|
On June 30 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 20:43 Topdoller wrote:On June 30 2013 20:01 pmp10 wrote:On June 30 2013 18:59 Topdoller wrote:
Why do people bang on about Terran wanting to go Mech so much. Blizzard design team look to favor Bio as its mobile and action packed so live with it or get out and go back to Broodwar
Actually with HotS they promised to make mech work in TvP so it seems like they still want mech to exist. It's just that their failure in terran design during beta made mech completely reliant on a single broken unit. Blizzard condemned Mech to an early grave when they introduced the Maurader a cheap 25 gas unit that when stimmed shits over every armored unit in the game. This unit is that good especially with 3/3 upgrades that in order to introduce another unit in the game to do a similar role (Warhound prehaps??) from a factory it would have to be even better or it wouldn't get built. Mech will never be useful with this unit in the game, its just too good against Protoss not to get built. Its fast and mobile, it can be healed, its anti amour dps is superb and it can survive storms quite well Mech is viable, just not so much compare to Bio when put in the hands of Korean when 250+ apm Mech issues have nothing to do with the existence of the Marauder, who isn't "just too good against Protoss" considering he's not efficient against the standard Zealot wall.
That is correct ... and incorrect.
Mech is the "unwanted child" of Blizzard, but they cant take out the Siege Tank (like they wanted to with the Carrier) or else people would go fusion. The whole "massive armies" and "mobility based clumped up armies" style of gameplay design really makes carefully advancing positional mech unplayable. On the other side the Marauder gives players an easier to play alternative to choose from.
On June 30 2013 21:05 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 20:51 syriuszonito wrote:On June 30 2013 20:47 Big J wrote:
SC2 really has bigger issues than sidekick units being an efficient way to open a game and to be mixed into compositions.
Topplayers (e.g. Innovation, Flash, Soulkey, sOs) seem to hold them in ways were they don't fall behind, so it seems like they are dealable in every matchup.
At the moment they should leave them. The point is the best you can do vs helbat drops is not fall behind when you defend perfectly. This is why its so overpowered and pretty much everyone goes for it all the time. If it's so OP and everyone does it, what do you think will happen to terran winrates once its nerfed? You seem to be rationalizing that the terran doing hellbat drops gets the advantage in most games and even is on equal footing if he gets perfectly defended. What happens to the currently balanced winrates if we take this *obvious* advantage away?
Blizzard would have to come up with something else to balance the game again.
Do you really think that winrates are really balanced because the game is balanced OR are they balanced because the game is turning ever more into a coinflip (which is balanced) game where the outcome is decided by "do you defend against the Hellbat drop or not"?
Another question: Do you really think games with continuous Hellbat drops make great games to watch? It is ridiculously easy to pull off a multi-drop with Hellbats, because each drop is powerful and needs to be defended against well by superior forces. The consequence of this is that you do not get to watch everything, because there will be a drop in about three bases (or far more if it is a TvT) plus a possible "dance" of a clump of Marines against whatever is left at the front of the defending players base. Personally I think that is unwatchable and totally lacks excitement because you know Hellbats will win eventually. Best example was Moonglade vs Sound (I think) from day 2 MLG, where Moonglade defended brilliantly against the first 3-4 double-Medivac Hellbat drops and yet lost a huge amount with the 5th drop. He *should have been* ahead due to only losing minerals mostly and each drop was two Medivacs (which were killed) plus four Hellions and not a lot of Drones died.
Just sticking to doping "because everyone does it" really was no valid excuse for all those Jan Ullrichs and Lance Armstrongs ... it has to stop no matter what the consequence. It is the same for Hellbats ... they are far too risk-free and promise a gigantic reward for it. Buffing the Banshee in the hope that it replaces the Hellbat as a harrassment unit is a terrible idea, because Spore Crawlers defend against both of them. Soooo ... Blizzard is clueless as to what to do yet again.
