tanks are just bad in SC2. they can't keep up with the pace in TvZ and are taken out by mutalisks pretty easy there and nearly every unit protoss gets in PvT is a hard counter to them.
there only use is in TvT because they nearly one shot marines after they stim at 3-0 grades (41 damage against 45 HP 3-3 marines), so they blast away those in huge numbers in the mid and lategame. That's where you will see them forever. Now one has to ask themselves if it's enough for a unit to only have a role in the mirror matchup and in holding very special allins in the other ones. Basically you can compare the tank in HotS with the Hydralisk in WoL.
|
On April 06 2013 03:34 TeeTS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 02:35 farseerdk wrote:
You'd never have a game-case where there's one archon vs. 1 tank (and if there were, the archon would just get inside the tank's minimum range). But a single archon can shrug off 2-3 volleys from a sizable group of tanks. That's the take-away here. or make it even more simple: Tanks don't kill archons unless they outnumber them massively. tanks are just bad in SC2. they can't keep up with the pace in TvZ and are taken out by mutalisks pretty easy there and nearly every unit protoss gets in PvT is a hard counter to them. there only use is in TvT because they nearly one shot marines after they stim at 3-0 grades (41 damage against 45 HP 3-3 marines), so they blast away those in huge numbers in the mid and lategame. That's where you will see them forever. Now one has to ask themselves if it's enough for a unit to only have a role in the mirror matchup and in holding very special allins in the other ones. Basically you can compare the tank in HotS with the Hydralisk in WoL.
Seige tanks can be really amazing if you can protect them during battle. ie. NEVER ever to engage directly without terrain advantage. Cliffs and chokes, and tanks shine. Out in open field? Tanks suck so bad, they make me sad, and rhyme like mad. uh, yeah!
Seige tanks need a new name:
Portable Offensive Support
|
On April 05 2013 23:40 farseerdk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 23:12 TheDwf wrote:On April 05 2013 23:03 farseerdk wrote:
Compare the number of tank shots needed to kill a zealot in BW vs. HotS and you will see a major difference. ... 4 in both cases with +3 attack Tanks (unless I don't remember correctly how damage overlapping health was dealt in BW). BW Zealot --> 60 shields, 100 hp, 1 armor, 0 shield armor. Tank --> 70 damage, 35 to small 1st shot --> zealot = 91 hp 2nd shot --> zealot = 57 3rd shot --> zealot = 23 hp 4th shot --> dead HotS zealot -->50 shields, 100 hp, 1 armor, 0 shield armor Tank --> 50 damage, 35 to light 1st shot --> zealot 100 hp, 15 shield 2nd shot --> zealot 81 hp 3rd short --> zealot 47 hp 4th shot --> zealot 13 hp 5th shot --> dead Archon --> 350 shields, 10 hp HotS tank --> 35 damage BW tank --> 70 damage BW --> 6 shots (including shield regen) HotS --> 11 shots (o.0)
yeah and how long does it take to do those shots in BW compared to SC2?
Sc2: 5 Shots => 5*3s = 15s
BW: 4 Shots=> ???
|
While we're discussing tanks, keep in mind tanks in BW is only 2 supply, whereas in Sc2, it's 3. So for every 2 tanks, you get 3 tanks in BW.
|
I could live with +1 more light dmg, and +2 more armored dmg with each upgrade level. I still think tanks are awesome but at times they do lack that BW feel of power I miss.
|
On April 06 2013 15:17 Novacute wrote:
While we're discussing tanks, keep in mind tanks in BW is only 2 supply, whereas in Sc2, it's 3. So for every 2 tanks, you get 3 tanks in BW.
... which makes it even worse for the SC2 tanks. The bottom line is:
- Siege Tanks in SC2 were "balanced" on Steppes of War and never touched since. + Show Spoiler +Removing the upgrade not only makes the unit "unstylish" but also doesnt influence the combat efficiency, so anyone trying to be nitpicky about that can just save himself the effort of posting it ...
- Siege Tanks are meant to be spread out to control space and remain there to control it together with turrets and some bunkers and SC2 is all about mobility and two big clumps of armies which dance around each other until one of them "blinks" (the eye thing, not the Protoss ability). With the massive amount of units in any of the super mobile SC2 armies they can not do their job with the lousy damage they deal atm.
|
I don't like the idea of having a designated balance discussion thread, it basically means I can't find particular topics bwing discussed.
Oh well, I think hydralisks should do +5 damage to bio, so they become anti muta and are also good in roach hydra compositions vs bio
It's lore friendly if the spines are made poisonous. Instead of plus damage, how about it stops muta regen or prevents bio from being healed by medivacs? Another alternative.