On June 30 2013 21:22 Dzerzhinsky wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:14 Qikz wrote:On June 30 2013 21:03 TheDwf wrote:On June 30 2013 20:43 Topdoller wrote:On June 30 2013 20:01 pmp10 wrote:On June 30 2013 18:59 Topdoller wrote:
Why do people bang on about Terran wanting to go Mech so much. Blizzard design team look to favor Bio as its mobile and action packed so live with it or get out and go back to Broodwar
Actually with HotS they promised to make mech work in TvP so it seems like they still want mech to exist. It's just that their failure in terran design during beta made mech completely reliant on a single broken unit. Blizzard condemned Mech to an early grave when they introduced the Maurader a cheap 25 gas unit that when stimmed shits over every armored unit in the game. This unit is that good especially with 3/3 upgrades that in order to introduce another unit in the game to do a similar role (Warhound prehaps??) from a factory it would have to be even better or it wouldn't get built. Mech will never be useful with this unit in the game, its just too good against Protoss not to get built. Its fast and mobile, it can be healed, its anti amour dps is superb and it can survive storms quite well Mech is viable, just not so much compare to Bio when put in the hands of Korean when 250+ apm Mech issues have nothing to do with the existence of the Marauder, who isn't "just too good against Protoss" considering he's not efficient against the standard Zealot wall. I think had it not been for the marauder, the game wouldn't have been balanced around bio in the very first place. Everyone abused bio so much during the initial WoL beta that it became standard and then mech got left to pretty much rot for the majority of not only WoL but seemingly HoTS now as well. Bio is just too versatile to not be standard, it doesn't really have any real weakness and those weaknesses are easily avoidable by just having good control. Blizzard at this point are never going to buff mech because in their eyes, it's completely not necessary as everyone goes bio anyway. In the eyes of your general viewer who knows very little about the game and just watches it for the excitement factor, mech now as the weak (compared to bio) style that it is will always look boring and if mech becomes standard in any of the matchups it wouldn't surprise me if bio recieved another buff or mech got another nef. Kim explicitly stated in an interview that he thinks mech is boring and, if it became popular, they'd look at changes so that it wasn't used in too many games.
And this is why they are terrible game designers ... because they do NOT think objectively and think they must make one choice more attractive than another. I have said it for some time now that Starcraft 2 is NOT a Strategy game but rather an Action game instead ... RTA. Everything they say and do supports this, because they want faster and faster gameplay where careful planning and execution is far less important than split-second clicking and resource / production management.
|
On June 30 2013 21:47 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:35 Reborn8u wrote:On June 30 2013 20:47 Big J wrote:SC2 really has bigger issues than sidekick units being an efficient way to open a game and to be mixed into compositions. Topplayers (e.g. Innovation, Flash, Soulkey, sOs) seem to hold them in ways were they don't fall behind, so it seems like they are dealable in every matchup. At the moment they should leave them. Blizzard condemned Mech to an early grave when they introduced the Maurader a cheap 25 gas unit that when stimmed shits over every armored unit in the game. Marines do more damage versus armored than marauders, unless there is natural armor in the equation. The only upside with the marauder is how it doesn't die as easily to splash. --> if the marauder is a problem for mech, marines are just as much of a problem What really killed mech was when tanks got a massive dmg nerf in WOL beta, because zergs couldn't stop 2 base mech aggression on the tiny maps that were full of cliffs. Since then the average map is much larger, and zergs have learned the mechanics of their race quite well. This change should be undone now, make siege tanks scary again. In TvP it's actually quite hard to produce any army that isn't good vs tanks, even sentries can hallucinate immortals to draw fire. Seriously, try to think of a protoss unit that is weak to tanks. Anything from a robo or stargate is good, and as long as you get a twilight council, charge lots or blink stalkers are good. If terrans had the massive dmg of real siege tanks, zerg and protoss would actually have to respect the terrans army more and engage properly. Right now it seems like it is just a macro battle into trying to surround bio balls to prevent kiting, or deal out so much splash dmg the bio ball vanishes. Neither is very entertaining, and there is a huge burden on the part of the terran to control extremely well against a move command to try and surround (chargelots with colossus or speedlings with banes) or a spam of splash dmg (storm, fungal) Tanks being strong again not only opens up mech, but makes standard marine/tank or MMM+tank not only viable but much more strategic, interesting, fun to watch and fun to play. While mines have their built in weaknesses and ways to control well against them which greatly lowers their effectiveness, I feel like giving siege tanks back their "omfg wtf is that dmg" would allow for a scaling back of hellbat and overall enrich every terran matchup. Also, I'm sick of watching terrans die to every all in against them that gets attempted, even when they see it coming, wall in, make extra bunkers, and produce tanks. It's ridiculous that they still work or even do significant dmg. "Also, I'm sick of watching terrans die to every all in against them that gets attempted, even when they see it coming, wall in, make extra bunkers, and produce tanks. It's ridiculous that they still work or even do significant dmg. " Prehaps they shouldn't load up their whole standing army into medivacs and send them to the other half of the map whilst building 3 CC's at the 6 minute mark. It's a metagame thing you are moaning about
Your point is valid, when a terran is being greedy and loading up large drops, aggression should punish that. However, it's difficult to justify hearing a caster in a pro level match say "he see's what (player X) is doing, he's gonna get the extra bunkers up in time, he has completed the wall in, the first tanks will be out, he's pulled back his drop, scv's are in position to repair, but he still can't hold this" in one breath, it's kind of sad.
Also, I don't see how anyone can call a terran greedy for building a 3rd cc in base, when his zerg opponent is already droning a 3rd, or a protoss on 2 bases is already producing tier 3 tech (colossus or storm), yet we hear this called "greedy" all the time.
I just want to see better matches, and I want strategy, decision making, and use of terrain to be more rewarded. I think it produces better games with more tension.
Let me be more clear on 1 other thing as well, I absolutely agree that hellbat drops are too strong.
|
Would love to see a change that Hellbat can't go into the Medivac, that would solves every problem and concern there is but game design trumps balance it seems.
About the tank, yeah it's awful compared to the WM but nerfing the WM isn't a option, buff the tank not with damage but make so they siege/unsiege faster.
Reason why the Terran tank play is considered slow and boring is because you are too afraid of Zerg when you move onto creep, only takes one second for the Zerg to get the window it needs.
Nerfs are really bad honestly, would be a lot more fun if Blizzard decided to buff another unit to counter better.
(they did this with sporecrawler which I found to be a great change)
|
On June 30 2013 22:10 Tobblish wrote:
Would love to see a change that Hellbat can't go into the Medivac, that would solves every problem and concern there is but game design trumps balance it seems.
About the tank, yeah it's awful compared to the WM but nerfing the WM isn't a option, buff the tank not with damage but make so they siege/unsiege faster.
Reason why the Terran tank play is considered slow and boring is because you are too afraid of Zerg when you move onto creep, only takes one second for the Zerg to get the window it needs.
Nerfs are really bad honestly, would be a lot more fun if Blizzard decided to buff another unit to counter better.
(they did this with sporecrawler which I found to be a great change)
I'd like it if the tanks didn't have their dmg split up with bonuses against certain types. I'm thinking give them full flat dmg like they used to be. Running your army straight into a well positioned siege line, that uses terrain, and has supporting units should almost always be complete suicide in my opinion. You should always have to out position, out maneuver and attempt full surrounds on them to fight them effectively. The way to beat them should be all about counter positioning and mobility, instead of the current state, which is make the right composition of units and steam roll through them.
Nerf the hellbat drops (maybe remove the medevac healing, or reduce their dmg vs workers in some way) but I say also give the tank back its respect.
If you ever re-watch the movie "Jaws", pay attention to how little time the shark is on the screen until the very end of the movie. It builds tension, excitement, anticipation, the imagination runs wild. That is a big part of why that movie was such a phenomenon. I feel like tanks and positional play could bring that to sc2 just as they did in Broodwar.
|
On June 30 2013 22:18 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:10 Tobblish wrote:
Would love to see a change that Hellbat can't go into the Medivac, that would solves every problem and concern there is but game design trumps balance it seems.