Also, blinding cloud is far too good vs mech. I found one way of dealing with it though is to just not siege up, when the viper casts you back off. You lose splash but the zerg will be dumb to chase you through the cloud.
|
On April 06 2013 16:13 Rabiator wrote:
- Siege Tanks in SC2 were "balanced" on Steppes of War
.......are you serious? i don't even know what to respond to that.
tanks aren't too weak. it's just that widow mines are so broken that they're better at what tanks are supposed to do even though that wasn't meant to be their purpose.
here are suggestions that would make the game better:
fix widow mines. it shouldn't be possible to use them as a core army unit that sets up in 1 sc2 sec, has 0 attack priority, deals over 100 dmg to the main target and deals 40 splash dmg in a large area of effect. and all that for the price of a roach. just say it out loud. it's pretty obvious this unit is overpowered. (just as saying out loud what the old infestor was capable of made it obvious that that unit was overpowered.)
air units (protoss in particular) are too good vs zerg. not because the units themselves are too good but because zerg anti air (corruptors) might as well not even be in the game cause making them is about as useful as trying to quench a fire with alcohol. buff corruptors. (NO! CAUSE BROODLORDS!: wol infestor is what made broodlords scary in wol. broodlord armies beating anti broodlord armies isn't a thing in hots.)
speedboost should be altered to have some sort of drawback. they're too good vs protoss. and too good vs zerg if it's a korean terran controlling them.
there you have it. game fixed.
(also, the game would be MUCH better without mule warpgate chrono boost spawn larvae but we all know that ain't gonna happen)
|
On April 06 2013 20:58 wswas wrote:
fix widow mines. it shouldn't be possible to use them as a core army unit that sets up in 1 sc2 sec, has 0 attack priority, deals over 100 dmg to the main target and deals 40 splash dmg in a large area of effect. and all that for the price of a roach. just say it out loud. it's pretty obvious this unit is overpowered.
Isn't it funny, then, that this "obviously broken unit" is only a core unit against a Zerg going lings/banes/mutas?
On April 06 2013 20:58 wswas wrote:
speedboost should be altered to have some sort of drawback. they're too good vs protoss. and too good vs zerg if it's a korean terran controlling them.
What a shame indeed that something gets better with skill in a strategy game. Should be forbidden.
|
On April 06 2013 17:22 Duncaaaaaan wrote:
Oh well, I think hydralisks should do +5 damage to bio, so they become anti muta and are also good in roach hydra compositions vs bio
Do this and terran will never win another game against roach/hydra. It already trades really well with bio (you need tanks or good mine hits to beat it) and is obviously really strong against mech. Add 5 damage against marines/marauders/hellbats, terran will have literally no effective unit comps against it.
|
On April 06 2013 20:58 wswas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2013 16:13 Rabiator wrote:
- Siege Tanks in SC2 were "balanced" on Steppes of War .......are you serious? i don't even know what to respond to that. tanks aren't too weak. it's just that widow mines are so broken that they're better at what tanks are supposed to do even though that wasn't meant to be their purpose. here are suggestions that would make the game better: fix widow mines. it shouldn't be possible to use them as a core army unit that sets up in 1 sc2 sec, has 0 attack priority, deals over 100 dmg to the main target and deals 40 splash dmg in a large area of effect. and all that for the price of a roach. just say it out loud. it's pretty obvious this unit is overpowered. (just as saying out loud what the old infestor was capable of made it obvious that that unit was overpowered.) air units (protoss in particular) are too good vs zerg. not because the units themselves are too good but because zerg anti air (corruptors) might as well not even be in the game cause making them is about as useful as trying to quench a fire with alcohol. buff corruptors. (NO! CAUSE BROODLORDS!: wol infestor is what made broodlords scary in wol. broodlord armies beating anti broodlord armies isn't a thing in hots.) speedboost should be altered to have some sort of drawback. they're too good vs protoss. and too good vs zerg if it's a korean terran controlling them. there you have it. game fixed. (also, the game would be MUCH better without mule warpgate chrono boost spawn larvae but we all know that ain't gonna happen)
I see more and more Zergs deal with widow mines pretty decent. The thing is, that it's actually a difficult micro task to do it and most zergs are not used to that. macro, macro, macro fungal a move gg, that's what we've seen from most zergs in WoL. Even lots of pro zergs lack in army positioning and controlling units to their full potential, but it didn't matter back then.
I agree that widow mines may have a little too big splash. but even reducing it by 0.5, which would be reasonable, won't make the unit worse than siege tanks. The new super quick mutas snipe tanks even more easy than in wings and once hive is reached, blinding cloud makes tanks look just totally embarassed.
The game dynamic was increased a lot in HotS. Oracles and Hellbats can swipe out mineral lines in very few seconds if you don't notice it instantly. Mutas can dart into your base and out in the blink of an eye - and come back after a short while with full health ofc! Guess which unit does not fit at all into that high speed dynamic style: Our slow and clumsy Siege Tank friend. If it weren't as super Powerful against Terran ground as it is (reason is the low hit point and slow movement ratio of Terran Ground units), it would be a goner in TvT too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