About the tank, yeah it's awful compared to the WM but nerfing the WM isn't a option, buff the tank not with damage but make so they siege/unsiege faster.
Reason why the Terran tank play is considered slow and boring is because you are too afraid of Zerg when you move onto creep, only takes one second for the Zerg to get the window it needs.
Nerfs are really bad honestly, would be a lot more fun if Blizzard decided to buff another unit to counter better.
(they did this with sporecrawler which I found to be a great change) I'd like it if the tanks didn't have their dmg split up with bonuses against certain types. I'm thinking give them full flat dmg like they used to be. Running your army straight into a well positioned siege line, that uses terrain, and has supporting units should almost always be complete suicide in my opinion. You should always have to out position, out maneuver and attempt full surrounds on them to fight them effectively. The way to beat them should be all about counter positioning and mobility, instead of the current state, which is make the right composition of units and steam roll through them. Nerf the hellbat drops (maybe remove the medevac healing, or reduce their dmg vs workers in some way) but I say also give the tank back its respect.
removing bio tag seems like a good idea, but then i don't think we will see hellbats with bio anymore.. and they will probably disappear from the tvp matchup.
a good idea would be making a special tag for workers, this way blizzzard can exactly insert how much dmg every single unit does to workers..
|
|
|
On June 30 2013 22:06 Reborn8u wrote:
Also, I don't see how anyone can call a terran greedy for building a 3rd cc in base, when his zerg opponent is already droning a 3rd, or a protoss on 2 bases is already producing tier 3 tech (colossus or storm), yet we hear this called "greedy" all the time.
How is having 3 CC's started at the 6 minute mark not greedy? Just as a Zerg droning a third at that time is greedy, if Terran goes for a one base push they will be able to punish that. If you go for greed your opponent will be able to as well. Nothing wrong with that.
|
On June 30 2013 22:18 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:10 Tobblish wrote:
Would love to see a change that Hellbat can't go into the Medivac, that would solves every problem and concern there is but game design trumps balance it seems.
About the tank, yeah it's awful compared to the WM but nerfing the WM isn't a option, buff the tank not with damage but make so they siege/unsiege faster.
Reason why the Terran tank play is considered slow and boring is because you are too afraid of Zerg when you move onto creep, only takes one second for the Zerg to get the window it needs.
Nerfs are really bad honestly, would be a lot more fun if Blizzard decided to buff another unit to counter better.
(they did this with sporecrawler which I found to be a great change) I'd like it if the tanks didn't have their dmg split up with bonuses against certain types. I'm thinking give them full flat dmg like they used to be. Running your army straight into a well positioned siege line, that uses terrain, and has supporting units should almost always be complete suicide in my opinion. You should always have to out position, out maneuver and attempt full surrounds on them to fight them effectively. The way to beat them should be all about counter positioning and mobility, instead of the current state, which is make the right composition of units and steam roll through them. Nerf the hellbat drops (maybe remove the medevac healing, or reduce their dmg vs workers in some way) but I say also give the tank back its respect. If you ever re-watch the movie "Jaws", pay attention to how little time the shark is on the screen until the very end of the movie. It builds tension, excitement, anticipation, the imagination runs wild. That is a big part of why that movie was such a phenomenon. I feel like tanks and positional play could bring that to sc2 just as they did in Broodwar.
50/60 flat damage woild be crazy good as marine support vs zerglings/banelings and marines/hellions. The 50/25 percent zones of the tank would do too much damage against those units.
what they should do instead is buff the damage to the maintarget, i.e increase the damge to something like 50+25 and nerf the splash percentages in a way that the damage n those areas is the same as now.
|
On June 30 2013 22:06 FirstGear wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 21:24 pmp10 wrote:On June 30 2013 20:49 Jalued wrote:On June 30 2013 20:14 Qwerty85 wrote:
And as far as damage goes, I think lowering the red flame damage so it needs 1 additional shot to kill workers would be good enough. This is what the suggested change would do And that change would be a major nerf that could possibly end hellbat usage. Sadly there is no middle-ground between 2-shooting and 3-shooting workers. Blizzard backed themselves into a corner with this one. The easy fix is make it 3 shot workers, by nerfing the damage, but correspondingly buff the attack speed. That way hellbats do the same dps. That nerfs them in worker drops and in TvT against marines which is the 2 things they need fixing for. Mech is just as viable and hellbats in tvp are just as viable.
It has been tried.
Aside from making armor much more effective against them it turned out that lings are faring even worse against multiple hellbats in formation.
The unit is simply badly designed as it was supposed to be part of mech TvP and there is no hope for small adjustments to fix it. And the only large changes that community accepts are nerfs.
|
On June 30 2013 22:38 Flyingdutchman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:06 Reborn8u wrote:
Also, I don't see how anyone can call a terran greedy for building a 3rd cc in base, when his zerg opponent is already droning a 3rd, or a protoss on 2 bases is already producing tier 3 tech (colossus or storm), yet we hear this called "greedy" all the time.
How is having 3 CC's started at the 6 minute mark not greedy? Just as a Zerg droning a third at that time is greedy, if Terran goes for a one base push they will be able to punish that. If you go for greed your opponent will be able to as well. Nothing wrong with that.
cuz the zerg took his 3rd at 5 mins? 3 CC started at 6 min just about breaks even.
|
On June 30 2013 22:38 Flyingdutchman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:06 Reborn8u wrote:
Also, I don't see how anyone can call a terran greedy for building a 3rd cc in base, when his zerg opponent is already droning a 3rd, or a protoss on 2 bases is already producing tier 3 tech (colossus or storm), yet we hear this called "greedy" all the time.
How is having 3 CC's started at the 6 minute mark not greedy? Just as a Zerg droning a third at that time is greedy, if Terran goes for a one base push they will be able to punish that. If you go for greed your opponent will be able to as well. Nothing wrong with that.
I agree, six minutes is greedy. However, punishing a fast 3rd by zerg would have to be reactionary, a 1 base all in would certainly have to be a pre decided build.
The distinction I'm trying to make is that (I think it was on inside the game a week or 2 ago?) I heard Idra state that a terran taking a 3rd in base cc, in a game where the zerg already had a 3rd base, and then the terran was crushed by ling/roach/bane bust, "deserved to die for being greedy". No one on the show confronted him on it, and it seems there is a consensus that this is accurate.
The zerg was able to see the 3rd CC and react with all out aggression and win, I don't think either T or P can scout aquick zerg 3rd and react with an all in, expecting to have much success. It certainly works very well if they were planning on doing an all in from the start. Doing that is what is commonly called a "coin flip". Because even with it being a pre planned build, it is defend-able by zerg.
I'm gonna end my contribution to this line of discussion here, we're getting a bit off topic (and I fear the might of the TL mods XD ) I ran out any lean-ency they had for me long ago.
So back on topic, I very much like how careful, considerate, and patient Blizzard is being with changes. However, in my opinion, it couldn't hurt for them to take a second, careful look at some of the many knee-jerk changes that were made to sc2 shortly after its birth. Tanks being first and foremost in my mind.
I think they will end up giving the hellbats some kind of nerf and rightfully so. I don't mind them being cautious about it. This is certainly a lesson they've learned the hard way. I'm just worried that terrans will suffer from the nerf, not because they don't know how to execute other styles, but because the range of viable terran styles is too limited. Which is why I brought up the siege tank in the first place. It alone can open up a lot of options for terran.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On June 11 2013 11:03 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 10:56 jcroisdale wrote:
Something there not even considering is there late game utility. TvP when the terran goes mech, is so much stronger, because the hellbat is such an efficient harassment unit.
The early game attacks are hard, but late game is just as difficult. It's the ONLY harassment option Mech has at this point. It should be strong. What's dumb is how strong Helbat drops are as part of bio play especially in the early game. Their late game utility for mech is fine.
Late game I'd argue that Blue Flame Hellions are better for harassing and I use them in my play as people always over defend drops forgetting pylon walls and what have you to stop hellion runbys. I find hellions a lot better than hellbats in general actually. In TvP I win more battles with just blue flame hellions than I do with hellbats due to how damn strong archons are against hellbats.
|
I feel like we're derailing discussion over something long since settled. Zerg naturally gets more bases. A 3 base Zerg vs 2 base Terran/Protoss is standard. The 4th of the Zerg and the 3rd of the Terran/Protoss determines the greediness of the build in a standard midgame match. Even 2 base Zerg vs 1 base Terran/Protoss is standard. There is some exception, because Roach/Ling is super cost-efficient, you can do early game aggression on equal bases but either lethal damage needs to be done or a transition is in order, otherwise the +1 rule generally holds throughout the match that gradually turns into +2 when 4 or more bases is possible.
|
I'm cool with making the siege tank better while nerfing the Hellbat, but they really need to bring back siege mode research. Right now it's far too easy to have a safe build with Terran. Worried about a possible early attack? Just make a tank and siege it up. Deters anything on the ground in the first 5-8 mins. We saw Polt make two tanks vs Dear yesterday and then when he was feeling safer he just brought them with his all-in. If we are going to have stronger tanks, there needs to be an actual time investment from the Terran.
|
I really hope they are changed...
I think the best way is just to reduce the health of the unit...it is enough.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On June 30 2013 23:33 Fig wrote:
I'm cool with making the siege tank better while nerfing the Hellbat, but they really need to bring back siege mode research. Right now it's far too easy to have a safe build with Terran. Worried about a possible early attack? Just make a tank and siege it up. Deters anything on the ground in the first 5-8 mins. We saw Polt make two tanks vs Dear yesterday and then when he was feeling safer he just brought them with his all-in. If we are going to have stronger tanks, there needs to be an actual time investment from the Terran.
The reason why they removed siege research in the first place was to promote mech openings. I've played mech all through WoL and continue too now and in WoL if they did some kind of gateway timing you just straight up died.
Heck, I open siege expand and even now it's really, really hard to defend blink all ins. You can get up to three tanks before they arrive currently with the all in, but if you're positioned slightly wrong you die instantly. With any less tanks and I think it'd be even harder to hold.
|
On June 30 2013 23:43 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 23:33 Fig wrote:
I'm cool with making the siege tank better while nerfing the Hellbat, but they really need to bring back siege mode research. Right now it's far too easy to have a safe build with Terran. Worried about a possible early attack? Just make a tank and siege it up. Deters anything on the ground in the first 5-8 mins. We saw Polt make two tanks vs Dear yesterday and then when he was feeling safer he just brought them with his all-in. If we are going to have stronger tanks, there needs to be an actual time investment from the Terran. The reason why they removed siege research in the first place was to promote mech openings. I've played mech all through WoL and continue too now and in WoL if they did some kind of gateway timing you just straight up died. Heck, I open siege expand and even now it's really, really hard to defend blink all ins. You can get up to three tanks before they arrive currently with the all in, but if you're positioned slightly wrong you die instantly. With any less tanks and I think it'd be even harder to hold.
Yes and that's why they should promote mech openings by making tanks stronger, which would accomplish both tasks. It would make defending easier since less tanks would be needed. And it would promote increased use of tanks later in the game besides silly all-ins. It would overall make actually getting the siege research worthwhile, because sieged tanks would be desirable to have.
By removing the siege mode upgrade, all they did was encourage people to open up with a few tanks for defense and/or faster/cheaper all-ins. It did nothing to promote tank usage throughout the game.
|
I still can't believe they think mines are 100% fine.
They have 90 hp same as a hydralisk and their explosion radius is too large. They are too much of an x factor.
Also, the fact that corruptors are supposed to be anti air and only anti air and they are zergs worst unit, quite possibly the worst unit in the game and blizz won't do anything.
They are SUPPOSED TO BEAT air and they get absolutely manhandled by void rays for example.
|
On June 30 2013 22:38 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2013 22:18 Reborn8u wrote:On June 30 2013 22:10 Tobblish wrote:
Would love to see a change that Hellbat can't go into the Medivac, that would solves every problem and concern there is but game design trumps balance it seems.
About the tank, yeah it's awful compared to the WM but nerfing the WM isn't a option, buff the tank not with damage but make so they siege/unsiege faster.
Reason why the Terran tank play is considered slow and boring is because you are too afraid of Zerg when you move onto creep, only takes one second for the Zerg to get the window it needs.
Nerfs are really bad honestly, would be a lot more fun if Blizzard decided to buff another unit to counter better.
(they did this with sporecrawler which I found to be a great change) I'd like it if the tanks didn't have their dmg split up with bonuses against certain types. I'm thinking give them full flat dmg like they used to be. Running your army straight into a well positioned siege line, that uses terrain, and has supporting units should almost always be complete suicide in my opinion. You should always have to out position, out maneuver and attempt full surrounds on them to fight them effectively. The way to beat them should be all about counter positioning and mobility, instead of the current state, which is make the right composition of units and steam roll through them. Nerf the hellbat drops (maybe remove the medevac healing, or reduce their dmg vs workers in some way) but I say also give the tank back its respect. If you ever re-watch the movie "Jaws", pay attention to how little time the shark is on the screen until the very end of the movie. It builds tension, excitement, anticipation, the imagination runs wild. That is a big part of why that movie was such a phenomenon. I feel like tanks and positional play could bring that to sc2 just as they did in Broodwar. 50/60 flat damage woild be crazy good as marine support vs zerglings/banelings and marines/hellions. The 50/25 percent zones of the tank would do too much damage against those units. what they should do instead is buff the damage to the maintarget, i.e increase the damge to something like 50+25 and nerf the splash percentages in a way that the damage n those areas is the same as now.
You are ignoring the fact that tanks still deal SPLASH damage and have their "max damage" reduced that way too. A Zergling in the outermost part of the splash damage takes only a lousy 25% of 35 damage right now and that is 8.75 damage. Whoopdeedooo ... awesome! Zerglings dont even get one-shotted in the secondary radius and you get only three of them in the primary radius. So the only reason why Siege Tanks seem to be ok is the awesome visual explosions ... which dont do much at all.
In BW tanks did 70 explosive splash damage, which reduced the damage to small units - Zerglings, Marines, Zealots, .. - by 50%, but at least high damage units like Hydralisks (75% damage) and Dragoon (100% damage) took more damage than that. In SC2 Stalkers take only 50 damage and Hydralisks are at the pitifully small amount which Zerglings get ... in addition to a nerf for the radius of the shot (iirc) compared to BW. So there are more units on the battlefield and yet the tanks deal less damage ... which ultimately results in them having a FAR LOWER SURVIVABILITY ... which is supported by tanks being 3 supply instead of only 2.
Siege Tanks only look good as damage dealers in SC2 because of the improved explosion graphics!
Oh and splash percentages are FIXED and dont need to be reduced any more. That would really make AoE ridiculous, because your suggestion turns this "AoE attack" into "an illusionary AoE attack which really is a single target attack".
|
On June 14 2013 18:27 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2013 06:09 sibs wrote:
It's ok for your 100 a-moving mineral unit to completely shut down the other races mineral units?
The hellbat is just overtuned I'm sorry, it should need upgrades to shut down 3/3 lings zealots, right now you can have 3/3/3 zealots vs 0/0 hellbats w/o medivac support and you're still getting rolled. Why do you call it a 100 a-moving mineral unit, when that's exactly what zealots are but worse? I can't even begin to count the games I've lost mech TvP since he kills all my hellbats then just warps in 20 zealots and kills the entire rest of my army. There's a reason why hellbats need to be strongf.
But Zealots don't do splash and Hellbats dish out much more damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
